It was raised at the “Religious Jurisprudence and Oral History” session:

The Relationship between “Religious Jurisprudence” and “Oral History”

Challenges and Opportunities

Compiled by Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by Fazel Shirzad

2025-12-15

Note: According to the Oral History website, the first session of the preliminary meetings for the “Fifteenth Annual Oral History Conference of Iran,” titled “Religious Jurisprudence and Oral History,” was held on the afternoon of Monday, 19 November 2025, at the Andisheh Hall of the IRIB Research Center in Qom. A short selection of the points raised in this session is reflected in the present report.

At the beginning of this session, Hojjat al-Islam Mohammad-Hossein Foroughi, the head of the Islamic Revolution Documents Center in Qom, explained the process of holding the fifteenth annual Oral History Conference by the Iranian Oral History Association and said:

“The conference—after a three- to four-year delay—will be held on 17 February this year in Qom. The National Library, the Parliament Library, the Islamic Revolution Documents Center, the IRIB Research Center in Qom, and several other institutions are involved in holding the Fifteenth Oral History Conference. A series of sessions under the category ‘Oral History of Culture and Religion’ has been defined, and its first session, with the focus on ‘Religious Jurisprudence and Oral History’, is being held now. The next sessions have also been chosen based on observations made throughout these years, such as: ‘Women’s Oral History in Qom,’ ‘The Hypothesis in Oral History,’ ‘The Oral History of the Seminary and the Clergy,’ and so on.

So far, 10 to 15 articles are being prepared. Interested colleagues can submit their articles for review. After the review process, the articles will be published both in the Oral History Quarterly and as a separate book. Despite the long history of Qom in the field of oral history—whether in the seminary and clergy or in Qom studies—I always tell my colleagues that Qom is a ‘city without narration,’ and the seminary and the clergy are truly ‘non-narrated entities,’ because they have never been addressed in an academic, scientific, or at least organized way. We hope this session becomes a pretext for achieving a better and more precise view of the oral history of Qom.”

Then Ayatollah Ahmad Mobaleghi, the representative of the Islamic Republic in the International Islamic Jurisprudence Academy, expressed satisfaction with the state of oral history activities in Qom and said:

“If oral history does not exist, certainly a generational discontinuity in terms of heritage and culture will occur. Because written works do not have the power to establish such a connection and continuity, but oral history prevents this generational gap for several reasons. First, the unspoken aspects of a person who has lived in a certain era and is also present in the current situation become manifested through oral history. On the other hand, when the oral histories of several people are collected, these pieces come together to form a puzzle that provides the final picture of the position of the seminary or the society—something that cannot be found anywhere else. Then written works, in the shadow of these oral works, find their proper place.

The session ‘Religious Jurisprudence and Oral History’ opens under three themes. The first theme: ‘The Religious Jurisprudence of Oral History.’ That is, add religious Jurisprudence to oral history—meaning that oral history becomes the subject of religious jurisprudence. Because religious jurisprudence, before anything else, is thirsty for subjects. It seeks subjects to express its judgment about. Thus, you can place oral history itself as the subject of religious jurisprudence. The second theme is ‘Religious Jurisprudence in Oral History,’ and the third theme is ‘The Oral History of Religious Jurisprudence.’

The first theme consists of examining the religious laws and religious jurisprudence  principles governing the process and stages of oral history—from interviewing to documenting, recording, and publishing oral memories. If we present the religious laws governing oral history and proceed a bit further and offer a religious jurisprudence -based theory about oral history, it will be much better.”

The Fine Border between Truth and Falsehood in Narration, from a Religious Juris consult Perspective

Ayatollah Mobaleghi continued: “One of the key issues in the Religious Jurisprudence of oral history is the permissibility and prohibition of narration. Are memories that include the secrets of individuals or institutions considered disclosure of secrets? Is it permissible? To what extent can historiography proceed? Can we extend the scope of oral historiography to the point where it sometimes leads to violation of dignity or results in backbiting? Then the issue of truth and falsehood, lying, or exaggeration also arises. Because exaggeration in oral history, after a while, becomes a historical reality.

The second issue is the danger of distorting reality—that is, the turning of probabilities expressed by the narrator into established historical certainties.

The third issue is the penetration of suspicion and mistrust into history and their transformation into historical certainties. This means that when you harbor suspicion, it affects your behavior and manifests externally. Suppose the narrator consciously or unconsciously expresses his suspicions, and since oral history is meant for history, it becomes permanently recorded. I have never recommended acting based on expediency; I only mention the dangers and the Juris consult challenges of this work.

When it is decided to use written documents in oral history as well, you must, as a historical researcher, be sensitive to which books or sources you use. Through oral history, you are constructing history, and this cannot be stopped. However, the method of extracting what is called ‘history’ from an individual orally must be so systematic and intelligent that, as far as possible, it obtains documented statements from the narrator or provides evidence of their validity.”

The Oral History of Religious Jurisprudence: A Larger and More Sociological Topic

“The third part—the oral history of Religious Jurisprudence itself—is a broader and more sociological topic. That is, Religious Jurisprudence, in oral history interviews, is identified and examined as a social and historical institution. For example, if we want to study the narrative of the history of the institution of religious authority, the seminaries, or the social role of Religious Jurisprudence across various periods, there is information—for example about Ayatollah Boroujerdi—that has not appeared in books, and at that time sociologists were also not aware of the relevant social statistics. We need this issue, and through oral history we can obtain certain threads.

Let me give an example. A philosopher of Religious Jurisprudence learns from oral history that, for instance, in the time of Sheikh Abdul-Karim Ha’eri, Religious Jurisprudence existed with a certain social status and dimension. He must examine what factors existed at that time that granted Religious Jurisprudence such social prestige. Then compare it with the era of Ayatollah Boroujerdi or afterwards. These must be extracted through oral history. Also, oral history is not only about the distant past; if someone has untold aspects from even last year, it is part of oral history. The scope of oral history is very broad.”

In the continuation of this session, specialized questions and answers in the field of Religious Jurisprudence and narration were raised.