Examining the Validity of Absolutes and Generalitiesin New Cases by Matching to New Medical Issues

Today, with the advancement of science and technology and the emergence of new issues and problems, our jurisprudence has faced countless questions and doubts that jurists must answer. One of the methods and solutions to respond to the generated issues is to use the original sources of Shia jurisprudence, i.e. the holy Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet and the infallible Imams (PBUTH), which are expressed in the form of narrative arguments (Adillat al-Lafziyyah) and mostly in the form of absolute and general statements (Itlaaqaat and Omumaat). The subject of the current research is the answer to this fundamental question: are the absolutes and generalities of narrative arguments valid or not in new issues and cases that were not in the era of issuing speeches? 177   In this article, while briefly mentioning the proof of the validity of this basic principle and the answer to the criticisms related to it, such as turning (Insiraaf), shortcoming in enacting terminology (Qosuri Waz’i Alfaaz) and certainty in the conversation occasion (Qadri Motayaqqan dar Maqaami Takhaatob); With the analytical and struggle method (Ravishi Tahlili and Ijtiihdi), this basic rule has been applied in the field of medical jurisprudence in new topics such as in vitro fertilization (Talqihi Masnu’i), human cloning (SHabih Saziye Insaan), sterilization (‘Aqim Saazi) and sex reassignment surgery (Taghyiri Jinsiyyat) And the absolutes of narrative arguments (Itlaaqaati Adillat al-Lafziyyah) such as the noble verses and hadiths has been used to obtain Sharia rulings (Ahkami SHar’i) in these newly developed medical issues.