Islamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi Branch Journal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence 2476-7565 8 4 2023 02 20 Psychoanalytic Therapy Session and Obligatory Ruling of Privacy with Non-Maḥrams Psychoanalytic Therapy Session and Obligatory Ruling of Privacy with Non-Maḥrams 75 106 73467 10.22034/jrj.2021.59381.2193 FA Ahmad Morvarid Assistant Professor Of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Razavi University of Mashhad, Iran Journal Article 2020 11 25 One of the most important rules in psychoanalytic sessions is that the client tells him what is going through his mind in a safe environment without the presence of anyone but the therapist. Given that many clients need to refer to a therapist of the opposite sex, the question arises what is the obligatory ruling of privacy between a therapist and a non-same-sex client? In order to answer this question, the ruling of being alone with non-maḥrams has been analyzed in this study. The result of this jurisprudential analysis is that according to the plurality of aḥādīth, the forbidding from the shāri’ (holy lawmaker) in this case is generally consistent. But it is not possible to infer the ḥurmat al-mawlawīyyah (obligatory prohibition) of being alone with non-maḥrams from these aḥādīth, because the forbidding in these aḥādīth is irshādī (advisory). Based on this, privacy between the therapist and the non-same-sex client is also not ḥarām (forbidden) in terms of obligatory ruling. In the continuation of this study, the prohibition of this act is also examined through its muqaddimī (precedence), and the conclusion is reached that the prohibition of this act cannot be proven in this way either. Because this action is not done with the intention of committing fi’l-ḥarām (a forbidden act), and if the necessary rules in psychoanalytic sessions are followed, it does not lead to a forbidden act. In this assumption, it is not possible to infer the ḥurmat al-taklīfīyyah (obligatory prohibition) of performing the introduction based on any of the various bases. If the theory of some jurists regarding the prohibition of privacy with non-maḥrams in case of the possibility of mafsadah (sin) is accepted, then the privacy between a therapist and a non-same-sex client will not be ḥurmat al-mawlawīyyah, because if the psychoanalytic sessions are conducted properly, the possibility of mafsadah will be minimized and the condition of prohibition of privacy with the non-maḥrams will not be fulfilled. One of the most important rules in psychoanalytic sessions is that the client tells him what is going through his mind in a safe environment without the presence of anyone but the therapist. Given that many clients need to refer to a therapist of the opposite sex, the question arises what is the obligatory ruling of privacy between a therapist and a non-same-sex client? In order to answer this question, the ruling of being alone with non-maḥrams has been analyzed in this study. The result of this jurisprudential analysis is that according to the plurality of aḥādīth, the forbidding from the shāri’ (holy lawmaker) in this case is generally consistent. But it is not possible to infer the ḥurmat al-mawlawīyyah (obligatory prohibition) of being alone with non-maḥrams from these aḥādīth, because the forbidding in these aḥādīth is irshādī (advisory). Based on this, privacy between the therapist and the non-same-sex client is also not ḥarām (forbidden) in terms of obligatory ruling. In the continuation of this study, the prohibition of this act is also examined through its muqaddimī (precedence), and the conclusion is reached that the prohibition of this act cannot be proven in this way either. Because this action is not done with the intention of committing fi’l-ḥarām (a forbidden act), and if the necessary rules in psychoanalytic sessions are followed, it does not lead to a forbidden act. In this assumption, it is not possible to infer the ḥurmat al-taklīfīyyah (obligatory prohibition) of performing the introduction based on any of the various bases. If the theory of some jurists regarding the prohibition of privacy with non-maḥrams in case of the possibility of mafsadah (sin) is accepted, then the privacy between a therapist and a non-same-sex client will not be ḥurmat al-mawlawīyyah, because if the psychoanalytic sessions are conducted properly, the possibility of mafsadah will be minimized and the condition of prohibition of privacy with the non-maḥrams will not be fulfilled.

http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_73467_b3cf8cab078040d32f251b585f8dea2c.pdf