Sharia Ruling on Verbal Communication between Psychoanalyst and Client from the Perspective of Imamiya Jurisprudence

In the psychoanalysis process, a free association has a key role. When viewed from a jurisprudential perspective, this subject raises the question: “What is the Sharia ruling over the verbal communication between the psychoanalyst and the client and the way feelings are expressed between the two?” To answer this question, first, two basic concepts in psychoanalysis should be explained: transference and countertransference. Then, the subject of having an interest in the non-mahram is examined from a jurisprudential angle, which is concluded that the very interest, per se, in the non-mahram is not prohibited. Also, the ruling over talks between two non-mahram parties is discussed. The research finds that the reasons for this practice are incomplete. Later, expression of interest in the non-mahram is debated from a jurisprudential perspective. This practice is unlawful when it represents an example of “corruption.” Accordingly, in psychoanalysis sessions, the client can express all his/her feelings to the psychoanalyst. The client’s transference of feelings before the psychoanalyst represents a useful matter for the analysis of the client and understanding various parts of his/her personality and unconscious thoughts and feelings. Therefore, this practice does not represent an example of corruption and is not prohibited, either. However, the psychoanalyst’s expression of feelings to the client takes another form. The expression of internal feelings by the psychoanalyst can block the transference pathway and prevent bias. This conduct not only does not help the therapy but will also be detrimental to the psychoanalysis. The outcome is the psychoanalyst’s expression of feelings to the client is at least, in some cases, an example of “corruption” and is prohibited and unlawful.