Reference

Is Islamic medicine present or not? A question that has been the subject of much discussion among Islamic scholars in the last decade. Supporters of Islamic medicine cite the existence of many narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) regarding the treatment of diseases, while opponents consider their behavior in consulting doctors to be a violation of the revelation of medicine. However, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Mahdi Mehrizi believes that there is no chapter called Islamic medicine in ancient hadith books and that these narrations are the creation of later ages. This hadith scholar and teacher of seminary and university does not accept the opposition between Islamic medicine and modern medicine, but rather, assuming the existence of Islamic medicine, considers it to be complementary to modern medicine. The details of the exclusive conversation on contemporary jurisprudence with a member of the Council of Research Institutes of the Center for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies are as follows:

Contemporary jurisprudence: Can the existence of a knowledge called Islamic medicine be concluded from the totality of the Qur’anic and narrational heritage?

Mr. Mihrizi: My understanding of the totality of the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the narrations is that we do not have anything called Islamic medicine, and the mission of the religion was not to address these issues. If we look at the Qur’an, except for two verses in which it is recommended to eat and drink less and not waste, there are no other issues. Even in Shi’i narrations, we have a sequence from less to more, which shows that an important part of these narrations was created in later periods. We do not have the Book of Medicine in the book al-Kafi. We do not have the Book of Medicine in other books of the Four Books either. There are only two treatises as the books of Medicine of al-lmam al-Rida or the Golden Treatise, which was a letter that caliph Ma’mun requested from al-Imam al-Rida (‘a) and there is a dispute as to whether it was added or subtracted from its text. So, in the periods after the book Bihar al-Anwar, I do not have a chapter dedicated to the Book of Medicine. Only Shaykh al-Hurr al-Amili has shaped a discussion as medicine over time. This historical process shows that in the time of the early scholars, there was no such thing as medicine that they could devote a discussion to, like the Book of Prayer, the Book of al-Taharah, and the Book of al-Zakat. When we look at the practices and lives of the Imams, we realize that they themselves used to consult a doctor, not to treat or cure others; which shows that the knowledge of medicine was not in line with the main mission of the prophets. Of course, it is natural that the Imams or religious leaders, as great and experienced people, sometimes mentioned something when someone asked them a question; such as in letter 31 of Nahj al-Balagha, where Imam Ali (‘a) writes about his experiences to al-Imam al-Hasan (‘a). For instance, a clergy goes to a village to preach and the people of that village ask him questions about certain diseases; this does not mean that the people see that clergy as a doctor; Therefore, if a narration mentions something about medicine, it should be interpreted from this perspective, and this is the reality. Some Shi’i scholars do not accept the claim that Islamic medicine is an independent method of medicine that the prophets and divine religions have wanted to pursue; although some Shi’i scholars use this, and there is a difference of opinion here. For instance, al-Shaykh al-Mufid said that medicine is a revealed science that the prophets taught people; on the other hand, al-Shaykh al-Saduq says that this is not the case, and he is also among those who do not accept it.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the method of deducing issues in Islamic medicine different from the method of deducing jurisprudential rulings? For instance, is the method of validating hadiths for Islamic medicine different from the method of validating chapters of jurisprudence?

Mr. Mihrizi: Based on the answer given in the first question, which I think was negative, this question does not come up; but assuming that the answer is positive and we accept Islamic medicine, we must say that yes, it is different. To explain: some of the narrations are in the field of doctrinal issues, another part is in the field of natural and evolutionary issues, another part is in the field of moral issues, and another part is in the field of laws and regulations, which are jurisprudential issues in the fourth section. In the field of jurisprudential issues, we encounter a certain amount of leniency to make life easier; for example, if there is no single piece of evidence, life will be disrupted and everyone who has something to do must tell the person face to face, not through a messenger, because the single piece of evidence is not a proof. There are also facilities in the field of laws and regulations that are not in other fields. But medicine, in this division, is in the field of natural and evolutionary matters; therefore, that facilitation and leniency does not make sense in it, either in the field of validation or in the field of implication; Therefore, we must bring medical narrations to the level of knowledge that evolutionary and natural matters require, otherwise they cannot be relied upon. In terms of implication, they cannot be relied upon until we reach a certain clarity; because in narrations, we have a lot of transfer in meaning, a lot of interruptions, and a lot of errors in writing phrases, which we cannot ignore. Now, in unimportant diseases such as headaches, we may act on some single news of suspicion; but in the case of important diseases, we must refer to a specialist, and if the disease becomes more serious, to doctors in the capital, then to doctors in other countries, and so on; therefore, we must classify narrations and keep in mind that in the field of medical issues, since they are considered evolutionary matters, their authority is different from the authority of jurisprudential narrations. In addition, if we want to act on these hypothetical narrations, we must classify the diseases and, in important degrees, act in rational ways, such as referring to a specialist doctor.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Some believe that Islamic medicine is the same as the extension of traditional medicine? What is your opinion on this belief?

Mihrizi: The word medicine is not a well-known title that we can say is an extension of; because there must have been something in history that we can say that this medicine is an extension of it. We can say that what is mentioned in our books is partly derived from medicine in the pre-Islamic era, partly from medicine in the ancient Iranian era, and partly from the Greek era; so we cannot use the word traditional. It is interesting that people like al-Allamah al-Majlesi, who were themselves Akhbaris and tried very hard to relate everything to religion, have also said the same thing. The late al-Majlesi narrates this in his book al-Tib fi Bihar al-Anwar and does not deny it; therefore, it is not correct to say that Islamic medicine is an extension of traditional medicine.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is Islamic medicine, assuming its accuracy, applicable and citationable, or does it require more research, experience, and in-depth study to confront modern medicine?

Mr. Mehrizi: First of all, I do not accept this confrontation; because the medical experiences of mankind in the past with modern experiences should be complementary, not in opposition to each other. The disputes between traditional medicine and modern medicine are actually part of that business. The traditionalists want to strengthen their system and no one should visit a new doctor and buy herbs from their shop; therefore, they fuel this confrontation. The truth is that all types of medicine do not contradict each other; some diseases are treated with acupuncture, some with energy therapy, some with herbal medicines, and some with chemical medicines; therefore, there is no confrontation.

Regarding the relationship between traditional medicine and modern medicine, I have written an article in which I explained that these two approaches are not opposed to each other, but should use each other’s experiences to improve human life in order to achieve evolution. Some of the methods of Islamic medicine were not based on reason and experience, which should be discarded. Traditional medicine masters like Avicenna and Aristotle also experimented. For instance, Aristotle had a large archive of different animals and based on the experiments he conducted on them, he had reached some conclusions. Avicenna also experimented himself; so, if we accept something just because it is mentioned in ancient books, it is wrong, but it must be experienced and tested.

These conflicts are mostly due to trade. Today, an important part of modern medicine is due to trade, and major pharmaceutical companies are not willing to replace new drugs in order not to lose their profits. Ancient medicine is also caught up in this trade, in addition to inexperience and ignorance.

The same point applies to the confrontation between humanities and Islamic sciences. In my opinion, these two types of knowledge are not against each other, but should be used alongside each other.