Introduction: Minimalist jurisprudence, as a serious discourse in contrast to maximalist jurisprudence, though not lacking in proponents, has rarely been examined as a comprehensive theory with its dimensions and nuances fully explored. Part of this shortfall may be attributed to its opposition to the official perspective of the state. Hassan Ejraei, a researcher at the Qom Seminary, in this exclusive article for Contemporary Jurisprudence, endeavors to describe the dimensions of this theory, its implications, and the nuanced perspectives that have emerged under its framework.

Minimalist Jurisprudence: The Convergence of Sharia and Reason

Minimalist jurisprudence, like a profound question arising from the complex issues of the modern era, redefines Islamic Sharia with an eye toward temporal and social transformations. This approach, which distinctly diverges from maximalist jurisprudence, seeks to view the principles of Sharia not as a fixed and immutable set of laws but as a dynamic and adaptable tool for humanity across all times and places. Minimalist jurisprudence holds that Islamic rulings must be interpreted in alignment with the social, cultural, and philosophical changes of each era to continue guiding individuals on their ethical and spiritual path. This approach not only leverages the power of human reason and independent reasoning (ijtihād) but also, through critical re-examination of religious traditions, aims to find harmony between Sharia principles and emerging social needs. Minimalist jurisprudence is not only concerned with addressing individual and religious matters but also strives to create a framework in which Sharia can meaningfully and effectively engage with social, political, and ethical issues in the modern world. A key aspect of minimalist jurisprudence, particularly in the contemporary context, is that Sharia cannot and should not be seen as a static, pre-determined system. Instead, it must remain in constant dialogue with human reason and social transformations. Minimalist jurisprudence seeks to transcend the rigid frameworks of the past, reconstructing Sharia within the context of everyday life and human developments.

Definition and Nature of Minimalist Jurisprudence

Minimalist jurisprudence views Sharia as a guide and tool for humanity’s spiritual and ethical life, rather than a collection of fixed and uniform laws applicable to all societies and times. In this perspective, Sharia is not a static, unchangeable structure but a set of ethical and religious principles that can be interpreted and re-examined in light of historical, social, and cultural changes. According to this approach, human reason plays a fundamental role in understanding and implementing Sharia, requiring continuous updating to align rulings with contemporary social and cultural needs. Minimalist jurisprudence particularly emphasizes that no religious ruling can remain absolutely fixed and uniform across all eras and places. In this view, religious texts serve as general principles that must be adapted to the realities of each period and context. In essence, minimalist jurisprudence aims to liberate Sharia from rigidity, enabling it to effectively and meaningfully address the complexities of modern human life and social changes. In this approach, religion is regarded not as a legal system but as an ethical and spiritual guide that must evolve alongside humanity’s social needs over time.

Divergent and Contradictory Approaches: From Reforms to Conflicts

Within the intellectual discourse surrounding minimalist jurisprudence, various opinions have emerged, some emphasizing the importance of human reason and experience, while others stress preserving Sharia’s principles and foundations, even through reinterpretation. Reformist thinkers, such as Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, particularly in their analysis of prioritizing ethics over jurisprudence, argue that Sharia should not be viewed merely as a set of rigid, pre-determined commands. Shabestari believes Sharia should be understood not only as a collection of rulings governing religious rituals but as an ethical and human system that evolves with social conditions and needs. His perspective, particularly on the primacy of ethics, is a cornerstone of minimalist jurisprudence. According to Shabestari, Sharia must guide humanity toward perfection and justice, but this guidance must consider human reason and societal needs. Sharia should be understood in a way that aligns with the realities of each time and place. On the other hand, thinkers like Mostafa Malekian, who base their views on ethical humanism, emphasize the importance of human and ethical principles. Malekian believes that interpreting Sharia should prioritize human ethical and rational foundations. He views Sharia as a basis for social ethics that must serve human well-being and prosperity. Malekian’s views align with minimalist jurisprudence due to their emphasis on rationality and humanism. Finally, the theory of convergence, particularly among those seeking a middle ground between maximalist and minimalist jurisprudence, has been proposed. This theory, articulated by Seyyed Sadeq Haqiqat, seeks to bridge religious principles with mutable social needs. Convergence implies harmonizing two seemingly opposing perspectives, simultaneously preserving religious principles while responding to contemporary needs and changes.

The Convergence Theory: The Intersection of Reason and Sharia in the Contemporary Era

The convergence theory is perhaps one of the most prominent and compelling theories in the realm of minimalist jurisprudence, particularly developed to address the needs of the modern world. Convergence refers to the interaction and synergy between two seemingly contradictory currents: religious tradition and human reason. This theory aims to demonstrate how Sharia and human rationality can be harmonized and aligned. The convergence theory not only seeks to preserve Sharia’s fixed principles but also aims to interpret them within the context of contemporary social and philosophical transformations. It holds that Sharia cannot be viewed as a static, pre-determined set of rules but must engage in constant interaction with rationality and philosophical developments. In this perspective, Sharia is presented as a dynamic and living phenomenon that must be continually interpreted and re-examined through human reason and experience. Additionally, the theory emphasizes that neither Sharia nor reason can be entirely separated from one another; instead, they must remain in constant interaction and synergy. Sharia can function not only as a religious system but must also be guided by human rationality toward human interests and well-being. The convergence theory holds particular significance in areas such as social jurisprudence, Islamic governance, and human rights. It seeks to align Islamic and religious principles with humanistic, democratic, and human needs, ensuring that while preserving Sharia’s ethical principles, it adapts to social changes and emerging human needs.

Minimalist Jurisprudence and the Issue of Islamic Governance: Challenges and Solutions

One of the greatest challenges in minimalist jurisprudence, frequently raised in jurisprudential and social discussions, is the issue of Islamic governance. While maximalist jurisprudence explicitly and definitively considers Sharia the basis for governance, viewing all social and political affairs under fixed and detailed Sharia laws, minimalist jurisprudence, particularly in the present era, faces serious doubts about the feasibility and methodology of establishing Islamic governance. From the perspective of minimalist jurisprudence, Sharia can be regarded as an ethical and spiritual system, but it cannot definitively serve as a comprehensive and all-encompassing system for regulating social and governmental relations in the modern world.

The central question is: Can Islamic governance be established based on minimalist jurisprudence? Minimalist jurisprudence views Sharia as a system aligned with social needs, seeking to liberate it from the mold of fixed, immutable laws and reinterpret it as an ethical, human, and social principle. In this perspective, Sharia should serve as a guide for humanity’s spiritual elevation, but in social and political spheres, it must draw on rationality, custom, and human experience.

From the minimalist jurisprudence perspective, in contemporary societies, it is not feasible to define fixed and immutable laws based on Sharia for all aspects of governance. Given the complexities and transformations human societies have undergone in recent centuries, relying solely on religious texts and their implementation in social, economic, and political domains is not only impractical but may lead to the imposition of an inefficient and incompatible system. Therefore, minimalist jurisprudence holds that human rationality and ijtihād must be utilized to adapt Islamic rulings to society’s current conditions. In other words, instead of emphasizing Sharia as a fixed and eternal law in social matters, minimalist jurisprudence stresses the need to revise laws and address contemporary needs. In this view, Islamic governance must be built on Sharia’s ethical and human principles, with laws aligned with modern social rationality and experiences. This issue, particularly in areas such as civil rights, individual freedoms, political participation, and modern governance, requires reflection and ijtihād. Minimalist jurisprudence asserts that Sharia must be placed within a dynamic and adaptable framework that remains faithful to Islam’s lofty ethical principles while addressing the emerging needs of human societies. This does not mean Sharia should be excluded from governance and politics but rather used as a source of ethical and human guidance, not as a closed, static framework covering all social and governmental issues. This approach emphasizes that religious systems cannot be imposed on society as fixed and rigid structures; instead, human reason and experience must be employed in interpreting and implementing Islamic rulings.

Seeking Balance Between Tradition and Modernity

In conclusion, minimalist jurisprudence, by raising fundamental questions and serious challenges regarding Sharia’s interaction with the needs of the modern world, seeks to establish a balance between religious tradition and modernity. This approach, particularly in Muslim societies striving to reconcile religious principles with social and political transformations, emerges as a new intellectual framework. Minimalist jurisprudence not only aims to preserve Sharia’s principles but views it as a dynamic and adaptable system responsive to social and philosophical changes. While Sharia must remain a source of spiritual and ethical guidance for humanity, it must also keep pace with societal transformations and needs. This alignment of Sharia with contemporary needs not only helps preserve religious authenticity but also paves the way for realizing social justice and human rights in the modern world. Minimalist jurisprudence, particularly in areas such as Islamic governance and social laws, seeks to use Sharia as a tool for ethical leadership while drawing on human reason and experience. In this journey, efforts must be made to establish a sustainable balance between fixed religious principles and contemporary transformations, liberating Sharia from rigidity and leveraging its authentic messages to build a just and humane society. Looking to the future, minimalist jurisprudence can serve as a model for reconstructing Islamic Sharia in the contemporary world—a model in which Sharia continues to fulfill its guiding role while remaining open to reflection and flexibility in response to social and cultural transformations. In this path, the convergence and synergy between religious tradition and human reason can serve as a guiding light for Muslim societies on the road to progress and advancement.