Note: The Theory of Hemrooy is a theory proposed by Dr. Seyed Sadeq Haqiqat for reconciling political jurisprudence and political thought. This theory, which was initially proposed only for reconciling these two disciplines in political science, was later expanded and suggested for reconciling tradition and modernity, as well as other topics. But one must ask: What is the relationship between this theory and the minimalist and maximalist approaches to religion? Does the Theory of Hemrooy lean toward one of these two approaches, or does it stand in the middle here as well? The proponent of this theory regards Hemrooy as having a clear boundary with minimalist jurisprudence and maximalist jurisprudence. In his view, this theory even differs from some theories that have been proposed in the middle between minimalist jurisprudence and maximalist jurisprudence. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence‘s exclusive interview with the professor at the Research Institute of Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution and a prominent researcher in political thought follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the minimalist and maximalist approaches to jurisprudence, and what requirements does each have?

Haqiqat: The minimalist and maximalist approaches are raised both in relation to religion and in relation to jurisprudence. In the domain of expectations from religion, there are two approaches to the principle of religion: one is the minimalist approach and the other is the maximalist approach. The maximalist approach is based on the premise that religion possesses normative and injunctive propositions in all domains of human expectations from religion, whether in the domain of worship, transactions, social issues, or political issues; but minimalist religion believes that religion is fundamentally for the origin and the return, but in between this path, that is, in political and social life, it has left us to our reason and human experience.

A noteworthy point is that maximalist and minimalist religion forms a spectrum; that is, it is not the case that proponents of each approach hold views exactly identical to one another; rather, they have a spectrum of views, the collection of one side of which constitutes minimalist jurisprudence, and the other side constitutes maximalist jurisprudence. However, one can consider a middle solution and a midpoint for these two spectra called the third path. This third path and this midpoint, in my view, is Hemrooy.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the Theory of Hemrooy, and what issue does it seek to resolve?

Haqiqat: The Theory of Hemrooy is a theory that is defined in four domains:

First, the epistemological domain, that is, interaction between cognitive methods;

Second, the methodological domain, that is, interaction between various methodologies, whether traditional, modern, or postmodern methodologies;

Third, the convergence of political philosophy and political jurisprudence regarding political issues and resolving political issues. Of course, the disciplines of political philosophy, political theology, political ethics, political mysticism, and even political science are also relevant and can participate in this convergence.

Fourth, the convergence of tradition and modernity. It seems that proving the third path in these four domains is sound, that is, closer to the truth; therefore, the balanced middle path between excess and deficiency in these four domains is the text-centered Theory of Hemrooy, meaning that all religious texts, whether the Quran or narrations, have validity for it. In other words, there is no reason for us to disregard verses and narrations in any field; rather, it is a duty to base all matters on the text. This issue does not conflict with analyzing texts based on extra-religious evidence by analyzing some premises. For example, recourse to the Quran and narrations is essential for us, but if, after recourse to the Quran and narrations, for reasons such as rational reasons, it is discovered that we cannot have a theory of government or that we cannot commit to a theory of peace in the narrations, we conclude that the theory of government or peace does not exist in the verses and narrations.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: How does the Theory of Hemrooy position itself between minimalist jurisprudence and maximalist jurisprudence? In other words, what characteristics of minimalist jurisprudence and maximalist jurisprudence does this theory absorb, and what characteristics of these two does it eliminate?

Haqiqat: The Theory of Hemrooy is a third path between the theory of minimalist jurisprudence and maximalist jurisprudence. To explain: Between the two minimalist and maximalist approaches, there exists a spectrum, and this spectrum means that various theories exist between the left and right of this spectrum. But the Theory of Hemrooy lies between the minimalist and maximalist approaches. The maximalist approach believes that religion or jurisprudence based on it, through two maximalist readings of religion or jurisprudence, has propositions in various domains, including political and social domains, and the minimalist approach believes that religion has come solely for the origin and the return, and jurisprudence has few propositions regarding political and social issues; but according to the Theory of Hemrooy, political jurisprudence is a valid discipline, and one cannot disregard political jurisprudence. From this perspective, the Theory of Hemrooy is like the theory of maximalist jurisprudence; because both the theory of maximalist jurisprudence and the Theory of Hemrooy affirm the validity of political jurisprudence.

However, the difference between the Theory of Hemrooy and the maximalist approach to jurisprudence lies in the fact that the maximalist approach expects religion to fulfill all our needs, particularly in the domains of politics and society, but according to the Theory of Hemrooy, religion merely specifies general strategies, orientations, and values; therefore, the Theory of Hemrooy differs from the maximalist approach. This theory, of course, also differs from the minimalist approach. Its main difference from the minimalist approach is that minimalists do not consider political jurisprudence valid and thus tend toward secularism, but the Theory of Hemrooy, since it considers political jurisprudence valid, draws a boundary with secularism.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the Theory of Hemrooy, as an effort to achieve a new understanding of texts in line with the requirements of society, stand in the middle between complete disregard for texts and text-sufficiency? Some, such as Professor Mehrizi, decades ago, described the “effort for a new understanding of texts” as the middle path between disregard for texts and text-sufficiency, considering it the dominant approach among jurists. Is the Theory of Hemrooy different from his claim?

Haqiqat: The Theory of Hemrooy is primarily proposed in the context of Islamic political thought, whereas Professor Mehrizi’s premise pertains to religious studies in general; therefore, these two theories share some common ground in that both represent a middle path in interpreting texts, but the main difference is that the Theory of Hemrooy pertains to the domain of political jurisprudence, while Professor Mehrizi’s theory pertains to religious studies in general.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given that the Theory of Hemrooy is proposed in political jurisprudence, is it possible to extend it to other jurisprudential chapters, or does this theory have requirements that only allow it to be proposed in political jurisprudence?

Haqiqat: The Theory of Hemrooy has not been proposed in the domain of political jurisprudence but in the domain of Islamic political thought. Political thought is a general term that encompasses both political jurisprudence and political thought; thus, the Theory of Hemrooy seeks interaction between political philosophy and political jurisprudence and is not solely in the domain of political jurisprudence. The first level of convergence pertains to epistemology; the second level pertains to methodology. The third and fourth levels address the convergence of political philosophy and political jurisprudence and ultimately the convergence of tradition and modernity.