Note: The notions of minimalist and maximalist jurisprudence emerged within Iran’s Islamic sciences landscape following the Islamic Revolution and persist to this day. Proponents of minimalism have typically assumed a critical stance, consistently challenging the dominant maximalist paradigm of recent decades, yet opportunities to elucidate minimalism’s contours and precise definition have been scarce. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Kazem Haqqani Fazl contends that these categories fundamentally lack clear, articulable definitions. He views their spectrum-like character as precluding a viable third theory. The director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence asserts that minimalism and maximalism in jurisprudence originate in pre-jurisprudential disciplines—such as theology and philosophy of religion—rather than jurisprudence proper. The complete exclusive interview with this Qom Seminary professor and researcher on minimalist jurisprudence among intellectuals and religious reformists follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What constitutes minimalist jurisprudence? Has it been formally and explicitly defined by its advocates?

Haqqani: Minimalist and maximalist designations pertain to jurisprudence’s scope—what topics it addresses and what it excludes. These terms gained currency several decades ago and lack deep historical roots. They appear to have arisen post-Islamic Revolution in Iran—not precisely under these labels but akin concepts, such as religion’s jurisdictional scope or human expectations from religion. Some advocated minimalism, arguing jurisprudence should not encompass everything; others championed maximalism. Yet neither term possesses precise, specific definitions. Both are inherently spectrum-based, rendering clear discourse challenging.

The initial scope debate originated with Dr. Soroush, who asserted jurisprudence cannot undertake management or planning. Counterarguments maintained it not only plans and manages but constructs civilizations. Mr. Mojtahed Shabestari, conversely, confined jurisprudence to worship—and select acts thereof. Even so, maximalist and minimalist jurisprudence remain undefined.

As relative concepts, they may appear minimalist vis-à-vis one benchmark and maximalist vis-à-vis another. Jurists holding that no event lacks a ruling are maximalist relative to those allowing rule-less events; the latter, in turn, maximalist relative to Shabestari-like views. Absent clear definitions, proposing middling solutions or third theories proves untenable.

That said, minimalists do not claim jurisprudence’s utter incapacity, nor do maximalists assert its intervention in every facet of human existence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Do intellectual approaches—exemplified by Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, Mostafa Malekian, Abdolkarim Soroush, and Mohammad Abed al-Jabri—fall under minimalist jurisprudence, or are intellectuals fundamentally opponents of jurisprudence as a discipline?

Haqqani: Soroush, Malekian, and Shabestari endorse minimalism, albeit with divergent definitions—Shabestari the most extreme. His recent shift regarding the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) leads him to reject obligatory/forbidden categories, favoring mere recommendations suitable for observance.

Dr. Soroush deems jurisprudence overly expansive, unwarrantedly intrusive—yet without specifying its proper boundaries or concerns.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is religious reformism inherently tied to jurisprudential minimalism, or might a reformist embrace religious maximalism—or, conversely, certain minimalist proponents align with traditionalism?

Haqqani: Both possibilities exist. Reformism bears no intrinsic link to minimalism. For instance, Mr. Kadivar ranks among minimalists yet diverges markedly; his jurisprudential engagement differs fundamentally. Unlike conventional jurists, he excludes certain topics from core jurisprudence, deeming them incidental to sharia (e.g., criminalization). Theoretically, he resists jurisprudential contraction—unlike intellectuals advocating theoretical shrinkage.

Kadivar’s approach remains jurisprudential, occasionally circumscribing its scope. Some traditionalists share this stance.

Certain figures are labeled minimalist erroneously; for example, those assigning topics to reason, barring jurisprudential entry—critiquing methodology, not scope. Maqāṣid-oriented or theological approaches likewise escape minimalism, rejecting prevalent jurisprudential methods.

Some theologically preclude jurisprudential entry a priori; others, intra-jurisprudentially, find no extant rulings a posteriori. Though outcomes may converge, these constitute distinct approaches.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: How do theories—prophetic experience, prophetic/imamic fallibility in conveyance (even sin), Imams as righteous scholars, etc.—relate to jurisprudential minimalism? Do they oppose or subsume under it?

Haqqani: No necessary linkage exists. Dr. Soroush’s prophetic experience theory distinguishes divine inner essence from environmentally conditioned outer manifestation—alterable with circumstances. This Sufi assertion posits ongoing inner wilāya, terminated outer wilāya—yet implies neither minimalism nor maximalism in jurisprudence.

Certain Sunnis share this Sufi orientation and infallibility denial while upholding maximalist jurisprudence. Minimalist/maximalist roots lie in theology and religiological foundations, not jurisprudence itself.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From minimalist jurisprudence’s vantage, what rulings apply to Islamic government formation, faqih leadership, sharia-based legislation, etc.? Does it confine itself to personal status rulings or extend to societal economic, social, cultural, and political domains?

Haqqani: Some maximalists affirm all such matters; certain minimalists may endorse half—or none—absent clear boundaries. As noted, no definitive minimalist/maximalist theories exist—only a spectrum. Spectrum demands case-by-case engagement and scrutiny.

Extreme secularism bars religion from non-personal affairs—even family, inheritance. Others permit civil intervention while excluding politics.

Ultimately, minimalist/maximalist terminology impedes progress; individual schools require separate examination.