Note: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ali Fazeli-Heydaji spent many years studying and teaching various levels of seminary sciences in Qom, but several years ago he left Qom for Tabriz. This professor of advanced fiqh and usul at the Tabriz Islamic Seminary has, in this exclusive note for Contemporary Jurisprudence, analyzed the two approaches of minimalism and maximalism regarding the scope of fiqh and reached an interesting conclusion. The full text of the note is as follows:

We know that the sphere of human life is extremely vast. The human body and soul give rise to countless issues that cannot be compared with questions about the heavens and the earth or the lives of animals. Consequently, the disciplines that address human beings are highly diverse—from medicine, physics, and chemistry to economics, management, and the social sciences; from psychology, law, and ethics to philosophy and mysticism. Another crucial point is that these disciplines are shared between believers and unbelievers. Both believers and atheists have developed all the aforementioned fields of knowledge, which indicates a common human need and origin.

The central question, then, is: in which of these disciplines did the Prophets take humanity by the hand? This question is important for several reasons:

• It concerns the essential divine purpose for human life and the philosophy of prophethood.
• The answer profoundly affects the interpretation of religious texts.
• Contemporary man, given the growth of human sciences, is intensely rights-oriented and flees from duty; he will accept duty only when it is clearly explained. He must understand why and in what areas he should not trust his own knowledge.

In response to this primary question, various theories have emerged. Some have examined the issue from within religions, relying on sacred scriptures and asking what the Prophets themselves claimed. Others have adopted an external perspective, determining the boundaries of religion based on human expectations of it or on modern knowledge, arguing that even in the realm of the human spirit and psyche, modern findings are vast, and there should be no clash—or at the very least no contradiction—between human discoveries and what the Prophets brought.

We will focus here on one theory that combines both internal and external approaches. The late Dr. Mehdi Bazargan, in a speech delivered on 1 Bahman 1371 (21 January 1993) to the Islamic Association of Engineers, sharply criticized those who, in the face of the onslaught of Western ideas, reduce Islam to merely organizing worldly life. He said:

“The Qur’an repeatedly criticizes worldly life and urges people toward the life of the Hereafter. Religion strives to eliminate human self-centeredness and direct man toward a higher world. It insists: abandon this fleeting life and think of the eternal one.”

He then critiqued those who involve religion in governance and other disciplines, summarizing his view as follows:

• Why should a religion pursuing such a lofty goal entangle itself in the limited individual and social life of man? The revolution of the Prophets is far greater than involvement in the narrow affairs of this life. That revolution belongs to a different order than the scientific revolutions of Newton and other human scholars. Mixing the two is illogical—like an elephant and a teacup.
• The infallible Imams (as) did not regard governance as necessary to their Imamate. The conduct of Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn, and Imam Sadiq (as) is clear: they assumed power only with the people’s consent and active support; when the people did not come forward, they did not pursue governance.
• The Qur’an itself draws a clear picture: the mission of the Prophet (s) was God and the Hereafter. There is no verse stating that the Prophet came to establish a government or organize your nutrition and economy.
• When the Qur’an speaks of rules on marriage, divorce, or wine, it does not say God wants to protect your stomach or increase your sexual pleasure; rather, it says God wants you not to follow Satan’s path, to prevent your enmities from growing, and so forth.
• Heavenly directives are not alien to human life and do organize a significant part of it, but that is a secondary aim. Just as the Qur’an gave no cooking instructions, it gave no instructions on governance or economics.
• Moreover, involving religion in human life brings harm: the failures of rulers are charged to religion. The papacies and Umayyad rule inflicted great damage on people’s faith. And in any case, faith cannot be forced.

Of these six points, the first and the last are external arguments; the other four are internal (religious) arguments. In evaluating them, six observations are necessary:

1. Distinguishing the two worlds in human life is entirely correct and essential. God gave man two lives so that he may choose between them. The Qur’an mentions these two lives nearly 115 times. Believer and unbeliever differ not only in knowledge, ethics, and behavior but constitute two fundamentally different personalities with different desires and dreams. This world and the Hereafter are two distinct lives. Through faith, the believer receives a new spirit. The difference between these two personalities is precisely the difference between the realm of mulk (the visible world) and malakūt (the invisible, spiritual realm).

   Those who present religion solely as a means of organizing this world do great injustice to humanity. Many ordinary people also believe the Prophets came merely to organize society or morality. Thus, societies that appear to have organized these two domains shake the faith of such believers. The Qur’an explains in detail the difference between the two lives: one is eternal, the other transient; one conforms to man’s primordial nature (fiṭrah), the other opposes it; one will inevitably reach its destination, the other will be cut short. Therefore, worldly life cannot provide ultimate solutions. The concept of ḥayāt ṭayyibah (the good/pure life) needs thorough examination in this regard.[1]

2. These two lives are deeply intertwined. The Hereafter is reached by passing through this world. Malakūt is the inner reality of this very mulk. Islam begins all its educational programs from the details of daily life. This very worldly life must produce the life of the Hereafter. The Hereafter is born from worldly life. The great scholar Mullā Muḥsin Fayḍ Kāshānī writes: food is the first and strongest desire that appears in children. Islam therefore begins its educational program from childhood with the etiquettes of eating. Food is one of the greatest worldly pleasures—even wars have been fought over it. From what is lawful and unlawful to table manners, hundreds of educational directives are contained therein. Every etiquette at the table conveys a major message. Family, neighborhood gatherings, city, and country—each has hundreds of sharia rulings aimed at transforming mulk into malakūt.

   Key points here:

   • Malakūt is the unseen dimension of this world.
   • The relationship between mulk and malakūt lies beyond sensory perception—it belongs to the realm of the unseen.
   • Religious obligations are the bridges between mulk and malakūt.
   • Precisely for this reason, the detailed wisdom behind these obligations is hidden from us, because the malakūt of existence is hidden from us.
   • Every action and behavior may affect the passage from the apparent (mulk) to the inward (malakūt).

3. Although intertwined, these two lives sometimes stand in opposition—antagonistic and incompatible. Imam Ali (as) said: “This world and the Hereafter are two opposing enemies and two different paths. Whoever loves and follows this world hates and opposes the Hereafter. They are like East and West: the closer you get to one, the farther you are from the other. They are like two co-wives.”[2]

   In worldly life, the axis is selfish desire and its fantasies. Pleasure and power are its central principles. Who is to identify these conflicts and provide solutions—reason or revelation? Our earlier example of food applies here too: certain foods and ways of eating harm psychological health. Sometimes bodily nourishment opposes or obstructs spiritual nourishment. One can move away from God through eating. The Prophet (s) repeatedly said: “Hunger is the light of wisdom.” Whoever consumes unlawful wealth destroys his faith.[3]

4. The unseen nature of the higher world renders its relationship with this world obscure and unknown to us. The Prophets must guide us across this bridge. The same applies to conflicts: their instances, extent, and ways of resolution are hidden.

5. Among the teachings transmitted from Islam, many directly concern worldly life. In addition to organizing man’s spirituality, Islam has addressed his material aspects. When enumerating the wisdom behind obligations, it speaks of both dimensions. For example, regarding the prohibition of blood, it states that it causes hardness of heart, removes mercy, makes the body malodorous, changes skin color, and is the primary cause of leprosy.[4] Regarding women’s covering, it says: hijab is better for women’s growth and purity, better for social order, preserves families, and enhances women’s beauty.[5]

   The great scholar Shaykh Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī in Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa devotes chapters not only to fiqh rulings but also to everyday etiquettes: 73 chapters (143 hadiths) on clothing, 29 chapters (147 hadiths) on buying and housing, 68 chapters (291 hadiths) on travel, 53 chapters (221 hadiths) on animal rights, 166 chapters (889 hadiths) on social coexistence, 60 chapters (217 hadiths) on trade and profit limits, 157 chapters (677 hadiths) on marriage, 109 chapters (434 hadiths) on children, 66 chapters (347 hadiths) on forbidden foods, and 112 chapters (564 hadiths) on eating etiquettes.

   Detailed commercial laws, various forms of ownership, more than fifty types of contracts with their rulings, thorough treatment of inheritance, detailed rules on litigation, retaliation, and blood-money—all belong to the body of sharia rulings. These rulings vary greatly in detail and generality, sometimes issuing legal rules, sometimes ethical ones, sometimes mere recommended etiquettes. The authoritative jurist Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir enumerated up to fifty rules governing profit in transactions.[6]

6. One of the most important issues related to the original question is the status of reason in Islam. Clearly, reason’s task is to open the gate to the final world and guide man to malakūt. In this domain it is God’s messenger and proof. Its role is irreplaceable—even divine messages are placed upon its shoulders. The Prophets speak to it and recognize only it. Yet reason also possesses immense capacity to cultivate the realm of mulk: it can discover the material world and subjugate it to man. Islam recognizes and emphasizes this capacity. Man must overcome difficulties and cultivate this world. Exegetes interpret the verse “He it is Who created you from the earth and settled you therein” (11:61) as God desiring man to cultivate the world and his life.[7]

   Imam Ali (as) said: “Reason is power, and its fruit is joy. Only through reason can one triumph over time. Reason is the strongest foundation. A man’s greatest fortune is his intellect—it ennobles the lowly, raises the fallen, guides the lost, and prevents error in speech.”[8] He also said: “Acquire knowledge—it bestows life upon you.”[9] Every human science is responsible for a part of life. Bodily health is part of life strengthened by medicine; travel is another part developed by engineering sciences. Every science strengthens a portion of life and is endorsed by the Imam.

   Thus, every science can be a divine emissary for the development and cultivation of life. If the earth is destroyed by human misuse, man is responsible. If an animal perishes in the mountains because of him, he will be questioned. He must strive to overcome earthquakes and manage the entire planet. From Islam’s perspective, knowledge is not merely power—it is responsibility. Scholars of philosophy, psychology, and natural sciences are all accountable for cultural and non-cultural problems of the world. Imam Ali (as) said: “Fear God concerning His servants and His lands, for you will be questioned even about the plots of land and the beasts.”[10]

The propositions established so far are:

1. Man and the world possess a spiritual, malakūtī dimension beyond the reach of human knowledge.
2. The material and spiritual dimensions of man are layers of a single reality and deeply intertwined—complete separation is impossible.
3. The material dimension is sometimes a gateway to the spiritual, sometimes an obstacle or interference, and sometimes neutral toward it.
4. Islam has left nothing unsaid regarding the spiritual dimension and has provided abundant teachings on the material dimension.
5. Reason, with its astonishing capacities, is God’s messenger and agent. It must keep the path to spirituality open and, by producing human sciences, provide for man’s material dimension. Divine will decreed that in the end both God and man be pleased: “God being pleased with them and they with Him—that is the supreme triumph” (Qur’an 5:119).

The conclusion from these five premises is that prophetic teachings and human sciences are so intertwined that we have no clear picture of their relationship, for the malakūt of this world is veiled from us. Islam has prohibited certain sciences outright (e.g., sorcery, magic, certain kinds of music); shown disfavor toward others (non-forbidden music, entertainment); intervened in detail in some (medicine, psychiatry—a physician or psychiatrist cannot use any drug or method); offered only guiding opinions in others (parts of history, philosophy, theology); left some entirely to human reason while encouraging them (agriculture); and taken greater charge of others (law).

Therefore, a Muslim answering the original question must adopt an internal religious perspective. A logical rule applies here: when the realm of reality (thubūt) admits many possibilities, we must turn to the realm of proof (ithbāt). Because the Hereafter is unknown and this world is deeply connected to it, anything is possible. Any act may be a path to the Hereafter, an obstacle, or an interference. An inner sorrow may drive a person toward God or away from Him. A meal, a journey, a sport, hunting, a novel, anger, a companion, city or national management, urban planning, or commerce—all can be such.

We must see what the Prophets have said about governance, economy, politics, law, and other sciences. We must approach the religious texts with the four sources of jurisprudence. Whoever assigns governance—wholly or partially—to human knowledge must produce evidence from within the Sharia; whoever assigns it—wholly or partially—to the Sharia must likewise produce evidence from within it. Human reason functions here only as a tool of inference, not as an independent a priori reason.

We cannot address this issue by appealing to human rights discourse, the maturity of modern sciences, the historical nature of religious understanding, the disconnection between this world and the Hereafter, modern man’s rights-orientation, the human nature of the Prophets, religious pluralism, the emergence of new issues, the suspension of reason, or the alleged conflict between science and religion—none of these theories has provided a clear and certain answer (though each deserves separate examination). The very reason Prophets were sent was humanity’s ignorance of the unseen consequences of actions. Man discovers the material layer of himself and the world but remains unaware of its spiritual outcomes. Hence modern sciences, lacking an internal religious perspective, have led only to self-centeredness, moral decline, loss of dignity, and distance from God.

With these considerations, neither the minimalist theory (religion has almost nothing to say about worldly affairs) nor the maximalist theory (religion dictates everything in detail) can be upheld. The very terms “minimum” and “maximum” seem inappropriate here, and in any case we cannot give a uniform answer for all disciplines. Each issue in each field of knowledge must be examined separately to determine its relationship—connection, entailment, opposition, obstruction, or conflict—with religion.

Indeed, a science whose source is God, whose inspiration is God, whose power comes from God, and which seeks to discover God’s creation—why should it not place man on God’s path? Is it not because it has ignored the divine blueprint, trespassed into forbidden zones, lacked pure motive, and pursued power and comfort rather than truth? Yes, even a physicist or chemist must constantly look to revelation. If part of his science becomes an instrument of corruption and ends in the atomic bomb, he must abandon that part. He must know the difference between outright forbidden instruments and those that are shared (common). Where a science becomes a means of corruption, he must set it aside; where it can serve both good and evil, he has no right to leave it in the hands of the corrupt. (The details of the latter point lie beyond the scope of this essay.)

[1] I have discussed these two lives at length in a separate treatise.

[2] Nahj al-Balāghah, p. 487.

[3] See Tārīkh Dimashq, vol. 19, p. 447; Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 63, p. 315.

[4] Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 10, p. 180.

[5] Muntakhab Mīzān al-Ḥikmah, p. 299.

[6] Jawāhir al-Kalām, vol. 22, p. 449.

[7] Tafsīr al-Kashshāf, vol. 2, p. 407; Jawāmiʿ al-Jāmiʿ, vol. 2, p. 154.

[8] Biḥār al-Anwār, vol. 75, p. 7; Ghurar al-Ḥikam, p. 50.

[9] Ghurar al-Ḥikam, p. 63. [10] Nahj al-Balāghah, p. 243.

[11] Qur’an 5:119.

[12] Sometimes the knowledge itself is forbidden, sometimes only its application.

[13] The Ahl al-Bayt cautioned Shiites against debates such as those on divine power and incapacity or the createdness of the Qur’an.