Note: Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Qa’ini is considered one of the long-standing professors of advanced jurisprudence (Kharij) courses at the Qom Seminary. Born in Tehran in 1961 (1340 Solar Hijri), he has been teaching various subjects at the Qom Seminary for over three decades. We spoke with him regarding the renowned view of jurists concerning minimalist and maximalist jurisprudence. He considers the renowned view of the jurists to be the maximalist approach to jurisprudence but believes that one cannot attribute a single view to a specific seminary, such as that of Qom or Najaf. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with this professor of advanced courses in jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence at the Qom Seminary follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the minimalist and maximalist approach to jurisprudence, and what are the requisites of each?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: The minimalist approach holds that religious teachings, and particularly jurisprudence, are aimed at securing human happiness in the hereafter and providing a minimal expression of needs in this world. This is in contrast to the maximalist approach, which believes that the purpose of religion and its jurisprudential dimension is to guide and direct human beings towards perfection and happiness in this world and the hereafter, in all dimensions of their existence and all areas related to their life.

From the minimalist perspective, reason is self-sufficient in social matters.
The expectation of religion for minimalists is limited to the origin (mabda’) and the return (ma’ad), whereas for maximalists, it encompasses all structures of belief, ethics, and behavior.
From the minimalist viewpoint, religious knowledge is considered a human endeavor and seeks assistance from other human branches of knowledge, thus being open to various interpretations. However, from the maximalist viewpoint, it is a divine matter attained through a method of deduction (istinbat) based on certain (qat’i) and reliable (itminani) sources.
According to minimalists, there is no official authority for understanding religion; but according to maximalists, the exclusive authority for understanding religion is one of the valid forms of ijtihad.
The maximalist insight believes that the purpose of religion is not achieved merely by expressing teachings and rulings, but is contingent upon their implementation in life, which necessitates the formation of government. However, the minimalist insight does not consider religion to be concerned with providing a program of life for this world and delegates this to human reason.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Which viewpoint do the renowned majority of jurists (mashhur-i fuqaha) favor? From which of their fatwas can this be inferred?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: The majority of our jurists, especially the later scholars, have accepted the maximalist view. The reason for this is that the fully qualified jurist during the occultation of the Proof of Allah (Imam Mahdi) has been appointed as the custodian and overseer of Muslims in all their worldly and otherworldly affairs and matters, in the domains of issuing fatwas, adjudication, and guardianship. This holds true regardless of whether one adheres to the theory of the Absolute Guardianship of the Jurist, the Conditional Guardianship of the Jurist, or trusteeship based on the principle of secondary matters. Fatwas permitting the collection of religious funds (such as khums, zakat, mazalim, property with unknown owner) and the implementation of canonical penalties (hudud) (such as execution, amputation, flogging, imprisonment, exile, house arrest) and the issuance of secondary rulings (ahkam thanawiyyah) are the best evidence for the adherence to the maximalist theory in jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the proposition that the jurists of Qom favor maximalist jurisprudence and the jurists of Najaf favor minimalist jurisprudence correct?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: The seminaries (hawzahs), including both holy Qom and noble Najaf, have passed through various periods, each with its own specific characteristics that must be examined precisely and analytically. However, such a generalization cannot be accepted regarding these two seminaries. There are many great jurists in the Najaf seminary who were committed to maximalist jurisprudence, such as Sahib Jawahir, Muhaqqiq Khurasani (Sahib al-Kifayah), Mirza Husayn Na’ini, Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita, Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, and others.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Have the efforts of Qom’s jurists to establish governmental jurisprudence been a result of Tehran’s influence on Qom, or did the Qom Seminary itself hold such an approach prior to the revolution?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: Certainly, any transformation arises from internal and external factors, and the various sciences, including the noble science of jurisprudence, are no exception to this rule. The internal factor for the introduction and dissemination of governmental topics from the perspective of jurisprudence in the holy Seminary of Qom has been the response to the ultimate goal of the science of jurisprudence, which has drawn the attention of researchers in this field. However, the external factor has been the social needs and necessities arising from the establishment of the noble Islamic system and the interactions that emerged following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, in friction with the interests of foreigners and securing the rights of the citizens of our country, and indeed all Islamic countries. These have paved the way for deep discussion in this regard. Of course, it should not be overlooked that the political developments of the last one hundred years, the movements resulting from social changes, and the close relationship of the clergy with the people in all parts of the country, especially Tehran, have played a significant role in this matter.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can it be said that Shiite seminaries such as those in Qom, Najaf, Karbala, Baghdad, Mashhad, Isfahan, Tehran, etc., have each held different views regarding minimalist and maximalist jurisprudence? In other words, can each seminary be considered the origin of one of these theories?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: Seminaries have always been places for the collision of opinions and the encounter of various theories. Therefore, one cannot find a seminary throughout history where all its scholars were united on a single opinion. However, the predominance of one theory over another theory or theories in a specific seminary is considered a normal and conventional matter in academic centers. Yet, it must be kept in mind that this predominance in that specific seminary has not been permanent. It is quite possible that in an earlier or later period, another theory prevailed or the opinions were equally divided. Just as we have witnessed such changes in various seminaries concerning philosophical, theological, exegetical, and educational issues. Therefore, attributing minimalist or maximalist jurisprudence to a specific seminary, especially throughout history, lacks a sound basis.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Are the efforts of contemporary jurists during the Safavid and Qajar dynasties, such as Shaykh Baha’i and Muhaqqiq Karaki, to influence the government analyzed in line with the theory of maximalist jurisprudence, or do they have other reasons?

Mohammadi Qa’ini: The mission of a just, committed, and insightful jurist, aware of the currents and events of his time, requires that he defend the essence of Islam with all his might and, to the extent of his capacity and ability, take action towards implementing the rulings of Islam, whether in the social dimension, the cultural dimension, or the political, military, and economic dimensions. One of the important instances of fulfilling the duty of a jurist, who has been appointed as the trustee (amin) of the Final Messenger (peace be upon him and his family), is guiding and directing ignorant rulers, admonishing and enjoining/forbidding corrupt rulers, and confronting unjust authorities. Therefore, many of the mentioned jurists were sensitive towards reforming the rulers of their time and performed their duty. However, does this prove that they adhered to maximalist jurisprudence? No, such a thing cannot be inferred from the method and approach of all of them.