Note: The jurisprudence of upbringing may in itself possess a clear and obvious meaning; however, when situated among other jurisprudential chapters, discovering its precise meaning in a manner that does not overlap with similar chapters becomes difficult. Jurisprudence of ethics, educational jurisprudence, jurisprudence of education (fiqh-e amoozesh wa parvaresh), and an educational approach to religion are similar concepts and chapters whose difference from the jurisprudence of upbringing must be precisely clarified; otherwise it cannot be considered a distinct jurisprudential chapter among contemporary jurisprudential chapters. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ammar Pahlavanzadeh has been teaching and researching in the field of jurisprudence of upbringing for years. We conversed with him regarding the difference between the jurisprudence of upbringing and other similar jurisprudential chapters. He stated two meanings for the jurisprudence of upbringing and then proceeded to explain its difference from similar chapters and concepts. In the course of his remarks, he also noted that an educational approach to religion possesses merely a propagational utility, for otherwise it cannot be considered a disciplinary matter. The detailed exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this professor and researcher in the jurisprudence of upbringing is presented below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is meant by the jurisprudence of upbringing? Does it mean examining educational propositions, or an upbringing/educational approach toward the whole of religion? In the second case, can it be proposed as a distinct jurisprudential chapter?

Pahlavanzadeh: We hold two defensible meanings for the jurisprudence of upbringing: a specific sense (ma’na akhass) and a broader sense (ma’na a’amm). In the specific sense, jurisprudence means the five operational rulings (al-ahkam al-khamsah al-taklifiyyah), and upbringing means actions leading to upbringing. Jurisprudence is knowledge of the rulings on the actions of duty-bound subjects (mukallafin), and one of these actions is bringing them up. In other words, duty-bound subjects, just as they have economic and devotional actions, also have upbringing actions—such as punishing, encouraging, ground-laying, separating, and so forth. The set of rulings on these actions is termed the jurisprudence of upbringing in the specific sense. To state it more clearly, these are rulings on the upbringing activities of duty-bound subjects.

The jurisprudence of upbringing in this sense can completely form a jurisprudential chapter alongside traditional jurisprudential chapters; meaning just as we have chapters on Muzara’ah, Musaqat, Mudarabah, Prayer (Salah), and Purity (Taharah), we also have a chapter on the jurisprudence of upbringing.

However, the jurisprudence of upbringing in the broader sense is an educational/upbringing system extracted from Islam using jurisprudential method. That is, here in the second sense, we are not seeking merely the five operational rulings, but seeking recommendations, descriptions, interconnections of these rulings, expressing the more important over the important (aham wa muhimm), and stating goals. In better words, we seek a complete Islamic upbringing system derived from Islamic proofs through the ijtihad method—that is, through the conventional jurisprudential manner and Jawaheri jurisprudence method (feqh-e Jawahiri). We consider this the jurisprudence of upbringing in the broader sense (ba-l-ma’na al-a’amm). It can also be called the Islamic upbringing system through the ijtihad method.

However, the meaning contained in the question itself—namely an upbringing approach toward the whole of religion—we do not fundamentally consider the jurisprudence of upbringing. For upbringing, various meanings have been mentioned, including conveying to the desired goal (isal ila al-matlub), ground-laying, actualizing the educatee’s potentials, and guidance. These meanings all return to one comprehensive meaning: conveying the educatee to a desired goal in a certain field. By conveying, it encompasses showing the path, guiding, and directing.

With this meaning for upbringing, we consider the entirety of religion to be upbringing; meaning the whole of religion—its verses, narrations, rulings, jurisprudence, doctrines, ethics, all dimensions of religion—are intended for human guidance: “This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah” (Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 2). All Quranic verses, narrations, rulings, and everything religion speaks of are intended to convey the educatee to a goal and higher stage. Therefore, this meaning expresses that all religion is upbringing, not that a single jurisprudential chapter within the discipline of jurisprudence is the jurisprudence of upbringing.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the presence of an educational approach in all religious rulings, can the jurisprudence of upbringing be proposed fundamentally as an independent jurisprudential chapter alongside other jurisprudential chapters?

Pahlavanzadeh: An upbringing/educational approach to religion, as stated, does not constitute a jurisprudential chapter, and hence under this meaning, one cannot consider the jurisprudence of upbringing a jurisprudential chapter alongside other jurisprudential chapters. Furthermore, I do not fundamentally consider an educational approach to religion and stating the educational dimensions of religion a useful matter—such as coming and stating one by one that if God commanded paying charity, it is to increase kindness in people, or if He commanded performing congregational prayer, it is to teach collectivism to people, and so forth. This type of content, representing instances of an educational approach to religion, holds utility only in propagating religion to make people fond of religion and its Sharia rulings; otherwise I see no other utility for this interpretation of upbringing.

In any case, the two meanings I consider beneficial are those specific and broader senses mentioned in response to the first question. And this meaning of an educational approach to religion I consider neither beneficial nor a jurisprudential chapter alongside other jurisprudential chapters.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the difference between the jurisprudence of upbringing and similar jurisprudential titles, such as “jurisprudence of ethics,” “educational jurisprudence,” and “jurisprudence of education”?

Pahlavanzadeh: Regarding the jurisprudence of ethics, it must be said: Jurisprudence of ethics can likewise possess two meanings: a specific sense meaning the five operational rulings on moral actions; and a broader sense meaning deep understanding of ethics through ijtihad method.

However, regarding the difference between ethics and upbringing, I must say what rests in our mind and which we defend is that ethics points to the peaks; and upbringing is the path to reach those peaks. Of course, I am not stating that this meaning is one hundred percent correct, but currently we have reached this conclusion. Other opinions have been stated regarding the difference between ethics and upbringing which we discussed extensively, ultimately reaching this distinction.

For example, some stated that ethics pertains to oneself and upbringing pertains to others. In critiquing them we asked: What then of self-upbringing (tarbiyat al-nafs)? Should we call it ethics? Of course, they say: Yes, we must formulate terminology (ja’l istilah) and call it ethics.

Or another professor stated: If growth is from below-normal to normal, it is upbringing; but from normal to higher, it is called ethics. However, it seems this difference is likewise nothing more than terminology formulation.

However, as I mentioned, we consider ethics to be fixed soul habits (malakat thabitah nafsaniyyah)—meaning virtues and vices—functioning as goals whose attainment path is shown by upbringing. Therefore, jurisprudence of ethics speaks of jurisprudential rulings on envy, courage, and the like as to which of the five rulings they possess; whereas upbringing speaks of jurisprudential rulings on ways and methods to achieve these rulings.

Regarding the difference between jurisprudence of upbringing (fiqh-e tarbiyat) and educational jurisprudence (fiqh-e tarbiyati), I must say: I do not consider educational jurisprudence a concept distinct from the jurisprudence of upbringing, and hence see no difference between the two.

However, the jurisprudence of education (fiqh-e amoozesh wa parvaresh) means issues arising in the school environment—for example between teacher and student, or among students themselves—whose rulings must be stated in jurisprudence. The audience of these rulings includes the teacher, principal, student, disciplinarian, Minister of Education, and at times even legal entities like the Ministry of Education. The jurisprudence of upbringing, however, is not restricted to these matters and considers general upbringing.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the difference between the jurisprudence of upbringing and the science of upbringing (child, student, etc.)?

Pahlavanzadeh: The science of upbringing, if intended as the Islamic upbringing system extracted through ijtihad proofs, will in fact be the jurisprudence of upbringing in the broader sense (ba-l-ma’na al-a’amm). However, if the science of upbringing is not Islamic and is extracted purely from empirical sciences, in that case it will bear no relation to jurisprudence—whether regarding a child, a student, or an educator.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is establishing an independent jurisprudential chapter titled “Jurisprudence of Upbringing” desirable? What are its disadvantages and advantages?

Pahlavanzadeh: The answer is definitely positive. This desirability holds true in both senses previously mentioned; whether in the specific sense—namely an independent chapter alongside other jurisprudential chapters—since many actions of duty-bound subjects (mukallafin) are currently questioned before the seminary and scholars; for example, can I spy to foster my child’s growth? Am I permitted to lie, make promises, encourage, or punish? All these actions, down to details, are questioned and require particular rulings and the five operational rulings. Furthermore, at the macro level, the upbringing system itself is needed; for example, when designing an Islamic school, what should our upbringing system be? Or at a broader macro level, the entire Ministry of Education or presenting an upbringing system in mosques. Therefore, in both senses, establishing this jurisprudential chapter is needed (its advantages).

However, its disadvantages/vulnerabilities are: the novelty of this chapter, a path not yet beaten and traversed. Its sources have not yet been precisely extracted, and advanced jurisprudence lectures (Bahth al-Kharij) in that field are nascent. Furthermore, one of its vulnerabilities is that Arabic expression “deceptively simple yet deeply complex” (sahl wa mumtani’); meaning at first glance it might be imagined that upbringing needs no jurisprudence, but when explained to people, they realize how much it requires discussion and examination.