Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Holder of a Master's Degree in Islamic Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
2
Associate Professor, Department of Quranic Sciences and Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence), Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Cultural Thought and Studies, Faculty of Cultural and Social Affairs, Imam Hossein Comprehensive University (AS), Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Purpose: This article analyzes three dominant macro-approaches to conceptualizing the relationship between Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and the project of building a "New Islamic Civilization" (Tamaddun-e Jadid-e Islami). Its primary objectives are to:
Identify and categorize the fundamental perspectives on fiqh's role in civilizational development.
Examine the epistemological, theological, and jurisprudential foundations underpinning each approach.
Assess the implications of each approach for fiqh's capacity to contribute to civilizational formation.
Evaluate the feasibility and potential of fiqh playing a central role in the Islamic civilization-building project, particularly in the context of post-revolutionary Iran and the "Second Phase of the Revolution" discourse.
Methodology: The research employs a descriptive-analytical method. Data collection was conducted through library research, involving:
Direct engagement with the primary texts and statements of key thinkers representing each approach: Abdolkarim Soroush and Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestri (Religious Intellectualism), Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Mirbaqiri (Guardianship Fiqh).
Analysis of secondary sources and scholarly critiques characterizing the "Individual Fiqh" approach, prevalent among traditional jurists pre-revolution.
Comparative analysis of the arguments, foundations, and conclusions of the three approaches regarding fiqh's scope, authority, and civilizational potential.
Findings: The study identifies and analyzes three distinct approaches:
Individual Fiqh Approach: This view confines fiqh to regulating the individual believer's actions, focusing on personal matters. Its foundations include individual-centricity, issue-specific rulings, lack of a systemic/societal vision, and delegation of civilizational domains - such as politics, economics- to human reason. Consequently, fiqh is seen as civilization-averse, lacking the theoretical tools for societal design, relegated to a supervisory regulatory role within existing or other civilizations.
Religious Intellectualism Approach (Soroush & Shabestri): This approach fundamentally denies fiqh's capacity for civilization-building or planning.
Soroush bases this on: Restricted Fiqh (fiqh-e aqallī), Separation of Reason and Religion (civilization-building is a rational, worldly affair outside religion's core salvific purpose), and Theoretical Contraction and Expansion of Religious Knowledge (qabz wa bast-e teorik-e shari‘at). He concludes fiqh is incapable of planning, merely follows society, and leads towards societal secularization.
Shabestri bases this on: Hermeneutics (understanding is historically conditioned), Islam as Supervision, not Guardianship (religion provides ethical values, not governance systems), Historical (not Juristic) Interpretation (social rulings are context-bound to 7th-century Arabia), and Questioning the Qur'an's Divine Utterance Status. He concludes a Muslim society needs a rational (not fiqh-based) government, fiqh is incapable of civilization-building, this task belongs to modern sciences, and traditional fiqh is largely obsolete for contemporary governance.
Guardianship Fiqh Approach (Mirbaqiri): This approach posits fiqh as the essential framework for civilizational design and leadership. Its foundations are: Cosmic Struggle between Truth and Falsehood, Maximalist Religion (dīn-e haddāksarī), Comprehensive Fiqh (fiqh-e jāmi‘ - encompassing ethics, knowledge systems, and social structures), and Islam as Governance (establishing divine sovereignty is central). The key outcome is the theory of "Guardianship Fiqh" (fiqh-e sarparastī): Fiqh must evolve beyond individual acts or even systemic design to actively manage societal transformation towards Islamic goals (e.g., tawhid, justice). It requires shifting focus to "society in transition" as its subject. This necessitates both the authority of fiqh and the authority of the Jurist-Guardian (leadership) (wilāyat al-faqīh) for implementation.
Conclusion: The feasibility of fiqh's role in Islamic civilization-building hinges critically on the adopted approach.
The Individual Fiqh approach inherently lacks the vision and tools for civilizational construction, limiting fiqh to personal matters within existing frameworks.
The Religious Intellectualism approach, through its foundational critiques (hermeneutics, reason/religion separation, historical relativism, questioning revelation), explicitly negates any substantive role for fiqh in societal planning or civilization-building, advocating secular governance models.
Conversely, the Guardianship Fiqh approach, grounded in maximalist religion, the necessity of divine sovereignty, and a dynamic view of societal transformation, argues for fiqh's central and active role. It demands a profound transformation within fiqh itself – expanding its scope beyond individual acts to society in flux, integrating ethics and knowledge systems, adopting a systemic and forward-looking vision, and recognizing the indispensable role of the Jurist-Guardian (wali faqīh) in leading this civilizational project. While acknowledging the current limitations of individual fiqh, this approach asserts its inherent potential, contingent upon this necessary evolution, to guide the construction of the New Islamic Civilization in direct confrontation with dominant materialist civilizations.
The debate between these approaches represents a fundamental discursive struggle shaping the future trajectory of Islamic societies.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)