In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The Ruling Mind and the Serving Mind
Author: Abdul Basir Sohaib Siddiqi
Date of Publication: 07.11.2025
Translation by Tahleel Team
Introduction
A fascinating discussion has taken place among theologians throughout history — whether adultery (zina), meaning sexual relations without lawful social boundaries, is also rationally forbidden or not. The question is: Even if religion forbids it, is adultery inherently wrong according to reason itself?
Two opposing views were presented in this regard by two great jurists from different schools of Islamic thought:
- Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (Hanafi School)
- Imam al-Kiya al-Harrasi (Shafi‘i School)
Imam al-Jassas’s View
Imam al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) believed that adultery is rationally wrong, even apart from religious prohibitions. His reasoning was that it causes inevitable harm to issues like lineage (nasab), child maintenance (nafaqah), and family responsibility (kafalah).
According to him, separating sexual pleasure from these moral and social responsibilities is irrational when considering the welfare of humanity.
Imam al-Kiya al-Harrasi’s View
Imam al-Kiya al-Harrasi (may Allah have mercy on him) questioned this. He argued that some rulings in Islamic law require proof of lineage — but if such laws did not exist, lineage itself would not necessarily need to be established.
He asked: If there were no religious law, who would be responsible for caring for a child? Even if a man’s paternity were known, he said, there is no logical necessity that this man must also bear the child’s expenses — such responsibility comes only through religious law.
Thus, according to al-Harrasi, if there were no divine law, adultery would not be rationally evil; rather, it would be permissible in itself, since a consensual relationship between a man and woman would not cause harm or injustice to either.
He even referred to Arab customs during the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), when adultery and various forms of sexual relations were socially accepted and practiced.
Understanding Through the Concept of Two Types of Reason
The opposing views of Imam al-Jassas and Imam al-Kiya al-Harrasi highlight the need to understand two types of intellect — concepts discussed by the modern Arab philosopher Muhammad Abed al-Jabri, referencing the French philosopher André Lalande, in his famous book “The Formation of Arab Reason” (Takwīn al-ʿAql al-ʿArabī).
Lalande called these two types:
- La raison constituante (the Constituting Reason)
- La raison constituée (the Constituted Reason)
Al-Jabri translated these into Arabic as:
- al-ʿaql al-fāʿil (the active/reasoning mind)
- al-ʿaql al-sāʾid (the dominant or ruling mind)
In Persian or Urdu, these can be expressed as:
- ʿAql-e-Hākim (Ruling Mind)
- ʿAql-e-Khādim (Serving Mind)
Meaning of the Two Types of Reason
- Ruling Mind (ʿAql-e-Hākim):
Refers to all accepted ideas, beliefs, and fundamental principles that are collectively embraced by a community or nation. - Serving Mind (ʿAql-e-Khādim):
Refers to the human ability to think and reach conclusions within the framework of those already accepted principles — it operates under the guidance of the Ruling Mind.
In other words, the Serving Mind is the reasoning ability common to all humans — the power to think, deduce, and understand.
The Ruling Mind, on the other hand, is shaped by a people’s worldview — their concepts of the universe, life, relationships, and society.
Therefore, while the Serving Mind is shared by all humanity, the Ruling Mind differs among nations and civilizations.
When we speak of Greek reason, Islamic reason, or Western reason, we are referring to different Ruling Minds — not different mental capacities, but different frameworks that shape how reasoning operates.
Applying This to the Debate on Adultery
Through this lens, we can understand the two jurists’ opposing conclusions:
- Imam al-Jassas explained the rational wrongness of adultery at the level of the Serving Mind — emphasizing preservation of lineage, kinship, and family ties. Since these values are already accepted social norms (part of the Ruling Mind), his reasoning shows that adultery is indeed wrong.
- Imam al-Kiya al-Harrasi, however, challenged these assumptions by questioning whether, without religious law, reason alone would still dictate that lineage and family are necessary for human continuity.
Thus, he elevated the discussion from the Serving Mind to the Ruling Mind, asking:
“If divine law were absent, on what purely rational basis can we say that protecting lineage and family structure is essential for the survival of humanity?”
Formation of the Ruling and Serving Mind
According to Lalande, the Ruling Mind is created through the Serving Mind. A nation uses its shared human capacity for reasoning and experience to establish certain fundamental truths about life — and once established, these become the fixed framework (the Ruling Mind) that later generations reason within.
An analogy can be made with the process of lawmaking:
A parliament first writes a constitution — a foundational framework — and then later makes laws within that framework.
Similarly, the Serving Mind formulates fundamental beliefs, which then solidify into the Ruling Mind.
Two Important Questions
- If both the Serving Mind and Ruling Mind are part of the same intellect, why distinguish between them?
Because their roles differ. The Serving Mind is dynamic — it questions, analyzes, and interprets — while the Ruling Mind is stabilizing — it sets foundational truths that guide reasoning. - On what principles is the Ruling Mind formed?
The Ruling Mind is formed when the Serving Mind reaches conclusions it can no longer suspend. Human consciousness cannot live in permanent uncertainty — it needs foundational answers about life, meaning, and morality.
These settled convictions form the Ruling Mind.
Some of these beliefs are immediate (urgent), while others develop over long historical processes — such as belief in the unseen, divine will, life after death, and moral accountability. Over time, these shape the worldview of a nation or civilization.
The Role of Knowledge and Revelation
The key question then becomes: What resources does the Serving Mind draw upon to form the Ruling Mind?
- Does it rely purely on human senses, logic, and experience?
- Or does divine revelation (wahy) play a role?
This question lies at the heart of Muslim theological debates about the relationship between reason (‘aql) and revelation (shar‘).
A proper understanding of Ruling and Serving intellects can clarify much of the historical confusion in Islamic thought about this relationship.
Common Sense and Practical Reason
At this point, it is important to highlight two related concepts — common sense (sensus communis) and practical reason (phronesis) — particularly emphasized in the Hanafi school of law, where practical reason is used to justify many legal rulings.
Common Sense in Humanist Thought
To understand common sense, we must look at the humanist tradition — especially the work of Giambattista Vico, who in “De nostrorum temporum studiorum ratione” defended humanism against both Jansenism and Descartes.
Vico emphasized common sense (sensus communis) and the human ideal of eloquence (humanistische Ideal der eloquentia) as essential elements of classical rationality.
In humanism, “speaking well” (Greek: eu-legen) meant both rhetorical beauty and speaking the truth.
Vico saw this as part of the ancient Greek ideal, linking philosophy with human dignity and moral speech.
Vico’s Humanism and Its Difference from Islamic Thought
Vico’s appeal to common sense reflected a balance between learned scholars and wise practical thinkers — an idea rooted in Aristotle’s distinction between Sophia (theoretical wisdom) and Phronesis (practical wisdom).
However, while humanism based moral understanding on what is probable or socially agreed upon, Islamic revelation-based thought grounds practical reason (phronesis) on absolute truth revealed by God.
Thus, in Islam:
- Practical reason expresses fixed moral truths nourished by divine revelation.
- In humanism, common sense feeds on probability and social convention.
Yet both agree that humans share a universal moral sense — a foundation for cooperation and social harmony.
Conclusion
According to Vico, eloquence and common sense together create a kind of knowledge that does not depend entirely on logical proof — it allows humans to perceive truth through moral and experiential awareness.
In humanism, this meant practical understanding grounded in shared human experience.
In Islam, it means moral understanding rooted in divine truth and human dignity.
Hence, nurturing this shared intellect or common reason is essential for building a meaningful and ethical human life.
Translation by Tahleel Team
