Casting Doubt on Shari'ah
Abdul-Majid Jaffry, Lakewood, CARecently, letters and articles have appeared in Pakistan Link in which writers have suggested to modify Shari’ah (the divinely ordained guidance and rules of human conduct) to conform to the changing pattern of the modern times. In their opinion Shari’ah is not a fixed and permanent entity. Its fossilized and outlived status must be revitalized if Islam is to preserve its identity and mark or otherwise it will wither away. They propose to remove the “defects” and incorporate in it the desired changes and improvements so that, as one writer puts it, “it could be applicable to our modern times.” Whatever may be the intentions and objectives of these writers, nonetheless, it’s clear from their writing that they have not fully grasped the nature, objective, and purpose of Shari’ah.
The word Shari’ah, lexicographically, means path. A straight and distinctly marked path that leads people to a watering place. In Islamic terminology, Shari’ah is defined as the path that Allah, through His Holy Word and Prophets, has dictated and enjoined to be followed in every walk of life. “To each among you We have prescribed a law and a clear way”(Quran 5:48) It is a mean through which the Will of God is carried out on this earth. It forms the relation that Allah wants to see between Him and His creation. In other words, it is just another name for Islam, the religion enjoined by Allah. We must bear in mind here that Shari’ah is not simply rules and laws to administer life on this earth; it is, as well, the only mean to achieve salvation in the hereafter.
Naturally, then the primary source of Shari’ah is the Holy Quran, the most consummate and final revelation of Allah Subhana-hu Wa-Ta’ala, and the second source is the authentic Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Salla Allahu alaihi wa Sallam, as Quran has commanded us to abide by it. There are, however, a number of social and ethical matters for which there is no explicit injunction in the twin fundamental sources of the Quran and Sunnah. Also, with the passage of time comes new development in human society. That, in turn, brings fresh socio-moral problems. Shari’ah, for the guidance in the uncovered areas and to respond to the changing conditions of human life, turns to the rulings based on Ijma (consensus of highly credible and trustworthy scholars) and Qiyas (systematic analogical reasoning). Ijma and Qiyas are two important sources of hukm Shar’i (Islamic regulations).
As an example, artificial insemination and human organ transplants are the miracles of the modern medical sciences. Guidance in these areas is not directly obtainable from the Holy Quran or the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Salla Allahu alaihi wa Sallam. Muslim scholars after a careful deliberation have provided a guideline, based on the principles of Quran and Sunnah, how and under what conditions Muslims can take benefits from these modern developments. Shari’ah is not static that fails to respond to modern changes. It is, rather, a dynamic force that evolves through various processes to meet the challenge of the ever-changing circumstances.
It should be understood that Ijma and Qiyas are not fundamental rethinking and reconstruction of the transcendental truth found in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. These two sources, rather, solve a new issue by going to the root of an existing one already expounded in the two basic sources of the Shari’ah. They do not in any way oppose, offset, or offend the established set of Islamic values. Thus, the solution of a new problem is, as one writer puts it, “hard wired” to the same Divine reason. One can draw an analogy between the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, and Qiyas with the root, trunk, and small branches of a tree. As small branches grow on the trunk of a tree and draw their sustenance from its roots, in the same manner Ijma and Qiyas have anchorage and base in the Quran and Sunnah. In the matters, such as laws of inheritance, marriage and divorce, witnesses and so on, that have been explicitly settled by Allah Subhana-hu Wa-Ta’ala and His Prophet Salla Allahu alaihi wa Sallam, Ijma and Qiyas, by however unimpeachable scholars, have no role to play. Not even the consensus of the entire Ummah can alter even an iota of the clear rulings of the Quran and the Sunnah.
The directives and injunctions derived through Ijma, Qiyas, Ijtihad (Judgment of jurists), and Istihsan (Juristic preferences) are limited in scope in the sense that they merely reconstitute modern society and reconstruct modern thought within the ordained legal framework of Islam. They do not render the slate clean and re-write the new set of laws. In other words, these sources evaluate, modify, and reconstruct the contemporary trends, thoughts, and development within the realm of the Quran and the Sunnah, not the other way around.
In essence, the argument against Shari’ah is that it was framed over fourteen hundred years ago to meet the needs of a primitive society – a relic of the Dark Ages. It has no relevance for a modern society of our time. It has exhausted its usefulness.
To be skeptical of Shari’ah based on the Quran and Sunnah is a very serious thing. It is tantamount to have doubt on, both, the infallible nature of the Holy Quran and the authentic Sunnah and Hadith of the Holy Prophet as a source of guidance forever. I ask the proponents of reforming the Shari’ah what verses of the Holy Quran they dare to delete and which authentic Hadith and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet they want to discard?
Sheikh Zaki Yamani made the statement that “the rules change with the change of time.” And, then with a sarcastic tone he said: Don’t tell me that one illiterate Saudi Bedouin is a better witness than two Harvard trained MBA women. This was a jeering reference to Quran 2:282. Could Sheikh Yamani or those who wrote in support of his statement provide any evidence, from the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr to this day, that any rule based on the Quran and Hadith was ever changed? Hazrat A’ishah and Hazrat Hafsah, wives of the Holy Prophet were not only well versed in the religious sciences but were also very knowledgeable in the worldly affairs. Does Sheikh Yamani or his supporters’ think that the Quranic rule of witness would have not been applied to them should they were witnesses?