|
Philosophy of
Fiqh
By Dr. Syed Nasir Zaidi
Islamic philosophy is a newly born science among Muslim
scholars and believed to be an important addition in
Islamic research methodology in order to make Islam
compatible with the modern world and to combat the
challenges of modernity. Although it is in its early
stages and its different dimensions still need to be
explored. Jurisprudence (Islamic Fiqh) like other
sciences has its own presuppositions and assumptions
which might have been proven in other sciences or need
still to be proved, but it is essential to have a clear
position on these assumptions as a different approach on
presupposition may lead to different results.
When we say that every science or notion has its own
assumptions and presupposition, then these assumptions
may have at least four areas which should be separated
in research:
1.
Why this belief came in to our minds and what are
its reasons?
2.
Why we intend to express this particular belief
and why we don’t hide it?
3.
How do we know that this belief is true and not
false?
4.
Regardless of it being right or wrong, what kind
of collective, individual, social, inner and outer
results are expected to appear?
Sometimes we consider presuppositions but don’t have
enough argument to prove it or never thought to have its
logical grounds for these assumptions. Secondly we don’t
have any other way to prove it except to use
philosophical methodology, which then will be second
degree knowledge as compared to first degree knowledge
that is directly related to its contents.
Philosophy of Fiqh may have several assumptions, but the
most important assumptions which is normally considered
indisputable, in fact needs to be discussed in detail
and can be described as below:
Revelation and Hermeneutics
Revelation is a main source of Islamic law. Its
epistemological argumentation or adoption of any
specific approach regarding the nature of Revelation can
change the whole scenario of research. If, for instance
one could prove revelation, (Wahi) as a Divine
source of information, specific interpretation from the
revealed text needs to be clearly defined with a strong
logical and philosophical argument.
In the next step, how we came to know that our
understanding from reviled text is exactly what the
author of text had in mind. For this, we need to look to
hermeneutics, which has different schools of thought.
Some are of the opinion that the actual desire of the
author is not accessible. Today we cannot rely on
ancient hermeneutical interpretations by ignoring
contemporary theories of Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Betti,
Gadamer, Ricoeur, and others.
According to conservative approaches to hermeneutics, to
get to the truth of the text, one needs to do scholarly
research into the historical context in which it was
written. An understanding of the historical, cultural
and autobiographical background of the author helps us
to understand the meaning of the text. Through
historical and linguistic research, interpreters are
able to transcend their own biases and comprehend the
text according to the standards of its own time.
Historical and linguistic research will help
interpreters to understand their own biases, but such
research will not eliminate all biases. We are never
able to completely transcend our biases to comprehend
the text according to the standards of its own time. In
the hermeneutical circle, interpreters impose a meaning
to the text, and the text either confirms or resists
that meaning due to its own historical and cultural
background. Some hermeneutic theories suggested that
text always goes beyond the author.
In modern hermeneutics, expectations from text become a
very important factor to determine its meanings and have
a deep influence on one’s understanding of text. For
instance, when jurisprudence is used to consult koranic
text, he expects that the Koran is also a book of
jurisprudence, therefore Islamic law can be derived from
it.
The Role of human intellect in Islamic law
The place of human intellect as a source of Islamic law
is an important issue of philosophy of Fiqh. To what
extent does human intellect as an instrument to drive
Islamic law from the Koran and the Prophet’s tradition (Sunnah)
expend, contract and derive Islamic laws on the behalf
of causes and human interest? How much human intellect
is capable to understand the real causes, reasons and
human interest situated behind the Islamic laws? The
Muslim scholars who accept the authenticity of human
intellect with its limitations and admit that Islamic
laws are always based on causes and human interest, are
being questioned for underestimating human intellect for
a long time.
Progressive growth in collective rationality in the
world and particularly in a Muslim society necessitates
the demand for rethinking the role and the potential of
human intellect in understanding the Islamic text. It is
being widely asked why human intellect has not been
allowed to explore all dimensions of human interests and
actual reasons on which Islamic law is based. To have a
progressive approach in Islamic research methodology and
to integrate Islam with modern world, Islamic scholars
have to deal with this problem and need to have a clear
view point as to why human wisdom always fails to
understand the philosophy of Islamic law, especially in
social, economic and political areas.
Although it is accepted by most Shia and Suni
Scholars, that human intellect can be a source of
Islamic law in the area of open brutality and clear
justice, which seems to be quite general and unable to
resolve the epistemological questions about
applicability of justice. It shows that reasons and
philosophy of Islamic laws remain a mystery and kept in
a secret and symbolic form and can only be understood
with the help of revealed text.
In this regard, another important aspect that needs to
be discussed in philosophy of Fiqh, is separation
of social, judicial and political matters from Ibadat
(Worships). Traditional Islamic scholars show a keen
interest in putting a label of Islam on everything as
much as it is possible. e.g., Islamic banking, Islamic
finance, Islamic economics, Islamic punishments, Islamic
government, etc., but it is imperative to discuss
whether social, political and cultural matters can be
Islamic in its deep philosophical sense? Especially when
looking into the deep historical and cultural background
of Islamic laws, we came to know that more than 95
percent of them already existed in the old Arab society
of that day and Islam tried to make them more rational
and harmonize them with the principals of justice of
that day or just approved tradition of intellectuals (Sēra´he
Uqa´la). Although it needs to be discussed further
whether justice and rationality of that day is the same
as we have today and if there is no development and
evolution in human rationality, sentiments and
understanding of justice or one should pursue
applicability of rationality and justice of his own era.
If awareness of justice and a level of rationality is
believed to be matured and one Islamic law can be seen
as a best response of the demand of the justice of that
day, then new doors for progressive Ijtehad may
open.
In the traditional Islamic approach applicability of
justice and rationality has been a very complicated
issue. For instance, if stoning (Islamic Punishment,
Rajm) was harmonic with rational standards of the
people of that day, if it still meets the existing
standards of rationality and justice and sentiments,
thus the philosophy of Fiqh is the best place to discuss
this issue whether Islam wanted to teach us how to
travel from injustice to justice, ignorance to knowledge
and hopelessness to grace and blessing of God or wanted
to determine evidence of justice for all ages and for
every one regardless of geographical, regional and
chronological differences.
On the other hand, there are two different viewpoints
among Islamic scholars regarding the nature of Islamic
laws. In the traditional approach, even social and
political matters should be derived from Islamic sources
such as Islamic banking, Islamic government and the
Islamic judicial system etc, but according to the
intellectual approach in Islamic research methodology,
Islam has nothing to do with systems and management
related matters. It is up to human wisdom to establish
new managing social and political matters on the basis
of rationality and justice but it should not contradict
the ultimate objectives of Sharī´ah such as
justice, equality and decisive moral values.
A remarkable difference can be seen in two different
approaches. According to first approach, the social,
judicial and political system must be derived from the
Koran and Sunnah. According to another
approach, people should have there own social, political
and economic system on behalf of knowledge of the day,
but this should not violate the basic Islamic values.
This approach maintains that Islam did not come to
introduce a particular social and political system,
Islam had to respond naturally, by the demand of its
time by establishing political and judicial system.
In the light of the above discourse, the modern approach
must be able to address the problem of eternity (Abadī´at)
of Islamic laws. If standards of justice and rationality
can be changed, then how can the everlasting dimension
of Islamic laws be prevented? In response to this
question, some Islamic thinkers are of the opinion that
in this case, in spite of the apparent aspect of Islamic
text or to adopt a text centered approach, its message
should be considered one which can be described by
mentioning the basic purpose and objectives of
Sharī´ah behind the Islamic laws and supposed to be
limited to their own era.
Variability and Invariability of Islamic Laws
Perhaps one of the most important questions facing
Fiqh today is that if the prophecy was finished
after the death of Prophet Mohammad, and there is no
direct contact with source of Wahī (Revelation)
i.e. God, then how can Islam respond to the changing
situations and daily problems facing man? In other
words, when Islam claims that it has finished its growth
and perfection and covers all personal, social and
political aspects of life (according to the traditional
approach), how can invariable and constant Islamic Laws
be enough to respond to the different circumstances of
daily life? In response to this question, traditional
Islamic scholars divided the necessities of man in two
parts:
1
Primary needs, which result from the individual
and social nature of man. Individual needs, which can be
materialistic like food, dress, shelter, etc or
spiritual, like the tendency towards knowledge, beauty
and worship and social needs, such as living together,
cooperation, justice and liberty.
2
Secondary necessities, which result from primary needs,
such as the need of tools and machinery in daily life
because the quality of life differs from time to time.
Islam, in view of above two type of needs, have two
different laws: Constant laws, which are related to a
stable principle of human nature and always the same in
different cultures and societies, such as laws of
inheritance and laws regarding worships etc. and
Inconstant laws, which can be derived from constant laws
according to the changing of situations and problems. In
spite of this, there is a great controversy among
Islamic scholars regarding the criteria of variability
and invariability, especially in social and political
issues. Some scholars are of the opinion that human
nature and the sprit of Islam is the main criteria to
understand which Islamic law is variable and which is
invariable and eternal but one has a right to say that
it is a very general standard and a different kind of
Islamic law and antithetical issues can be explained
under a human nature perspective.
Imposed Laws on Islam
By looking back at Islamic history, one can comprehend
that some laws have been imposed on Islam by cultural
and social traditions of an ancient Arab society, while
Islam in itself did not want to recognize such laws, as
well as against the spirit of Islam from the beginning,
like slavery. In order to fight against certain existing
laws, Islam has to accept and recognized them.
Interestingly, it is not known whether the slavery
system is still believed to be a part of Islam, or if it
is still being considered as a type of punishment for
those Muslims who intentionally don’t fast during the
holy month of Ramadan (In shia law) or if this
law no longer exists in Islam.
If it is right to say that the slavery system is against
the sprit of Islam and was imposed on it by the existing
cultural and economic traditions of that time, then the
question can be raised as to why some social, cultural
and political conditions and traditions can not be
imposed on Islam and is Islam just obliged to make some
laws and changes in existing rules and principles in
order to address the people of that time and to show its
ability to establish a better system on behalf of social
justice which is understandable for that society.
Establishing and Stable period of Islam
Islamic tradition had two different faces. One is
related to establishing an emerging period, as when
Islam was just introduced by Prophet Muhammad and was
taking root in society but was still in danger of
conspiracy and the second is related to the time when
Islam was completely established and emerged as a strong
institution. Is it possible to pursue Islamic laws in
this perspective and consider Islamic laws in this
establishing period as temporary laws?
Personal Conditions of Prophet’s Tradition
Prophet’s Tradition (Sunnah) is the second
important source of Islamic laws. Since the act of the
Prophet Muhammad is also included in Sunnah, one
should distinguish personal and individual conditions
and circumstances of the Prophet from his religious
traditional aim to be followed by Muslims.
When the Prophet Muhammad preached among people, he was
asked them whether it is revelation (Wahī) or
tradition (Sunnat) in describing Wahī or
anything else. In other words, people used to ask him,
are you talking with us as a Prophet or it is your
personal view on behalf of Wahī? If he said, “it
is Wahī,” people would keep silence and
immediately would follow him and if he said “I am
explaining the Koran on the behalf of
responsibility granted to me from God”, people again
would follow him, but if he said “what I am saying is
neither from Wahī nor on behalf of Wahī,
but it is my personal opinion as a judge or head of the
state” then people would say, “we want to discuss this
issue with you”. In this regard, the prophet is just a
human (Bashar) as others. When the Koran clearly
says: “I am a human like you, only I receive Wahī,”
it means that Prophet wanted to say, “when I am not
talking on behalf of Wahī, then I am like you, I
can also make mistakes like you. My knowledge is also
limited like you and I really need your consultation”.
(This is according to Sunni theology, while
Shia theologians don’t accept this aspect of the
Prophet’s life).
The first (Wahī) and second aspect (Sunnah) of
the prophet’s life can be an Islamic principle, but the
third aspect of his life, i.e. is social, political and
judicial matters are not necessarily to be followed and
can be considered as a personal attitude of the Prophet
Muhammad. Therefore, one believer is given free hand to
establish a social, political and economical system by
observing the invariable principles taken form Wahī
and Sunnah and the ultimate objectives of
Islam.
|