Summary
We must distinguish between Islam as a religion and the history of Muslims; our history is not a religion. We must also differentiate between Quranic Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence. Critiquing history and the interpretations of jurists is a necessary duty for progress. This essay attempts to discuss these distinctions.
This study rejects the human-sourced, historically produced Islamic jurisprudence and adheres to the humanistic objectives of the Quranic principles to achieve development, renaissance, and reform.
True reform and genuine revolution begin with the recognition that our cultural and intellectual knowledge, our educational patterns, and many of our ideologies are no longer suitable for societal development or for building a modern state and are obstacles to civil peace. We must earnestly seek contemporary and humanized knowledge to lift us from a long-slumbering cave and a pit in which we have drowned with pleasure.
When we assert that Islamic jurisprudence is unsuitable for our time and call for Quranic values, we imply that, in addition to what scientific reasoning has accomplished, these values form the foundation for renaissance, progress, and knowledge. Based on these, we can achieve a prosperous East. This conclusion aligns with the reviews of prominent leftist thinkers such as Elias Marrouch, Yassin al-Hafiz, and George Tarabishi, who acknowledged the importance of religion as a factor in progress and pointed out that this religiosity requires rationality and modernity.
Introduction
Since secularism was proposed as a solution for the modern state to escape sectarian and doctrinal conflicts and to distinguish between the state as an institutional entity serving society without religion or sect—being a nominal entity not divinely tasked—Europe paid for this transformation with wars spanning decades, resulting in the loss of millions of lives. Since then, we in our miserable East have been living in a quixotic struggle that remains unresolved to this day. This has rendered us backward nations and ignorant peoples, divided over the questions of modernity and the requirements of a state of citizenship. The contentious question among the different parties is:
Should we adhere to Islamic jurisprudence, or to contemporary civil laws?
We are caught between extreme secularism and a leftist faction that does not believe in the existence of God and rejects the concept of God and religion altogether, and a benign secularism that views religion as a personal matter between the individual and their Creator. On the other hand, the state must remain neutral towards religions, sects, and denominations. Meanwhile, there are religious individuals who want to impose Islamic jurisprudence, which was developed and interpreted centuries ago for an era completely different from ours, as the law of the modern state. They argue that otherwise, the ruler is an infidel, and society is ignorant. They cite a verse taken out of context, which has no relevance to politics, governance, or declaring the ruler an infidel: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers.” This verse, referred to as the verse of governance, has nothing to do with politics or governance. Review it in its context.
A Reflective Pause with the Verses of Governance
The central theme governing the meaning and purposes of the verses on governance addresses three rulings: disbelief (kufr) in the first instance, wrongdoing (zulm) in the second, and defiance (fisq) in the third, for those who turn away from divine laws. These verses have tragically led to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in their conflicts with ruling authorities in the modern era. This is because political Islam theorists have decreed that the authorities are not ruling the people by what Allah has revealed but by secular, disbelieving laws that must be overthrown. Therefore, it is essential to pause and reflect on the Quranic context that fully addresses the verses on governance, clarifying the reality that these verses are being selectively used in power struggles to mobilize public support, under the pretext of possessing Quranic evidence for their rightful claim to authority.
The Quranic passage on governance states:
“We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that which they were entrusted of Allah’s Scripture, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (5:44)
“And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right] as charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (5:45)
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (5:46)
Scholars have emphasized that these verses were revealed in a specific context concerning the Jews of Medina during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Two particular stories are often cited: the first involves an incident of adultery, and the second, more well-known story, involves a conflict between the tribes of Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza in Yathrib. After Banu Nadir emerged victorious, their scholars judged that the blood money for a slain member of their tribe would be one hundred wasqs of dates, while the blood money for a slain member of the defeated Banu Qurayza would be fifty wasqs. When the Prophet Muhammad came to Medina and became its ruler, based on the Constitution of Medina, the killing incident between the two tribes occurred again. Banu Nadir demanded their double blood money, but Banu Qurayza refused, citing the unfairness and oppression. They brought the matter to the Prophet Muhammad, who ruled for equality in the blood money, stating that the rabbis had disbelieved in the Torah’s commandments by differentiating in the blood money, thereby covering up the truth.
The context of these verses emphasizes justice in retribution without diminishing the rights of the weak or the defeated. The rabbis, through their unjust ruling, had covered the truth in the Torah, as indicated in the Quran by the phrase “And the rabbis and scholars by that which they were entrusted of Allah’s Scripture, and they were witnesses thereto.” Trading in Allah’s verses is considered the vilest trade.
Thus, the continuation of the verses on governance states, “And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye…” emphasizing that retribution must be just among all parties, regardless of the status of the disputants. Therefore, these verses speak about an incident involving the Jews during the time of the Prophet and specifically remind them of the Torah’s laws, as indicated by “We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.” Whoever Allah has entrusted with His legislation and then violates it has indeed disbelieved in it, meaning they have covered it up. The linguistic meaning of disbelief (kufr) is to cover, not necessarily to exit the circle of faith entirely. For example, a farmer is called a “kafir” because he covers seeds with soil, and the night is called a “kafir” because it covers the world in darkness.
This form of disbelief does not imply exiting the faith, as confirmed by two clear verses that assure those who fulfill the threefold path to salvation will attain Allah’s paradise, with no fear or sorrow upon them:
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (2:62)
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (5:69)
We notice in the same context that the verses emphasized just adjudication, moving on to retribution and equality, stating, “And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye…” It is known that if a judge knows the truth and rules contrary to it, we call him an unjust judge.
The passage continues by reminding the Jews of the succession of messages, mentioning Jesus’ mission, which they disbelieved in, and noting that Jesus’ message, as in the Gospel, was ethical, as Jesus did not bring a new law that annulled the previous one. He said in the Gospel: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” It is known that someone who deviates from the moral system is called a transgressor (fasiq).
Therefore, the passage reminds the Jews to adhere to the Torah and not differentiate in judgments between victors and defeated, strong and weak. The verses confirm that the prophets of Israel ruled justly and did not distort, saying, “We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it.” As for the message of Islam, it had one prophet, Muhammad.
The context of the verse emphasizes justice in retribution without diminishing the rights of the weak or the defeated. The rabbis, with their unjust ruling, covered the truth found in the Torah. The Quran reminds them that God entrusted them with the law, saying in the same passage, “the rabbis and scholars by that which they were entrusted of Allah’s Scripture, and they were witnesses thereto.” Trading in Allah’s verses is the vilest trade.
Therefore, the passage on governance continues, stating, “And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.” Retribution is only just when it is applied equally to all parties, regardless of their status.
Thus, the passage and its verses discuss an incident that happened to the Jews during the time of the Prophet, reminding them specifically of the Torah’s law, as indicated by, “We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it.” Whoever God entrusted with the law and then violated it, has indeed disbelieved in it, meaning they have covered it up. The linguistic meaning of disbelief (kufr) is to cover, not necessarily to exit the circle of faith entirely. For example, a farmer is called a “kafir” because he covers seeds with soil, and the night is called a “kafir” because it covers the world in darkness.
This form of disbelief does not imply exiting the faith, as confirmed by two clear verses that assure those who fulfill the threefold path to salvation will attain Allah’s paradise, with no fear or sorrow upon them:
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (2:62)
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (5:69)
We notice in the same context that the verses emphasized just adjudication, moving on to retribution and equality, stating, “And We ordained for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.” It is known that if a judge knows the truth and rules contrary to it, we call him an unjust judge.
The passage continues by reminding the Jews of the succession of messages, mentioning Jesus’ mission, which they disbelieved in, and noting that Jesus’ message, as in the Gospel, was ethical, as Jesus did not bring a new law that annulled the previous one. He said in the Gospel: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” It is known that someone who deviates from the moral system is called a transgressor (fasiq).
Therefore, the passage reminds the Jews to adhere to the Torah and not differentiate in judgments between victors and defeated, strong and weak. The verses confirm that the prophets of Israel ruled justly and did not distort, saying, “We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it.” As for the message of Islam, it had one prophet, Muhammad.
However, political Islamists have selectively taken a part of the verse, “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers,” using it demagogically to declare ruling authorities as disbelievers and to position themselves as their rightful replacements. The slogan of governance, initiated by Abul A’la Maududi and taken out of context, has become a demagogic motto for political Islam, followed by people without insight.
The Difference Between Qur’anic Jurisprudence and Islamic Jurisprudence
The crucial question is: Is the Islamic jurisprudence we have today suitable for our times? Is it capable of supporting the construction of a modern state and a cooperative, cohesive society? Or has it become an obstacle to modernization, development, and social peace? The answer, surprisingly, is no! But why and how?
First, we need to understand the difference between Qur’anic jurisprudence and Islamic jurisprudence. Qur’anic jurisprudence is clear, precise, and divinely legislated. It is divine in source, humanitarian in intent, and represents the narrowest and smallest circle in life, detailed comprehensively in the Qur’an in a way that can be understood by both philosophers and shepherds without complexity. This is evident in the verses (151-153) from Surah Al-An’am, verses (23-24) from Surah An-Nisa, verse 3 from Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse (275) from Surah Al-Baqarah, and verse (33) from Surah Al-A’raf. These verses say:
- Do not associate anything with Him.
- Be good to parents.
- Do not kill your children out of poverty.
- Do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.
- Do not approach the orphan’s property except in the best manner until he reaches maturity.
- Give full measure and weight with justice.
- Whenever you speak, be just, even if near relatives are concerned.
- Fulfill the covenant of Allah.
- Prohibition of marrying close relatives (your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters, mothers who nursed you, foster sisters, mothers of your wives, stepdaughters under your guardianship born of your wives with whom you have consummated marriage).
- Forbidden to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and those animals killed by strangling or by a violent blow, by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars.
- Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury.
- Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right.”
- And do not say about Allah what you do not know.
In contrast, Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) developed over centuries through the interpretations and judgments of scholars. It incorporates a vast body of knowledge, including the Quran, Hadith (prophetic traditions), consensus (Ijma), and analogy (Qiyas). While this body of law was revolutionary in its time, providing comprehensive legal, moral, and social guidelines, it faces challenges in contemporary society. Many argue that it often struggles to accommodate modern principles of justice, human rights, and equality, which are essential for building a modern state and a cooperative society.
Thus, the distinction lies in the sources and scope. Qur’anic jurisprudence is divinely sourced and focused on fundamental, universal principles that are easy to understand and apply. Islamic jurisprudence, however, is human constructed, based on the interpretation of divine texts and historical contexts, and is broader and more complex.
In conclusion, while Qur’anic jurisprudence offers timeless, clear guidelines, the traditional body of Islamic jurisprudence may require reevaluation and adaptation to ensure it aligns with contemporary values and the needs of modern society.
This divine legislation, if presented to any person of any faith or ideology, would not be rejected because it is ethical, humane, compassionate, and calls for virtue. It aligns with human rights and international charters even to this day. If you present it to any rational person from any background, they will not reject it because it represents human ethics before it is a religion. It promotes civil peace before it establishes religious belief and strengthens family bonds rather than breaking them.
Notice here that Allah did not mention the permissible (halal) and the allowed (mubah) because these represent the broader circle of people’s lives. Instead, He mentioned the prohibitions, which are the narrowest and smallest circle, to make it clear that everything else is permissible and allowed. The role of the legislative authority in any state is to enact prohibitions for the benefit of the citizen, the community, and the state. However, the legislative authority does not forbid in the religious sense because prohibiting is solely a divine prerogative.
Islamic Jurisprudence:
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is a human effort carried out by religious scholars who legislated for their states and societies according to the era in which they lived. Today, Islamic jurisprudence is equivalent to the laws enacted by parliaments around the world, serving as a legal framework for the state and society.
When the tyranny of caliphs and princes expanded, some jurists expanded the jurisprudence of worship to distance themselves from the oppression and tyranny of the rulers. Some jurists went further to legitimize the authority of the tyrants, reinforcing their power through religious laws that subjugated their people to a specific sect or school of thought, ensuring the stability of their rule in the name of religion. On the other hand, there were courageous and honorable jurists whom we proudly remember.
We must bravely acknowledge that historically, Islamic jurisprudence was a product of political, social, regional, and sectarian contexts. We should not ignore this fact to maintain the sanctity of the religion itself. What has been historically formulated under the name of Islamic jurisprudence is a significant human effort, but it belongs to past eras and states, which are entirely different from our contemporary age, societies, and cultures. The context in which Islamic jurisprudence was documented is vastly different from our current reality.
In our age, parliaments serve as the legislative authority in respectable countries. They do not interfere with the beliefs of their citizens but respect and protect the faith of all, standing neutral toward all sects, denominations, and creeds. They do not impose a specific religious observance; their credibility lies in their neutrality, respect for everyone, and protection of the citizen, society, and state.
Therefore, the legislative authority’s task is to formulate and enact laws that advance the nation and the citizen, achieving economic growth, modernization, scientific research development, economic prosperity, and civil peace for all citizens. This task belongs to constitutional scholars and law professors, not clerics and religious figures.
Thus, there is a significant gap between Quranic jurisprudence, which is divine in origin, and Islamic jurisprudence, which is human in origin.
Why is Islamic Jurisprudence Unsuitable for Our Time?
The political history of Islam has become intertwined with Islam itself, dominating the divine revelation to the extent that it has become the only acceptable interpretation of Islam. This has resulted in a human-made jurisprudence that is neither universal nor humane, making the jurisprudence and divine text inseparable, like conjoined twins. We are forbidden to understand the text according to our contemporary era, cultural knowledge, and current needs without referring to Islamic history and the jurisprudence produced therein. This has led to a clear failure in addressing our contemporary issues, and jurisprudence has become incapable of providing solutions.
Dr. Abdel Jawad Yassine discusses this issue, stating:
“The political history of Muslims on one hand, and the current Islamic discourse on the other, have both failed to reveal the true face of Islam… A question arises: Which Islam represents the (true) methodology? Is it the Islam of revelation, where the permissible sphere is broad, and the sphere of obligation is narrow? Or is it the Islam presented by the system based on history, where the permissible sphere contracts, the sphere of obligation expands, and suspicion towards reason and freedom increases?”
Thus, we argue that Islamic jurisprudence is unsuitable because it has turned the history of Islam into a religion, making the historically conditioned interpretations of jurists binding. This includes the justification of apostate bloodshed, which has no basis in Quranic law, the allowance of child marriage, which is not found in Quranic law, and the practice of stoning adulterers, which is absent from the Quran. Additionally, punitive measures such as amputation for theft are unsuitable for our time. These rulings complicate the life of the believer, while Quranic jurisprudence emphasizes ease:
“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for your hardship.” (Quran 2:185)
There are customs and traditions mistaken for religion, which are not. For instance, cupping was traditional folk medicine, not a religious practice, but Islamic jurisprudence made it a religious act. The terrorizing of believers with the notion of grave punishment has no foundation since there is no retribution before the Day of Judgment. The night journey (Mi’raj) is not mentioned in the Quran, nor is the veil. Polygamy is conditioned by specific and exceptional circumstances, not for sexual whims. Women are seen as creative individuals, not deficient in intellect and faith. Music is an expression when language fails, not forbidden, and sports are essential for health, not a distraction for the people. The Quran states:
“And He has not laid upon you in the religion any hardship.” (Quran 22:78)
The False Messiah, Awaited Mahdi, and Return of Christ: Superstitious Allegiances
Beliefs do not stand on individual and unproven reports. Quranic jurisprudence does not allow for the annulment of Jews, Christians, Shiites, nor does it allow for the excommunication of Druze, Alawites, or Ismailis. It does not permit the killing of communists, as it affirms “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256) and says to others “To you, your religion, and to me, mine” (Quran 109:6). Assassination of secularists is not sanctioned, because religion is separated from state.
Canceling others is not from Quranic law, rather it was introduced by parallel religious priesthoods to cancel the opposition by physiological reasons due to religious and legal pretensions. Likewise in medical issues, we ask the specialized doctor not the cleric, and in economic matters, we consult the economist not the cleric; in educational matters, we ask the specialized educator not the cleric.
Historical Islamic jurisprudence is male-oriented to the core! And discriminatory towards non-Muslims! And bullying, because it insists that all other religions and sects will be in hell; this is the domain of God alone.
Therefore, Islamic jurisprudence is human legislation; it was a set of laws valid for the past era, and suitable for imperial mentality, and that era has passed. This human jurisprudence was imposed on Islam, and not imposed by Islam. So much so that many Muslims thought it was the religion itself, it is an understanding of religion, not the religion itself. And this understanding is no longer suitable for the state of citizenship, modern concepts, principles of democracy, and human rights. Therefore, it is no longer suitable for our era.
Then:
How do you force someone who does not believe in your religion, beliefs, or sect, to compel them to believe in your sectarian beliefs, you here contradict your Quran! Because it orders you saying: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” Social disorder will occur, the state will fail, and civil war will ignite. The nation includes various religions and sects, and by no means can you force them to believe in your belief according to the text of Quran. You believe in this jurisprudence, apply it to yourself, and do not oppress others with it.
If we were to call for Quranic jurisprudence as mentioned above, and we said to the parliamentary legislator: Draft laws for the state and society that do not violate divine prohibitions or social peace. Here we begin our step towards renaissance and embracing modernity and catching up with the procession of civilization. There is no parliament in the world today that legislates laws contrary to Quranic jurisprudence.
The West and Quranic Jurisprudence:
We say the West is non-believing because their faith differs from ours, yet we do not dare to call them backward or failed! For it is we who are the failures and the backward. Failure and backwardness are qualities that apply to us, not to the West. However, let us examine the relationship between the West and Quranic jurisprudence through scientific research and economic statistics from leading global assessment centers.
A Western state has proven that Quranic legislation is a standard for economic growth, prosperity, human brotherhood, and civilizational advancement. Ireland, a small country with a population of 5 million, is globally the richest with the highest per capita income from Gross National Product. Its passport ranks fifth internationally in the Guide Passport Index, allowing visa-free travel to 187 destinations worldwide.
During the global economic contraction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ireland was the only economy in the world to record growth! Its economy is knowledge-based, focusing on modern technology services, life sciences, financial services, and agricultural business including agri-food. Ireland is an open economy, ranking sixth in the Economic Freedom Index and first in high-value foreign direct investment flows. It ranks fifth globally in GDP per capita according to the IMF and sixth out of 175 in the World Bank’s classification.
A study by professors of Islamic economics at George Washington University, Dr. Shahrazad Rahman and Dr. Hussein Askari, measured the extent to which governments and countries adhere to “Islamic economic teachings”. Shockingly, no Islamic country ranked among the top 30 in this study, with Ireland taking the top spot followed by Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, and the UK in the top five. The study aimed to measure government and country commitment to “Islamic economic teachings” through 113 criteria.
British researcher Paul Horsford conducted a scientific study published by The Journal revealing that Ireland is the most compliant country with Quranic legislation in the world, ahead of all Islamic countries! The study covered 208 countries based on criteria of economic achievements, human rights, political relations, and consultative power structures. Malaysia ranked first among Islamic countries at 33rd place, ahead of all the miserable Eastern countries, Kuwait at 48th, Bahrain at 61st, UAE at 64th, Saudi Arabia at 91st, Qatar at 111th, and Sudan at the bottom of the list.
It’s worth noting that Ireland does not practice Islamic rituals, which are part but not the entirety of Islam, nor a complete proof of it. Rather, righteous deeds that yield economic development, political freedom, and respect for diversity are practical evidence of Islam. Worship is not confined to mosques alone.
Imam Muhammad Abduh’s statement upon returning from his exile in Europe holds true: When asked about his impression of the West and Egypt, he replied, “In the West, I found Islam but not Muslims. In Egypt, I found Muslims but not Islam.”
In the West, atheists, Christians, Muslims, and Jews live peacefully and safely because there is a rhythm governed by civil law, not sectarianism. It respects everyone’s religious beliefs neutrally without interference in citizens’ faith.
Secularism is the Solution
Thus, we boldly assert that secularism is the solution, a solution to our sectarian conflicts such as Sunni and Shia, and a solution to our doctrinal disputes like Salafism and Ash’arism. It represents positive neutrality for the state, where laws are in favor of everyone without discrimination based on religion or sect. When Allah says, “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (Quran 2:256), the word “la” (no) here is negation in a universal sense, like saying “there is no bread in the house,” meaning religion and compulsion do not coexist. Compulsion belongs to the domain of authority, while religion is subject to voluntary acceptance. This succinctly captures the essence of secularism: the separation of religion from state authority.
When we argue that Islamic jurisprudence is not suitable for our era and advocate for Quranic values, it’s because these values, along with achievements of scientific reasoning, form the basis for progress, advancement, and knowledge. On this basis, we can envision a prosperous East.
This viewpoint aligns with prominent left-wing thinkers like Elias Murqus, Yasin al-Hafiz, and George Tarabishi, who highlight the importance of religion as a developmental factor, emphasizing the need for rationality and contemporaneity. In an interview with Elias Murqus, asked about their struggle for a socialist society in the 1950s and 1960s, he responded, “Now in the 1990s, we want only to build a society; whether it chooses socialism or something else is not important; what matters is that we are a society, not a herd being driven.”
Islamic Jurisprudence: Errors and Transgressions!
Islamic jurisprudence has errors and transgressions, enumerating them in this paper is quite challenging! It has become overly strict for the devout; where major sins numbered seven, Islamic jurisprudence made them seven hundred, and prohibited acts originally fifteen, became one hundred and fifteen thousand prohibitions, imposing undue restrictions on people’s lives. Notably, there is no verse in the Quran commanding strictness or hardship; rather, it says, “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” (Quran 2:185).
Islamic jurisprudence imposes narrow restrictions on personal details such as going to the restroom, bedroom arrangements, specifying undergarments, length of garments, and even issued a fatwa prohibiting washing men’s and women’s undergarments together! It intervenes in minute details of our lives as if dictating to minors.
Thus, narrowness and hardship have become hallmarks of this jurisprudence, with legal disputes being its predominant theme. Even the eminent jurist Sheikh Sayyid Sabiq, author of the renowned contemporary Islamic jurisprudence “Fiqh As-Sunnah,” criticized the obstinacy, narrowness, and hardship imposed by jurists on the devout, stating:
“Through imitation and fanaticism for schools of thought, the nation lost guidance through the Quran and Sunnah, and it was said that the gate of ijtihad (independent reasoning) was closed. The rulings of jurists became the Sharia, and the statements of jurists became the Sharia. Anyone diverging from their opinions was considered an innovator whose words could not be trusted, and his fatwas were not considered valid. This retrogressive spirit spread aided by rulers and the wealthy who founded schools that taught specific schools of thought… until the study of jurisprudence became a detriment to intellect and heart, wasting time, neither benefiting the religion of Allah nor organizing people’s lives.”
Furthermore, the topic of usury (riba) remains a divisive issue in Islamic jurisprudence, unresolved among scholars for over 1400 years. Even Umar ibn al-Khattab reportedly wished that the Prophet had clarified the specifics of riba before his passing, indicating deep disagreement among scholars on this issue since the earliest days. Did you know that riba al-fadl (interest on excess) is permissible, while riba al-nasi’ah (deferred payment interest) is forbidden? Muslims do not differentiate between them!
In conclusion, the critique of Islamic jurisprudence is multifaceted, touching on its overly restrictive nature, its minutiae in personal affairs, and its unresolved legal debates. This highlights the urgent need for reinterpretation and adaptation to contemporary realities, fostering a more flexible and inclusive approach that respects human rights and individual freedoms.
Civil Marriage: A Solution to Sectarian and Legal Issues
Today, marriage, once a sacred divine bond, has become a significant and dangerous social issue due to sectarian and doctrinal reasons. Thousands have fallen victim to disputes between spouses from different sects or schools of thought, influenced by fatwas issued by Islamic jurisprudence from various sects. It is high time we assert that civil marriage is the solution today, as it guarantees marital rights.
Thus, 99% of Islamic jurisprudence represents human interpretation. This human interpretation, with established principles and rules, is called legal maxims and principles of jurisprudence. It is based on Quranic and non-Quranic objectives. Those who established Islamic jurisprudence used legal rulings first, then sought justification for their legality.
Criticism of Islamic jurisprudence, following a lengthy study of the four schools of thought, comparative jurisprudence, legal maxims, and principles of jurisprudence, is not new. Sheikh Mustafa Al-Zarqa discussed it in his book “Islamic Jurisprudence and its Schools,” among the most important contemporary scholars. Abdul Jawad Yasin wrote about it in his book “Authority in Islam,” and Faraj Fouda in his book “The Absent Truth.” Mohammad Shahrour also addressed it in “Towards New Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence,” and Mahmoud Taha in his books “Islam: Its First Message Unsuitable for Humanity of the Twentieth Century” and “Towards a Future Project for Islam.”
Islamic jurisprudence used Quranic verses out of context to produce legal rules, principles, and judgments. Many of these were based on Hadiths that were later proven unreliable. Most of these jurisprudential rules emerged from social customs, political situations, and sectarian reasons, constraining people in their livelihoods, relationships, and hobbies.
Al-Mawardi said: “There are two types of fatwas: fatwas based on a text (Quranic or Hadith) and fatwas based on custom.”
As proponents of enlightenment, we believe that what is called prophetic traditions, if authentic, are temporal, not eternal. What is prohibited temporally cannot be made eternal, as evidenced by the fact that hadith collectors placed them in the category of prohibitions rather than definitive legal prohibitions. Therefore, they are not suitable as legislative material for our era and our countries.
Thus, Quranic jurisprudence is divine and binding for believers, while Islamic jurisprudence is human and non-binding. Quranic prohibitions are eternal, not rejected even by non-believers, while temporal prohibitions are like emergency laws.
Some may object, saying the primary Quranic prohibition is the prohibition of associating partners with Allah. First, respond to Christianity and Judaism, and respect their theology in this regard, and do not judge their faith based on your understanding. Furthermore, Allah will judge these matters on the Day of Judgment, not you or your sheikh. These issues have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of believers. Listen to His words:
“Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associated with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Quran 22:17)
Apart from divine prohibitions, legislative authority provides us with laws that serve the citizen, community, and state, which everyone must abide by. They are subject to change and alteration based on societal needs. We are not discussing here the legislation of worship such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and almsgiving; these issues have been researched to death. We are discussing the legislation produced by Islamic jurisprudence in its various schools, which, while valid in matters of worship, is unsuitable for our era and societies in matters of livelihood, society, economy, and politics. These jurisprudential schools have been the cause of our social problems, civil wars, excommunication, and bombings. It is time to move beyond them in matters of livelihood, society, economy, and politics.
The Limits of Allah in the Quran
In the Quran, the principle is that everything is permissible by default, and prohibition is incidental. Only Allah prohibits. He emphasized the principle of permissibility, stating:
“He it is who created for you all that is in the earth.” (Quran 2:29)
Thus, everything in the universe is permissible, and the verses about prohibitions are there to restrict what is permissible. So that no one would arrogantly claim that we are exceeding the limits set by Allah, we state that the limits of Allah are mentioned 12 times in the Quran, specifically referring to family relations, i.e., the rights of the family. Refer to them and read the Quran.
Conclusion
True reform and revolution begin with acknowledging that our cultural and intellectual knowledge and upbringing and many of our ideologies are no longer suitable for the development of society or the building of a modern state and a barrier to civil peace. We must seriously seek contemporary and adapted knowledge to get us out of the cave where we have been asleep for so long and the steep cliff we have been drowning in. The Quranic law came with honesty and trust, chastity and justice, social and national solidarity, and ordered the guarantee of the orphan and the care of the widows and called for the mercy and dissemination of knowledge and the fight against ignorance and ordered peace and consultation, and blessed every human work. It is the law that commanded everyone, saying: “Help one another in good and piety and do not help each other in sin and aggression and fear God, God is strong in punishment.” We know very well that what we say here is difficult for some of them, and this is normal, for in societies that sanctify ignorance, awareness is heresy! Those who fear for their jurisprudential heritage and narratives from criticism are those who have never read, and if they read, they have never used their minds, or they are afraid of their wrong Muslim from their secrets being exposed. Finally, we say to the Salafis: The jurisprudential judgments are fixed sayings, and the facts and emergencies are changing and renewable, and the establishment of the reality with sayings that passed by a thousand years or more is impossible! Either we establish the moving, which is impossible, so we must go beyond the fixed, and we must strive for the moving. And we say to the scholars and sheikhs: A state with two heads, which is the state of reference, is a failed state, and there must be one reference to which all citizens resort, religious and non-religious. We say to the jihadists: True jihad is the jihad of scientific research, invention, and innovation, not excommunication, bombing, and intimidation. God is love, not an excuse to shed the blood of his servants. We say to political Islam: Advancing the idea that Islam is religion and state is a stake in the fire of war, which has consumed the lives of our sons over a hundred years. You have failed in all its battles, and there is no place in our era for a religious state, but for the state of civil citizenship, the people in which are citizens, not protected persons. We say to the opponents of enlightenment: Whenever we come up with a Quranic idea that contradicts your first fathers, you say that you have brought new things in religion, so you object to us and mock us. We respond to you with the Quran: “And no new reminder comes to them from the Most Merciful except they turn away from it. Thus, they have denied, so there will come to them the news of what they used to mock.” And we must distinguish between Islam as a religion and the history of Muslims, for our history is not a religion, and we distinguish between Quranic law and Islamic jurisprudence, and the history of criticism and the jurisprudential diligence is a duty of awakening. It has been proven that the neutral state is the state of citizenship, and it is the most just with its citizens. If citizenship is the aim, then Islam is not Islam except with justice. And if it means human honor, the Quran was the first to encourage this, and it ordered us to judge among people, not on people, with justice. Religion is for God and the country for everyone.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
