Alulu
Member
"Sharia" is an empty phrase actually. And it is definately not solely "Gods word" that we just have to "implement" and then all will be fine. Sharia is what scholars through their ijtihad (effort) think is God's word or "meaning on how Muslims should live". And in that effort they differ....because the Quran leaves many things open for time, place and society. And they also differ because they have a different approach on how to understand the primary and secondary sources regarding jurisprudence. Which is not a problem and never has been in orthodoxy, as long as we agree upon the fundamentals. And even from the prophet Muhamad (saws) there are many examples from which we can understand that different approaches to understand the Quran and apply it to their actual lives (so the living reality, not just theory) was different. This is why in the Sunni orthodoxy up until this day 4 different schools of law survived with each having a dinstinct way of understanding the primary and secondary sources and shaping them into jurisprudential opinions. The fundamentals (usul) of those law schools have been passed on from the earliest times. Some school gives more importance to opinion and reason in drawing up jurisprudential conclusions, others base it solely on authentic secondary narrations and a third argues (maliki law school) that the narrations that are nowadays customized such as Bukhari should be left aside when the living practice of the earliest Muslims in Medina points to another Islamic practice. Why? Cuz Imam Malik and his teachers argued that the prophet lived there for many years so thats actually where the living "Islamic practices" can be found if all the Muslims act on it...and it was according to his approach stronger then a narration that came down to him from "iraq", even if it would be authentic.
1) Muslims should first stop thinking that "the sharia" is somehow a direct revelation of God....it is not. How and what u apply is subject to ijtihad (effort) of a scholars....and can therefore be critically taken a look at. 2) A prerequisite of giving legal opinions for scholars is knowing the time and place, because a legal opinion should deal with reality. And based on that reality an answer is formed. Islamic law has many different principes (ahkaam sharia) that are considered while forming a legal opinion.
The sharia for example does not define exactly what kind of clothes Muslim men and women can wear. It does give certain "parameters", as long as the clothes fall within those parameters it is Islamically correct and can therefore be considered "Islamic". Whether the dress is from a cultural point of view Arab, Eskimo, American or Malaysian does not matter. In certain cultures very colourful clothing can be considered "inappropriate" for women to wear, as if they want to "attract attention". Whereas in other (mainly West-African) Muslim cultures such colourful clothing for women have always been there and is not a problem at all. In this example you have different realities, according to their own cultural norms, but both are Muslims....in some cases you find that in one country something is Islamically deemed by scholars as perfectly fine (West Africa for example) whereas in the other country far away it is deemed inappropriate according to their reality.
Islam and the Quran is complete as a source of guidance for our lives. It is not a lawbook, or constitution, or science book etc. Nowehere does it claim that to be. However, through the Quran and the guidance it gives we can find answers for all times. Because it upholds key principles in order to live a good life....nevertheless to give those principles a specific character might chagne from time to time and culture to culture.
The ahadith/narrations are nothing more but important narrations that are used as a secondary source of law in orthodoxy, because we can see through them what the prophet did, did not, encouraged, disapproved, why he did certain actions and much more. The importance of those narrations in Islamic jurisprudence is another question, on which Union for example differs from the orthodox vision. However, also within the orthodox sunni application of ahadith narrations you find within the different law schools and classical scholars distinct attitudes when certain narrations were adopted to form a legal opinion, or were left aside. This goes back to the "fundamentals" and different approaches there are on how to understand and extract legal opinions from the Islamic sources.
Last edited:
