Need for reinterpretation?

[Faisal]

There are many who repeat that many issues facing Muslims today require ijtihad, meaning that the sacred texts of Islam need to be interpreted in the light of contemporary realities and modern knowledge. They espescially point out the role of women, treatment of non-Muslims and economic issues.

What do you think? Is there a need for itjihad or should the doors stay shut?

:yoga:

[Wandering star]

They always need to stay open for the following reasons

a) Peoples brains develop, they see things differently.

- eg people in the past used to believe the sun goes round the earth, now they know differently.

b) a person makes a decision X, based on info ABC available at the time.

- now with the availability of technology, we may be able to get ABCD

c) people are always influenced by the political situation at a time.
- Therefore by re-assessing things now, we can separate the influence from the facts.

d) you should be able to ask question to a person as to why he made a decision.

- It is difficult to do this if a person has passed away. (thats is not to say his research and analysis is of no use.)

e) People may have been made a decision Y because they were told FGH about a group of people.

- it may turn out that FGH was wrong, in actual fact it was HIJ, therefore the decision (though made in good faith at the time) may be wrong.

[Faisal]

Points noted. :smiley:

Let me provide an example that may help illustrate your points: Imam Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafi'i, one of the founders of Islamic jurisprudence, gave a certain legal opinion in Baghdad. One year later he moved to Cairo, and in response to the same question he gave a very different opinion. Someone questioned him, "Oh Imam, last year in Baghdad you gave a different answer," and he replied, "That was in Baghdad and this is in Cairo. That was last year and this is now."

[Osman]

. . . the sacred texts of Islam need to be interpreted in the light of contemporary realities and modern knowledge. . .
:yoga:

Can you please give an example? :)

[Faisal]

Can you please give an example? :)

I did not state my opinion, as you can read, and I have also stated some issues that have been thought to require ijtihad.

Let's take one specific example: Interest is haram. This creates problems for Muslim in the West, without paying interest Muslims cannot buy houses, cars, save money and so on. Scholars living in the Islamic world don't understand how difficult it is to avoid and most of them prohibit Muslim in the West from paying it. However, scholars living in the West, who self experience the difficulties, allow it. How is right? I'm not sure, but I favour the last opinion. Maybe it's because I live in a non-Muslim country? I don't know, only God knows best.

[hamid_al-murid]

salaam

be reopened by whom, and who closed them, and when?

wassalaam
hamid

[Wandering star]

Faisal,

While i am all for keeping ijtihad open.

I dont think that the example you just stated is necassarily a good one.

Because, you can re analyse things, but you cant change facts to suit your needs.

I'm not sure on the specifics, but i think it is pretty clear that usury was disallowed, by the prophet.

Under a re-analysis the authenticity of the relevant hadiths may be looked at again, also based on the analysis of the hadiths the rulings may change. But i personally think that this particular example would not.

Anyway, what is the justification given by the 'western scholars' why it should be allowed.

The reason 'theres no other way for a system to function' is not good enough.

[Faisal]

Wandering star,

There is an agreed upon rule which states that necessities turn unlawful matters lawful. This rule is derived from the Qur’an:

“But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits; (for him) certainly, your Lord is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (An-Nahl: 115)

The argument is not that 'theres no other way for a system to function' but rather there is no other system.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

The doors are ALWAYS open. It is part of Islam.

[Guest]

Whoever said they were closed? We do ijtihaad all the time. In the choices u make in ur life, u do ijtihaad:confused:.

[Faisal]

Whoever said they were closed? We do ijtihaad all the time. In the choices u make in ur life, u do ijtihaad:confused:.

It is generally believed that religious scholars effectively terminated the practice of ijtihad five hundred years ago (or even long before that according to Allama Iqbal). Muslims adopted a more conservative stance in an attempt to preserve traditional values and institutions. As a result, many scholars became inclined to view innovation and adaptation negatively.

[Ansar Al-Haq]

I never heard of this. You cannot terminate a source of Islam. There are five sources:

1. Qur'an
2. Sunnah
3. Qiyas (analogies between Sunnah and present)
4. Ijma (consensus of Scholars)
5. Ijtihad

So the doors of Ijtihad must always be open but we should also realize that Qiyas and Ijmaa have priority over Ijtihad, and Ijtihad is only the last resort.

[mule]

Need for reinterpretation......

I don't understand this. If God wanted to change his mind wouldn't he just send another prophet? By interpreting in the light of contemporary realities and modern knowledge you will change the meaning of your religion. If God wanted a change then he would send a messenger. He would also tell you in advance what he was going to do.

mule

[Ansar Al-Haq]

We don't reinterprite the values or rules. We reinterprite the applications, where the religion is usually silent.

[hasan]

Yes ..the problem is precedences formulated with ijtihad by past scholars holding sway over current issues..in reality the problem is the demise in the number of scholars..

I read somewhere that there had been a claim in the 11th century by a group of scholars that the need for ijtihad was closed because past rulings were able to be sustained to accomodate the times..but I believe that somehow there has been a misconception amongst the laity that the doors were to be closed..are there ijazas for ijtihad ?..I would expect so; afterall it may help to suppress the flooding of unregulated or vigilante fatwas...

[Wandering star]

Wandering star,

There is an agreed upon rule which states that necessities turn unlawful matters lawful. This rule is derived from the Qur’an:

“But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits; (for him) certainly, your Lord is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (An-Nahl: 115)

The argument is not that 'theres no other way for a system to function' but rather there is no other system.


I like your point.

So under a 're-interpretation' the scholars would set the 'boundaries', based on all available information.

[Faisal]

I like your point.

So under a 're-interpretation' the scholars would set the 'boundaries', based on all available information.

Exactly. The Shariah has a basic objective that its rulings are good for the people.

[Osman]

I understand what you mean now :)