Impression of Prophet as a Pan-Legist

[Aasem]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Is there a tendency to suggest that there was some activity based phenomena that can be called 'Islamic Law' technically in the pre formative development period of Islamic methodology i.e. primarily the greater part of first century.

To elaborate further, I would explain below for simplicity and invite you to give your valuable opinions regarding the primary role of Prophet(pbuh)?

I have established two sides for it.

Side One...

Was he chiefly a moral reformer to teach us what to do and what to avoid in order to pass the reckoning on the Day of Judgement and to enter paradise. If we hold this opinion, are we forced to believe that law as such would lie outside the religious sphere and would only come into picture as a corollary to the principle in form of few ad hoc instances here and there. Would that mean that we as Muslims are only provided with generalised guidelines in the form of Quranic injunctions and elements of Prophetic Sunnah and are free to form the details of the law based on these guidelines. Would that be called a progressive and dynamic approach to Islam.

Side Two...

Besides being a moral reformer he endeavoured to furnish neatly the tiny details of law from administration to ritual purity. He did not merely exercised his judgements occasionally but resorted to general legislation to provide a firm and finely detailed juridical base that can be called 'Islamic Law'. If we long to follow that; would that be called a regressive, backward looking, rigid and stagnant approach to Islam.

In this discussion, it is not mendatory for the participants to choose one side. They can resort to any other approach that takes a little from both or may be an entirely new approach to law that didn't come to my mind.

Am I sound too formal. That is why I seldom start a thread. I am horrible at posing questions .

wassalam
-Aasem

[Haroon]

Salaam Aasem

Good topic.

The way I have always thought about this, is depending upon the levels of knowledge. We can put knowledge into 3 distinct categories.

Natural consciousness - fitrah, nafs e.t.c.
Progressive observation, understanding - science, maths e.t.c.
Divine revelation - Prophets, Holy Books e.t.c.

Now your first theory:"Would that be called a progressive and dynamic approach to Islam." - Well, I dont think this is the case. You see, the first two of three ive listed above are capabilities of all humans. Everyone can consciously understand and grow, everyone can observe and learn and grow. How many can get revelation? If the point is left open to discussion, what will happen is that rather than one way, there will be many ways, based on speculation on the part of different parties.

Your second theory: He did not merely exercised his judgements occasionally but resorted to general legislation to provide a firm and finely detailed juridical base that can be called 'Islamic Law'. If we long to follow that; would that be called a regressive, backward looking, rigid and stagnant approach to Islam. ~ Honestly, i dont see why or how. Can you imagine the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the seat currently occupied by G.W.B? What would the world be like then? Regressive? Backward looking? Rigid, stagnant?

Complete religion, complete mercy. We know through the consciousness and observation, that everything he came with has served us all well and has satisfied us deeply. I dont see why it should be an open ended law book. Its the morales and ideas that he can and went with. They were all noble, and undoubtedly, the entire world would become a better place if they were implemented. Imagine all the noble people on this board, Ron, Ratatosk, Hischam, Vinod, Muhtadiyah (sorry guys, cant be asked to list all 50 of you), we can tell that they have the right characteristics that people in this world need. Imagine one of them writing a law book, it would probably be quite good, no? Well, then imagine the Prophet (pbuh), in a league exalted and supported by God Himself, what wonders do you think he did with law?

And Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knows best.

Regards

[hlatif]

Salaam all, Aasem,

You ask a very interesting and very complex question that has many aspects to it and has many issues that need to be addressed. In some sense, your question may be a question about to what extent we follow Hadith in our legislation. There are points that one may want to consider in anwering this question:

1- The Qur'an has very few specific rules and many general rules. Therefore the Qur'an may be the Islamic constitution that one will need to follow. One may want to ask. Why did GOD not put the specific rules in the Qur'an? There are many potential answers to this question and one of them could be that the eternal message is the one in the Qur'an while the specific message that lies in the Hadith may not necessarily be for all time.

2- The Muslim Imams of the early period used their Ijtihad in their legislation as in Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa and even Awzai.

3- The issue of Ijmaa wsa very important concept in the legislation. This came about because of the famous Hadith that suggested that Muslims don't agree on error. However the concept of consultation was a very important islamic concept due to the Aya "Wa Amruhum shura bainhaum"= "And their affair is consultation between them".

4- Imam Shafii introduced the concept of use of Hadith mainly because he noticed that IJMAA became an impossibility. Shafii understood that Ijmaa has to cover all the Umma while others believed that Ijmaa is for each community. In any case, the Hadith concept arrived on the scene to help conformity.

5- Imam ibn Hanbal came on the scene and used Hadith extensively to arrive at his legisaltions. This made him collect the biggest collection of Hadith. This made it easy to pass a legislation and at the same time made the art of Fiqh less intellectual because all one had to do is find a hadith to support a certain legal opinion.

However, there are issues that one has to always use for the modern time:

1- The issue of authenticity of any Hadith is always a question. Contrary to many opinons, it has never been resolved and it will never be because the scope of the science of men is too wide.

2- There were always situations were it was permissible not to take the Hadith as a source of legislation. Those situations depended on the nature of hadith, the interpretability of the hadith, how it correpsonds to the sunna and the Qur'an and so forth.

3- The science of Qiyas=analogy to reach legislation has it's limits. Therefore can one really say that a particular situation that posed itself on the prophet 1400 years ago really analogous to a situation that happens today? When does analogy apply and when does it not.

4- The Kufa school of thought was one of the relatively resistant schools at using some Hadiths especially whenever there was a clear Qur'anic rule or a clear absence of a Qur'anic rule.

Because of all the above, I believe that my answer is somewhere in between your point one and two. I do believe that the prophet was a legislator for his time, yet there is room of ourselves to come to our conclusions using what is available to us of general rules to come to legislations that work for our days.

It could be that I am talking too much but I hope that this is of help to some. Take care all.

For those who want to read more:

1- Read Fazlurrahman's book on Islamic methodology, also his book Islam
2- This article in arabic about a book written by Ibn Rushd. If you read arabic, you wil find this article interesting
http://www.alghad.jo/?news=44265
3- This is a letter written by Ibn Taymiyyah about when a person may not use hadith:
http://ibntaimiah.al-islam.com/Displ...&ParagraphID=1

It is important. However, it is very long. I can translate the highlights if a good number is interested in seeing what is in it.

Salaam all and have a great day


Hussein

[Aasem]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Jazakumullaah Haroon and Hussein. I appreciate your responses. I have few observations on both and that I will speak for both the sides so please do not infer that I am taking an hackneyed approach towards this discussion or doing it just for the sake of it. Its just my way of reaching temporary conclusions.

If the point is left open to discussion, what will happen is that rather than one way, there will be many ways, based on speculation on the part of different parties.

You may be right to an extent but can it be called sheer speculation? I hope you agree that it cannot be called blind conjecturing. In other words it is not simply open ended as an umbrella guideline is provided in the form of Quran and that would decided about the degree of deviation also. Perhaps it is the divine wish that there might exist many ways originating from a common origin and binded by the same guideposts.

Well, then imagine the Prophet (pbuh), in a league exalted and supported by God Himself, what wonders do you think he did with law?

Speaking of the realities on ground he is no more there. But all the good people you have mentioned are here to run the affairs of the world. If it was Allah's desire that the manifestations of His laws would remain same for all times to come then He must have assigned that role to His messenger. And if He has really assigned that role, Prophet must have made sure through his acts that it is materialised for all times to come. Do we see the signs pointing to this fact in history or otherwise? What is your opinion?

wassalam
-Aasem

[Aasem]

Assalam-o-Alaikum

The Qur'an has very few specific rules and many general rules. Therefore the Qur'an may be the Islamic constitution that one will need to follow. One may want to ask. Why did GOD not put the specific rules in the Qur'an? There are many potential answers to this question and one of them could be that the eternal message is the one in the Qur'an while the specific message that lies in the Hadith may not necessarily be for all time.

Constitution generally directs about the affairs of legislating bodies and provide them with guidelines leaving the specifics on their disposal. A more pertinent question may be that why some rules at all. Why not the eternal message only.

I intentionally leave your point 2,3,4 and 5 at the moment with an agreeing note that what ever the Imams did was guided by the Quran and Sunnah. Secondly there actions can be understood by both the hypothetical sides (that I have established) in their favor or against. Partly because it is based on selective data which never gives the complete picture. So we might come to it later when we establish some strong ground for both sides to stand on.

Because of all the above, I believe that my answer is somewhere in between your point one and two. I do believe that the prophet was a legislator for his time, yet there is room of ourselves to come to our conclusions using what is available to us of general rules to come to legislations that work for our days.

So is he not a legislator for all times? I would just like to see the basis why you tend to remain somewhere between one and two. If you accept the existence of room for ourselves to legislate according to our circumstances; What are the extents of our legislative motions? Or do you mean to suggest that we would exercise our legislative powers when all the ways and methods to arrive at a Prophetic legislation fail. In other words we would use our judgement or reasoning to act as if Prophet wuld have acted if he would be here at our place. Please if it wont bother you; I would need a little more clarification.

Read Fazlurrahman's book on Islamic methodology, also his book Islam

Jazak Allah for pointing to the correct sources. Indeed a magnificent read.

wassalam
-Aasem

[Al-Boriqi]

you know I got to pick on you hlatif but

Because of all the above, I believe that my answer is somewhere in between your point one and two. I do believe that the prophet was a legislator for his time, yet there is room of ourselves to come to our conclusions using what is available to us of general rules to come to legislations that work for our days.

Well, maybe some advise.

If you are or will use your opinion on matters , hopefully it would be on a matter that was never touched upon before.

But ifthe methodology of deriving hukaam, of course you know the primary source if the
1. the speech of Allah, this speech is found in the quraan
2. The sunnah of the prophet whcih is found in the narrations
3. the statements clearly stated by the majority of the sahab
4. The statementf the salaf (and reconciling them if there are contradictory reports to see whcih best fits the book and sunnah
5. The statements oft he aimah of those after the salaf, only because in the specific sense they are those who have greater knoweldge than us.

6. Then if nothing is found then of course you are fourced to present your opinion.

Im just giving you some advise as to not boldly (not saying you are) seek out what you have decided on a matter. This is only because our predecessors were very weary of presenting their own qiyaas on matters. In fact, one of the main reasons that Imam Abu Haneefah rahimahllah had been counted as from the fuqahatul-Murjiah is due to the actual methodology of arriving at Islamic conclusions through qiyaas. It has been proven by hisotry and the countless aimah that holding the qiyaas to be the last source for arriving at a conclusion is a far bnetter methodology than placing it before looking atr the texts.

just wanted to pointt hat out akhee

asalamu laiakum

[vinod]

3- This is a letter written by Ibn Taymiyyah about when a person may not use hadith:
http://ibntaimiah.al-islam.com/Disp...1&ParagraphID=1

It is important. However, it is very long. I can translate the highlights if a good number is interested in seeing what is in it.

I'm interested.

Was-salam

[hlatif]

salaam all,

I will address your points GOD willing.

Constitution generally directs about the affairs of legislating bodies and provide them with guidelines leaving the specifics on their disposal. A more pertinent question may be that why some rules at all. Why not the eternal message only.

I may not be understanding your point. However, there are those Two Ayat:

5:44 --------If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

5:45 ---------And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

So, in placing a HUKM which is translated as rule/judgement or a steering action of any kind, GOD and his message have to be considered. The prophet lived this rule and therefore the way he made his judgements are a good demonstration of how a judgement by GOD came to being implemented. The Question to me is:

1- Is the prophet to be used as a guide on how to reach a legislation?
2- Or is he to be followed to the letter?

I am inclined to think that he was a guide and he left a good deal to us. That is why there is the statement of "WA Amruhum Shura Bainahum"= "And their affair is consultation". Therefore we are supposed to disagree and discuss and bring our different proofs in the light of the Qur'an and the Sunna.

So is he not a legislator for all times? I would just like to see the basis why you tend to remain somewhere between one and two. If you accept the existence of room for ourselves to legislate according to our circumstances; What are the extents of our legislative motions? Or do you mean to suggest that we would exercise our legislative powers when all the ways and methods to arrive at a Prophetic legislation fail. In other words we would use our judgement or reasoning to act as if Prophet wuld have acted if he would be here at our place. Please if it wont bother you; I would need a little more clarification.

In order for me to commit to your number 1 or 2 options, I have to look at every ruling that the prophet did and then decide if it can be implemented today or not. I have not done so. Therefore I expect that some judgements that were attributed to the prophet will stand the test of time and others will not. Examples of questions to arise:

1- The legislators put a minimal worth of things stolen in order to implement the HADD of cutting the hand. Is that minimal amount still standing? What should it be today? How can we count inflation?

2- Issues of Islamic banking and lending mechanisms. Very wide issues that will span many questions as in:

a) Is Islamic banking a way to impose interest without calling it interest?
b) Is interest that is equal to inflation Riba?

Brother Izaaree, I appreciate your thoughful response and I hope that I am answering some of them as I answered Aasem.

1. the speech of Allah, this speech is found in the quraan
2. The sunnah of the prophet whcih is found in the narrations
3. the statements clearly stated by the majority of the sahab
4. The statementf the salaf (and reconciling them if there are contradictory reports to see whcih best fits the book and sunnah
5. The statements oft he aimah of those after the salaf, only because in the specific sense they are those who have greater knoweldge than us.

6. Then if nothing is found then of course you are fourced to present your opinion.

However, there is a very intersting and very important area that we need to pay attention to and that is:

It is important to know what they ruled. However, it can be equally important to know what their actual discussions and disagreements were and how they arrrived at their conclusions. We also have to keep in mind that the minority opinion that was declared wrong in their times may be a more correct one for our times taking our time in consideration.

So, my point is that we have to reassess their opinions and find our own. The most important thing they left us are not the rules, it is the methodology and the discussion points and we can disagree with them if we use the same appropriate rules and methodology in the light of our days.

Salaam all and have a grood day.


Hussein

[hlatif]

Salam Vinod,

I will try to translate the main points because it is long. Others who know arabic may want to point their understandings as well sicne Ibn Taymiyyah did use some legalese in this letter.

Three main reasons on why would one not take a Hadith as a source of ruling:

1- Not believing that the prophet said the Hadith
2- Believing that what was meant does not apply to a particular issue.
3- Believing that the rule by the prophet was abrogated.

The three come into many other categories that come here and that are excuses for refusing a hadith for a legislation:
1- Hadith did not reach a legislator.
2- Hadith reached a person but, it was not proven either because of some deficiency of the Sanad or because of unknown people in the Sanad
3- Believing that the Hadith is weak despite that others declared it Sahih: Here Ibn Taymiyyah points out that the science of men is very wide and is full of disagreements. Also that some people had differing stages of acceptabilities during their lives and one may need to know that.

Another important point mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah here was that the people from Hijaz did not accept the Hadiths that came from Iraq because of the turmoil of their time. Same applied to Hadiths that came from SHAM= Syria, lebanon, palestine and Jordan of our times.

Hussein point:
This is the reason that the Shia Scholars do not accept all the hadiths from Sunni Books. Shia scientists of men do not accept as thiqa many Sahaba and narrators, sometimes it looks unreasonable as in not accepting Omar or Abu Bakr, while others they are very reasonable in not accepting:

Abu Huraira
Muwaiya
Amr bin AlASS
Mughira Bin Shuiba

and so forth.

4- Putting extra conditions on accepting a HADITH AHAD= A HADITH that was narrated by four or less independant cahins of narrations down to the prophet.

Those conditions can be passing the Qur'an and Sunna test, that the narrator of the Hadith be a Faqih or scientist or religion, and the third is that a hadith is well known and already implemented in case it was to affect the general population.

5- Forgetting the Hadith
6- Not being able to reach a conclusion from a Hadith and that is because the language is confusing or that the words can carry differing meanings.
7- Belief that the message of the HAdith is incorrect because of other evidence that the person may have that points otherwise.

From here on the points are more complicated:
8- The belief that the message of the Hadith is contradicted by knowledge that shows that it is not desired. examples are making a general rule particular or an absolute rule have conditions or the other way around.

9- Belief that the Hadith is weak or abrogated or open to interpretation because it contradicts something that was approved by Ijmaa or by a clear Aya from the Qur'an.

10- Belief that the Hadith is weak or abrogated or open to interpretations even though others did not believe so.

Here Ibn Taymiyyah mentions a very significant issue and that is the people in KUFA or TAbieen and their followers did not accept Sahih Hadiths if they were different from clear Qur'anic injunctions. Some considered that the absence of Clear Qur'anic injunctions is a clear injunction not to accept a hadith that contains a ruling even when the Qur'an does not contradict the Hadith. The Kufis considered that the Sunna's place is to interpret the Qur'an and not to add interpretations. To the Kufis, the Qur'an is way above and more important than the Hadith.

Another is that people of Madina considered that Ijmaa takes precedence over Sahih Hadith. and there are other contests against the Hadith using this kind of reasoning.

Here, Ibn Taymiyyah points out that people as Shafii and Ibn Hanbal are against this reasoning. However, the people of Kufa were of the TAbieen which is not the case of Either Shafii or Ibn Hanbal.

This is in brief how it was written. Of course He wrote more but I made it shorter. I did fidn the issue of the Kufa people to be very intersting significant and they were not one or two but a school of thought.

I hope that this helps some of us. Take care all


Hussein

[Aasem]

Assalam-o-Alaikum,

So, in placing a HUKM which is translated as rule/judgement or a steering action of any kind, GOD and his message have to be considered. The prophet lived this rule and therefore the way he made his judgements are a good demonstration of how a judgement by GOD came to being implemented.

I infer from this statement that when we are asked to judge according to what Allah has revealed we regard Prophet as a model of deductive reasoning to deduce legislations from Quran. The methodology of deductive reasoning has reached us through narratives that will always remain doubtful (as you have shown us amply in your posts). It would mean that we are not left with any consistent Prophetic source to base criteria of our legislations though we have Quran which as we have agreed, describes very little regarding details of law.

I am inclined to think that he was a guide and he left a good deal to us. That is why there is the statement of "WA Amruhum Shura Bainahum"= "And their affair is consultation". Therefore we are supposed to disagree and discuss and bring our different proofs in the light of the Qur'an and the Sunna.

Please read what I am going to write now in continuation with the above. You mentioned his guidance and said that he left a good deal to us but if you look closely it is virtually reduced to bare minimum as consultation about deductive reasoning behind Prophetic directives is very unlikely to be agreed upon by all. Again we are left conjecturing. However I agree that consultation has value if the arguments presented by different people in the process for consultation are to be weighed against some agreed upon metrics. So I can understand when you talk about discussing 'different proofs in the light of Quran' but it is really hard to find Sunnah in your argument.

The legislators put a minimal worth of things stolen in order to implement the HADD of cutting the hand. Is that minimal amount still standing? What should it be today? How can we count inflation?

I take this case as an example to explain what I am trying to say and what I infer from your valuable opinion. We agree that Quran mentions very directly regarding amputating hand of a man or woman who indulges in theft. Quran obviously leaves the implementation to the Prophet. Your questions regarding the implementation methodology of this Hadd are quite valid and no body can disagree however you opine that the matter is left open ended as Prophet has lived through his time and we are free to reach an implementation mechanism through mutual consultation in the light of Prophet's deductive reasoning. Right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now lets try to dig that reasoning for the sake of discussion. The first problem we face is regarding the agreeable sources about the prescription of minimal amount. I select three Ahadith that are common in Bukhariy and Muslim's collection. According to the first Prophet has prescribed the upper limit as Quarter of a dinaar or more. In second, he orders to cut off the hand of a thief for stealing a shield that was worth three dirhams and the third mentions that he told that Allah curses a man who steals an egg or a rope and gets his hand cut off. There is yet another in which he gave us the most valuable guidline regarding justice - that even if it was his daughter Fatima, he would have carried on with the punishment. Leave the last one for a moment (as it is regarding Adl and not about setting the minimal amount)and analyse the former three. What is the reasoning behind setting the minimal amount to a quarter of a dinaar or 3 dirham? Why not 5 dinaar or 10 dirhams. Should a person who stole an egg or a rope today face the punishment of amputation or not. I just want to reach some grounds to agree upon a principle.

We can only conjecture yet the most we can deduce for sure is that there should be a minimal amount in present circumstances also if we want to implement this Hadd in today's world. How much - it doesn't matter? How do we reach it - doesn't matter either? and whether to fix it or keep it flexible dont matter either? What matters is that we have decided through consultation and in the light of Prophetic activity that there should be a minimum amount. But again some hypothetical circumstances might suggest something else and we have examples too, as in case of Omar when he suspended the Hadd punishments during scarcity of food. Secondly, a person may argue that these are just individual reports and we can not base the procedural law on sole authority of these reports which are ascribed to the Prophet. We can go on and on with this but it is very easy to analyse that with this line of reasoning, we are left with no guidance from Prophetic activity - we just have Amr-o-hum Sura'a Baina-hum in the light of Quran.

a) Is Islamic banking a way to impose interest without calling it interest? b) Is interest that is equal to inflation Riba?

If we see in detail we would come up with same line of reasoning as above. Instead of looking into traditions ascribed to Prophet regarding implementation of Ribaa, I would just quote Fazlur Rehmaan regarding bank interest as he touched that issue in the book you refered in your first post. He writes:

Further, that the bank interest of today is legitimately covered by the definition of commerce is difficult to deny. It is for the economists and the monetary technicians to say whether interest-less banking can function in today's world or not. If it works, it is all to the good. But if it does not, then to insist that today's commercial banking - with an overall controlled economy - comes under the Quranic prohibition and is banned by the Prophetic Sunnah is not so much historical or religious honesty but an acute crisis of human confidence and uncompromising cynicism. The Quran and Sunnah were given for intelligent moral understanding and implementation, not for rigid formalism. (page 79-80, Islamic Methodology in History)

I slightly remember reading a more detailed analysis in his book Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition - I am sorry I cant cite as it is not with me now. The above opinion does not matter as all of us can differ with it; what matters is the course through which we reach our opinions. Frankly speaking, it is too hard to find tangible dynamics of Sunnah (contemporary or classical) in his argument about law regarding interest. It is again mutual consultation through reasoning and Quran according to his understanding and it is fine as long as one admits it.

In order for me to commit to your number 1 or 2 options, I have to look at every ruling that the prophet did and then decide if it can be implemented today or not. I have not done so. Therefore I expect that some judgements that were attributed to the prophet will stand the test of time and others will not.

I understand the point you are making and it is valid yet it is not what I was refering to. I dont want you to commit to any of the hypothetical sides in its entirety. I just wanted to see the principle on which we can base our legal systems in todays world. The derivation of that principle chiefly lies in agreeing about the role of the Prophet. I hope you understand that decision regarding Prophetic judgements standing the test of time is solely based on individual assessment of his actions and there will always be a possibility of as many opinions as persons. I am sure you would agree that it was intended by Allah that his Prophet's whole life, decisions, judgments and commands should have the force of law. The authority of the Prophet does not rest on the acceptance of community, scholars and lawyers but on the will of Allah Himself. Either we have to completely divorce his legal activities from the ambit of modern legislation or we have to resort to actions authentically attributed to him.

On a slightly different note, Side One's argument will also have to disregard that Prophet indulged in formal judicial activities and extended his legal base to his appointed judges as he could have left it to mutual consultation in the light of Quran and his actions; not fixing them with a feeling that they have to follow him in letter (as you have pointed so). We have to look into historical evidence of Islamic law of first century and we might see some interesting dynamics working there.

wassalam
-Aasem

[hlatif]

Salaam Aasem,

Thanks for this very intellectual and stimulating discussion:

I infer from this statement that when we are asked to judge according to what Allah has revealed we regard Prophet as a model of deductive reasoning to deduce legislations from Quran. The methodology of deductive reasoning has reached us through narratives that will always remain doubtful (as you have shown us amply in your posts). It would mean that we are not left with any consistent Prophetic source to base criteria of our legislations though we have Quran which as we have agreed, describes very little regarding details of law.

Several issues here:
1- Yes there is doubt when it comes to single narrations. The degree of doubt decreases as the number of narrations increase. When there are many narrations touching the same subject from different angles, then one may be able to deduce a general rule that crosses them all and that would approach Mutawatir status. However, one has to be carefull in their deductions. For example the issue of Bid'a that was discussed earlier. I voiced doubt about certain statements that were too strong and too condemning, however, I cannot deny that there is a certain negative feeling towards Bid'a. So, here, you take different hadiths and make a conclusion and you link to the common denominator. I did fault the reasoning that suggested that there are many hadiths that were anti Bid'a and therefore everything in all those hadiths has to be correct. I hope that you can see the difference here.

2- Doubt is not a contraindication to using Hadith for legislation. As you pointed out, we have to resort to conjecture vs doubt. This would be the reason for discussion between people. The ones that prefer Hadith present them and make their case that doubt is low, while the others will have to make a better case. Both, will have to abide by the general principles of the Qur'an.

3- The most important thing about Doubt is that we always have to keep it in perspective. We can use it in legislation, however we always have to remember the doubt. This means that we can always challenge according to new developments, new understandings and so forth. The problem with muslims of today is not the legislation, it is taking the legislation as untouchable when it was adopted through doubt, reasoning and discussion.

You mentioned his guidance and said that he left a good deal to us but if you look closely it is virtually reduced to bare minimum as consultation about deductive reasoning behind Prophetic directives is very unlikely to be agreed upon by all.

Well one has to agree on who has to agree on what? Do all muslims have to agree on an issue that is local in nature? Do all muslims have to agree with a judge in a certain decision? I think that we need to redefine the meaning of Ijma'a in the light of a world of 1.2 billion people. It may have to have room for local or group Ijmaa in the peripheral matters.

We can only conjecture yet the most we can deduce for sure is that there should be a minimal amount in present circumstances also if we want to implement this Hadd in today's world. How much - it doesn't matter? How do we reach it - doesn't matter either? and whether to fix it or keep it flexible dont matter either? What matters is that we have decided through consultation and in the light of Prophetic activity that there should be a minimum amount. But again some hypothetical circumstances might suggest something else and we have examples too, as in case of Omar when he suspended the Hadd punishments during scarcity of food. Secondly, a person may argue that these are just individual reports and we can not base the procedural law on sole authority of these reports which are ascribed to the Prophet. We can go on and on with this but it is very easy to analyse that with this line of reasoning, we are left with no guidance from Prophetic activity - we just have Amr-o-hum Sura'a Baina-hum in the light of Quran.

In a sense, this is a situation that will have to be decided between three groups of people:

1- The legislator has the job of implementing the Hadd.
2- The defender has the job of either accepting it, or present his/her case against it using the above mentioned legal loopholes.
3- The decision maker whether it is a judge or group of people. The jury may be the group to reach Ijmaa on this matter in the end.

I think that the issue of Riba will have to be studied and restudied in so many spheres. For example, we need to define it first and find conditions that make Riba Riba. Then we have to find conditions when what is not called Riba is actually Riba. Eventually, this is an important issue that muslims have to decide upon.

Either we have to completely divorce his legal activities from the ambit of modern legislation or we have to resort to actions authentically attributed to him.

If something is proven to be certainly attributed to the prophet then it will have to be implemented. The Question is what constitutes certainty.

Also, one will have to see if the situation in which the prophet made a judgement reproducible in this world of today.

On a slightly different note, Side One's argument will also have to disregard that Prophet indulged in formal judicial activities and extended his legal base to his appointed judges as he could have left it to mutual consultation in the light of Quran and his actions; not fixing them with a feeling that they have to follow him in letter (as you have pointed so). We have to look into historical evidence of Islamic law of first century and we might see some interesting dynamics working there.

Well, he played a passive role in the writing of the hadith. This may mean to some that he made an opening for people to come to conclusions on their own using the Qur'an as their guide as well as their own brain power.


take care and have a great day


Hussein

[Aasem]

Asslam-o-Alaikum Hussein,

If I may concise your main points according to my illation so that we may move forward with the discussion:

• Quran is the only authentic source for legislation.
• Interpretation of Quranic injunctions are bound to be different and will be considered on their respective merits or strength of reasoning.
• There is no absolute source of legislation beside Quran whether we call it Sunnah or a complete picture that is formed after careful analysis of all the hadith regarding a particular law. Whatever analysis we may agree upon wholly (global Ijma'a) or partially (local Ijma'a) will not be considered final as it is always subject to change according to change in external agents e.g. environment and social variables.
• A degree of doubt will be attached with all the Prophetic legal activity however you still feel that it is instrumental in proceeding with a conclusive argument as well as reaching an applicable juridical mechanism that is agreed by all.

A conclusion that can be easily drawn from the above is that 'Islamic Law' as such is not an absolute legal mechanism. One may wish to put a more appropriate word like 'rigid' in place of 'absolute' but whatever language we may choose, one can conclusively construct a picture from your opinions that Islamic Law will always be subject to change by countless variables. These variables are bound to lose validity and new variables will take their place accordingly as the time passes. The understanding of Islamic Law which we hold today would seem impractical to next generations as they would face a complete new set of variables. In other words moral code that Islam brought along is absolute and the Legal code falls outside this changelessness as it is subject to development and reformation for countless times.

Now that picture would seem positive to some as it seems a progressive approach towards legal development. I respect all such opinions but value them just from an academic perspective. To me this seems a depiction that somehow excludes Prophet from the big picture and suddenly all the Quranic injunctions that tells me to submit to Prophetic directives without a degree of doubt in my hearth seem nothing more then a voice that belongs to past. Yet I am glad to read your worthful thoughts and I respect the intention of your stance.

Few more points regarding which I am interested to know your opinion.

If something is proven to be certainly attributed to the prophet then it will have to be implemented. The Question is what constitutes certainty.

May I ask you what constitutes certainty in your opinion. Its like asking me to prove that it is actually 'me' who is writing these lines. I am literally on the other side of the world - it is likely beyond doubt that we will never meet face to face in our lives. Yet we dont feel a degree of doubt about our originality. Shouldn't we try to satiate ourselves with whatever degree of authencity we have regarding historical reports.

Also, one will have to see if the situation in which the prophet made a judgement reproducible in this world of today.

Please elaborate.

Well, he played a passive role in the writing of the hadith. This may mean to some that he made an opening for people to come to conclusions on their own using the Qur'an as their guide as well as their own brain power.

I am skipping it for the time being and will extend my views later insha'Allah.

wassalam
-Aasem

[ihsan]

This is one of the best discussions I've followed on the internet.

[hlatif]

Salaam Aasem,

Thanks for your response.

A conclusion that can be easily drawn from the above is that 'Islamic Law' as such is not an absolute legal mechanism. One may wish to put a more appropriate word like 'rigid' in place of 'absolute' but whatever language we may choose, one can conclusively construct a picture from your opinions that Islamic Law will always be subject to change by countless variables. These variables are bound to lose validity and new variables will take their place accordingly as the time passes. The understanding of Islamic Law which we hold today would seem impractical to next generations as they would face a complete new set of variables. In other words moral code that Islam brought along is absolute and the Legal code falls outside this changelessness as it is subject to development and reformation for countless times.

I would say that there are many absolutes in Islamic law. The absolutes however, are general laws that we, as muslims have to adhere to throughout time. What I do not consider as absloute are the details. Examples of Absolutes that come to mind are:

1- The job of Muslims is ISLAH FIL ARDH= Do good works in the land. Therefore one has to judge any act whether it fulfils this requirement. One can derive all sorts of laws that govern people and the environment using this absolute injunction.

2- LA TAJASSASOO= Do not spy. This makes privacy a right that very few can break. It makes evidence that is brought in a fashion like this null and void.

3- Four witnesses that see a sexual act in order to establish the HADD of ZINA= the punishment of adultery. This means two things:

a) the degree of certainty has to be very high in order to establish an important rule that has grave consequences.
b) protecting the public from seeing lewd acts.

4- La Ikraha fil Deen= No compulsion in religion.

And so on and so forth. So, there are absloute rules that govern the general sphere. It is the detail that has no absloutes in a sense. The detail is left for interpretation either from the prophetic tradition or otherwise.

To me this seems a depiction that somehow excludes Prophet from the big picture and suddenly all the Quranic injunctions that tells me to submit to Prophetic directives without a degree of doubt in my hearth seem nothing more then a voice that belongs to past. Yet I am glad to read your worthful thoughts and I respect the intention of your stance.

This brings many areas of discussion:
1- Does the prophet loose importance if we put suspicion to things attributed to him?
2- Is the sole importance of the prophet the Hadith? Isn't it that through his mouth that the word of GOD (Qu'an) came?
3- What is the significance that the prophet died?Why would GOD make him die if we are to obey him at all time?
4- Does obey the messenger mean obey the hadith? even when there is doubt?

All those are important questions that one will have to ask. Different people may reach different answers but we should not assume that all should think like us.

May I ask you what constitutes certainty in your opinion. Its like asking me to prove that it is actually 'me' who is writing these lines. I am literally on the other side of the world - it is likely beyond doubt that we will never meet face to face in our lives. Yet we dont feel a degree of doubt about our originality. Shouldn't we try to satiate ourselves with whatever degree of authencity we have regarding historical reports.

The fact that we do not know each other but we are able to communicate with each other, means that we are communicating through ideas and not through personality. If my ideas ring true then you will take them even though you do not know me. The same can apply to the prophet's rulings.

So, an idea attributed to the prophet that is not challenged by what we know today of science and Qur'an is closer to certainty than one that is challenged. Certainty cannot be attained at our days except through reasoning and that will reach a degree of certainty but not absoluteness.

Quote:
Also, one will have to see if the situation in which the prophet made a judgement reproducible in this world of today.



Please elaborate.

There was no DNA evidence at their time, will DNA evidence replace the four witness principle? Should it be used ever?

Can we see the new moon through astonomical ways rather than through the eyes?

The prophet did not abolish slavery. Does that mean that we should allow it?

I do appreciate your polite way of conducting this discussion and I wish you a good night. Salaam brother


Hussein

[Al-Boriqi]

This is one of the best discussions I've followed on the internet.

I agree, ashanta akhee Aaseem.

I would reply to some matters to throw more angles inshallah but i gotta hit the sack now inshallah

asalamu alaikum