Role of Time and Space in Understanding Qur’an and Sunnah

NOTES FROM THE IIIT CONFERENCE ON APPROACHING THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH #3

[This is the third in a series of my notes on the International Institute of Islamic Thought conference on approaching the Qur’an and Sunnah held in Herndon VA. These notes are raw material for an edited report I will write on the conference later and represent my perception of the discussion. The proceedings will be published by IIIT at a later time. The Minaret of Freedom Institute thanks IIIT for the grant that makes the publication of these notes possible. Responsibility for any errors in the notes is mine alone.]

Third Session, Moderator: Khaleel Mohammad

Paper Author: Syed Nasir Zaidi

Summary by Khaleel Mohammad

“Role of Time and Space in Understanding Qur’an and Sunnah”

Some laws are permanent and universal and some are dependent on time and place. There is no fixed set of rules on how to determine which are which. Even at the time of the Prophet (as) people did not see the laws that promulgated as head of state to be permanent. Nadwi says laws other than those related to ibidât are based on reasoning. Otherwise the Qur’anic call to thinking would be meaningless. Specific laws in the Qur’an cannot be changed, but rulings based on qiyas can. Change in lifestyle may cause a change in fiqh. Someone eligible to pay zakat in one circumstance may now be eligible to receive zakat. Birth control may have been disliked in the past and now may be desirable. What some people see as change is sometimes just an old rule in a new application. When the interpretation of religion is seen as the religion itself, then some group might impose its interpretation on others. Social awareness is necessary to understand whether a ruling is permanent or not. The three main ideas of the Qur’an are the unity of God, social justice, and the hereafter. Qur’anic rulings are given to the social, moral, and justice standards of the time, but are improvements on the religious prescriptions that preceded it. To say any ruling in the Qur’an is permanent is problematical for the author because there is no assertion of its permanence in the Qur’an. The ambiguity over who is a thief has been addressed in Muslim history. The sunnah is easier, but we must distinguish between sunnah and seerah, because the sunnah is the methodology of the Prophet. Omar suspended certain rules and regulations basd on circumstances.

Discussant 1: Louay Safi

The author backtracks from some of his bold initial statements to rely on various authorities. He talks about naskh of ahkâm as it has been used by some Shia scholars, whereas among Sunnis it has been used to refer to actual abrogation of text. I would prefer the terms “general” and “particular.” He mentions the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the rules that cannot be ignored.

Discussant 2: Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed (10 minutes)

I think the author is tilling the field we intend to plant here. If following a particular rule in a time or circumstance where the purpose of the rule is defeated by its implementation we need a different rule. I like the point that when we speak of following the apparent meaning of a text, “even appearance based on literal transliteration of the text also can only begin after … understanding and and interpretation which is an act of [a] commentator.” In othe words, even taking a text at face value is an act of interpretation.

I disagree that the Qur’anic rulings about slavery have no relevance, since we still have prisoners of war and political prisoners to whom they may be applied. Further, the argument that reulings must be abandoned simply because they do not conform to “contemporary moral standards” confronts the problems of cultural authority raised by Prof. Jackson in the opening session.

The value of this paper lies in demonstratng that some of the objections to  new methodology are based on a failure to understand that some of methods we advocate in establishing reform have already been employed in the past. For example, that Umar would give rulings at variance with those of the Prophet because differences in circumstances justified it.

Ayoub: From the Shia perspective you cannot use the Qur’an temporarily, it always applies. Naskh talal al-hukm, naskh al-hukm dun at-tawala, naskh al atawal adun al hakm (applied to ayat ar-rajm). Because naskh is mentioned in two ayays of the Qur’an we cannot deny it.

Mousavi: Shia reasoning is aqaliya, not just another form of qiyas. Who speaks for time and space? Marja`al-taqlid is the authority who decides for his followers. `urf is secondary to law, not a source of law. Who interprets? Interpretation is as important as lawmaking. We need an authority in Islamic law. We don’t have authoritative muftis anymore. Marja are references, to be referred to.

Ahmad: I am not sure the author denies that the Qur’an always applies. Rather he is arguing that definitions of the terms may change with time. I would prefer to say the definitions should be broad enough that the application can change. Examples would be how much is the nisâb for Zakat (the definition is the constant while the amount changes), who is a thief (the minimum for punishment changes bugt an underlying definition by which the minimum is calculated does not), riba (it is always an excessive charge, but the amount deemed excessive may change with time and place).

Louay Safi: According to fiqh, embezzlement is not theft.

Ahmad: Naskh as mentioned in the Qur’an applies to abrogation of previous revelations. Understanding how the text relates to its circumstances is necessary, but it can be both constraining and liberating. When analysis is done in a methodologically correct manner, a correct balance of constraint and liberation can be attained.

Ayoub: It is the job of the jurist to see how the application is changed. I do not accept the idea that the gate of ijtihad was ever closed. There have always been mujtahids in all the legal schools. It meant not to allow more madhahib to arise. The Amman declaration recognizes only eight. Qiyas is not a (direct) source of Islamic law. Qiyas is an instrument of ijtihad and not a source. Zaidis tried to be universal, using both Sunni and Shia sources.

Al-Shingieti. The apparent difference between the Shia focus on ahkâm and the Sunni focus on text. Texts have a circumstantial reality.

Kenneth (Abdul-Hadi) Honorcamp: I seems there is a methodology to present modern interpretations which begins with a sweeping indictment of “the scholars” that is problematic to me.  The statement that religion should be in accord with the natural order is debatable. The argument that if the Qur’an did not mean us to use reason in defining the law then its calls to reason are meaningless is spurious. A Sufi writer has said hukm is from Allah the Idraq al hukm is the human enterprise. This paper could use a serious re-write. Don’t use other authors to speak for you.

Safi: Ibn Hanbal doesn’t accept ijma`. Dalâlât is a science, well developed by later al-Ahnâf as to levels of reading the text. The original Ahnâf would not accept an unclear hadith because it is out of context and may be paraphrased.

Aisha Musa: There is a conflation in this discussion of Sharia and fiqh.

Ayoub: The Maliki madhhab has undergone some radical transformations in the purview nd sources of the madhhab. I think we can say the work of Shafi in his Risâlah has left its mark on all subsequent Islamic thinking, which is at is should be because he was a great systematizer. His rejection of istihsân brought people back to the Qur’an and sunah, bringing authority back to the Prophet. Who is the messenger? Perhaps it is Jibril, but perhaps it is Muhammad.

Ahmad: This conflation of Sharia and fiqh is very widespread. If this Summer Institute does nothing else but adopt a zero-tolerance policy of such conflation, at least among ourselves and our publications, and any subsequent activities and publication of IIIT, we will have done a great service to the cause of islah.

Safi: I believe that Shafi did not bring people back to the Qur’an and sunnah unless you man he brought them back to the practice of citing text at every turn, which has had the effect of limiting thought and action. If the legal system becomes so tight as to prohibit anything not accepted in the past, it is detrimental. We have to move away from moving from the text to the rule to moving from the text to the principle to the rule, as Shatabi has argued.

Ayoub: What does it mean to make a distinction between fiqh and shariah and not keep things as an integrated whole?  The Shariah is what is enshrined in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Ahmad: I would like to see us bring to our understanding of the Sharia the humility that we bring to tour understanding of Allah. There is a danger in conceiving of fiqh and shariah as “an integrated whole.” Because the Sharia is the law and the fiqh is the human understanding of the law emerging from time and place, Shafism can lead to the stagnation that has plagued the ummah in recent centuries. I think that this, not that there have been no mujtahids in the last century, nor that new madhahib are prohibited, is the real meaning of “closing the door to ijtihad.”

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
Minaret of Freedom Institute
www.minaret.org

ImadadDean