The form of the Shari'ah: Forever Fixed or Adaptable in Time?
By: Farhad Shafti
February 2017
On the above subject I prefer not to sit on the fence. I believe we either consider the instructions in the Qur'an to be that form of the shari'ah that is fixed forever (the traditional view) or we consider them to be a form of the shari'ah that never meant to be fixed and can therefore be adapted as time passes.
Some of the great scholars of our time seem to be sitting on the fence on this subject. For instance they argue that 'beating wife' is not really part of the shari'ah, or that although slavery was part of the shari'ah but the Qur'an gave instructions to end it, so it was a part of the shari'ah that supposed to be useless later on, when slavery was supposed to be ended.
As a student of the Qur'an I do not see any difference between the instructions for beating wife and other instructions in the Qur'an, just as I do not see any intentions in the Qur'an to end slavery (and I am well aware of all verses that the above scholars use as evidence). I also do not see any initiatives by the prophet (pbuh) or the companions to end slavery. At least for the companions I think the history shows that they never minded having slaves.
I think what really happened is as follows:
A. Some of our great scholars cannot let go of the assumption that the form of the shari'ah meant to be forever.
B. Things like slavery and beating wife are perceived so unfair and immoral at our time that even the above scholars appreciate the problem if these were to be considered as permanent instructions of the shari'ah.
The combination of A and B has resulted in these great and honest scholars to question the very existence of the problem, that is, arguing that these are not really part of the shari'ah (in case of beating wife) or were not meant to remain part of the shari'ah in use (in case of slavery).
With the same trend and mechanism, I can see that there will be scholars in (say) 100 years time, who would consider some other instructions of the Qur'an to be not really part of the shari'ah or not that shari'ah that was supposed to be in use forever. I can guess that issues like 'right of divorce', 'rules of inheritance', 'women as witnesses for financial documents', will be among the first that will go through the same process as 'beating wife' and 'slavery' in the mind of these great scholars.
I would like to end this by quoting a scholar who has not sat on the fence on this subject:
"As a text, the Qur’an demands a conscientious and morally active reader - a reader who does not stop where the text concludes but who seeks to understand the ethical path the text is setting out and then proceeds to travel along that path." (Khaled Abou El Fadl, Reasoning with God, p. 386)
-----------------
Note: To read my views on the form of the shari'ah please look at pages 17-19 in my article: The True Meaning of Universality of the Qur’an
February 2017
On the above subject I prefer not to sit on the fence. I believe we either consider the instructions in the Qur'an to be that form of the shari'ah that is fixed forever (the traditional view) or we consider them to be a form of the shari'ah that never meant to be fixed and can therefore be adapted as time passes.
Some of the great scholars of our time seem to be sitting on the fence on this subject. For instance they argue that 'beating wife' is not really part of the shari'ah, or that although slavery was part of the shari'ah but the Qur'an gave instructions to end it, so it was a part of the shari'ah that supposed to be useless later on, when slavery was supposed to be ended.
As a student of the Qur'an I do not see any difference between the instructions for beating wife and other instructions in the Qur'an, just as I do not see any intentions in the Qur'an to end slavery (and I am well aware of all verses that the above scholars use as evidence). I also do not see any initiatives by the prophet (pbuh) or the companions to end slavery. At least for the companions I think the history shows that they never minded having slaves.
I think what really happened is as follows:
A. Some of our great scholars cannot let go of the assumption that the form of the shari'ah meant to be forever.
B. Things like slavery and beating wife are perceived so unfair and immoral at our time that even the above scholars appreciate the problem if these were to be considered as permanent instructions of the shari'ah.
The combination of A and B has resulted in these great and honest scholars to question the very existence of the problem, that is, arguing that these are not really part of the shari'ah (in case of beating wife) or were not meant to remain part of the shari'ah in use (in case of slavery).
With the same trend and mechanism, I can see that there will be scholars in (say) 100 years time, who would consider some other instructions of the Qur'an to be not really part of the shari'ah or not that shari'ah that was supposed to be in use forever. I can guess that issues like 'right of divorce', 'rules of inheritance', 'women as witnesses for financial documents', will be among the first that will go through the same process as 'beating wife' and 'slavery' in the mind of these great scholars.
I would like to end this by quoting a scholar who has not sat on the fence on this subject:
"As a text, the Qur’an demands a conscientious and morally active reader - a reader who does not stop where the text concludes but who seeks to understand the ethical path the text is setting out and then proceeds to travel along that path." (Khaled Abou El Fadl, Reasoning with God, p. 386)
-----------------
Note: To read my views on the form of the shari'ah please look at pages 17-19 in my article: The True Meaning of Universality of the Qur’an
