Islamic Jurisprudence Ijtihadand Part 4 Causes ofstagnation characterizing Islamic law

Causes ofstagnation characterizing Islamic law

In our view, three reasons explain the phenomenon of

stagnationthat has engulfed Islamic lawsince long time.

1

.

Conservative religious mind

2

.

Ultra-modernistic mind

3

.

So-called Muslim governments

1.

Conservative religious mind

Our conservative religious mind has rendered the concept of

taqlid‘ into‘intellectual‘deadlock‘and‘has‘reduced‘‘ ijtihad‘ to‘a

forbidden thing. It is in this way that the jurisprudential work,

done a hundred years ago under the demands of its own time,

is considered sufficient to cater to the needs of the modern

times with all its major and minor details. A general religious

mindset considers it as final and absolute as the Holy Qur an

and Sunna forbidding even minor difference with it or even its

reinterpretation.

It

has totally

neglected

the

difference

between the Holy Qur an and Sunna on the one hand and

jurisprudential opinions or reinterpretations on the other.That

is why the book of jurisprudence has come to be considered as

alternative to the Divine revelation and any reinterpretative

effort has been branded as conspiracy against Islam in the

presence of the above.

Such thoughts have led the religious scholars to be

indifferent to the realization of getting modern education.

They think that it is a worldly act considered contrary to piety

to equip oneself

with modern art and education. Their

Ijtihad:‘meanings,‘application‘&‘scope

40

understanding of getting Islamic education is deeply rooted in

the ancient or primitive seminaries the syllabi of which were

designed years back to address the demand of those times.

Having been equipped with such knowledge today, they

cannot develop the critical faculty to comprehend the modern

multi-faceted realities and their importance. As a result, their

scholarly capabilities practically lose their significance and

usefulness in the face of solutions to the contemporary

complexities. On this basis, Islamic thought cannot move

towards the goal of evolution. Today the aggregate result is

that Islamic laws and other branches of knowledge have fallen

victim to stagnation.

2.

Ultra-modernistic mindset

As a way of reaction to the above-mentioned behaviour of

the religious scholars, our modernist mind wants to do ijtihad

on the contemporary issues. But importance of this ijtihad‘is

not more than %an independent opinion-making . Neither does

it comply with the practical and scholarly preconditions of

ijtihad nor‘does‘it‘admit‘the‘need‘to‘fulfill‘them.‘This‘mindset

wants to superimpose its personal opinion over ijtihad‘while

being indifferent to the need of studying Islamic law and

Shari%a sciences as a comprehensive discipline in terms of

language, research and religious subject etc. Such efforts can

not produce any thing productive but intellectual ambiguity

and ideological confusion because such kind of so-called

ijtihad‘ done‘by‘modernists‘of‘narrow-vision‘is‘not‘acceptable

to the Muslims. Thus this clash between the modern and

conservative perspectives is making the Islamic lawstagnant.

As the orthodox religious community does not generally

realize the importance of modern education, likewise, the

modern 'educated' community also looks down upon the need

to get education of religious sciences. This mutual clash of

and alienation between both communities has placed the

Ijtihad:‘meanings,‘application‘&‘scope

41

Muslim Umma in a difficult situation. This fact explains the

prevalence of stagnation in the area of jurisprudential research

and creativity in the Islamic world.

3.

So-calledMuslim governments

Thethird reason pertains to the so-called Islamic governments

and their

functionaries who do

not take any effective

revolutionary steps in the realm of education to bridge this

gap

between

orthodox

religious

elements

and

modern

community owing to their vested interests. If at all any

revolutionary and reinterpretative effort is undertaken to break

this

intellectual

morass,

they

create

hurdles

in

the

implementation and success of such efforts. If society is

plagued by such deadlock and stagnation at any level, it is the

sincere and statesman-like revolutionary efforts of the rulers,

which have the potential of breaking this intellectual and

ideological logjam. The personal efforts of the ruled have

little chances of

succeeding.

Therefore it

is also

the

responsibility of the rulers to keep this process of  ijtihad

alive.

The issue of  !modification

in the principle of

ijtihadof’four’Imams

After the foundation of different jurisprudential schools of

thought, the consensus of Muslim Umma in the form of act

and word, on the principle of  ijtihad‘of four Imams has

already taken place. Any change and alteration in it will

practically be a step opposed to the consensus of the Umma

and will create the possibilities of

emergence of

new

jurisprudential schools of thought, which will no doubt create

more intellectual rifts and clashes within the Umma.

On this basis, such modification does not serve the

purpose of religious objectives and priorities. But if at some

time, the Muslim Umma is faced with such intellectual and

Ijtihad:‘meanings,‘application‘&‘scope

42

jurisprudential issues which can be solved in consonance with

the principle of ijtihad‘of four Imams in any way and the

scholars and  mujtahids‘(those who conduct ijtihad) propose

modification in any of the principles with consensus of the

Umma, there will be no harm in doing so from the point of

view of Islamic law. The reason is that according to Islamic

law, except the consensus of the Holy Companions, any

consensus can be cancelled with the consensus of the later

period provided it fulfills all the conditions described for the

cancellation of consensus.

But in our view, neither can such a  %powerful and

complete consensus of the Umma be achieved to cancel the

consensus reached on principle of ijtihad‘of the four Imams

nor is there any such need because their principles of ijtihad

are so vast, comprehensive, inclusive and universal that they

do not need any amendment. When there is a lot of room for

difference

in  ijtihad

according

to

their

principles,

no

justification is left to amend the principle of ijtihad