It has been 7 years since my last post, and apologies for this! Perhaps I may start more regularly again.
However, rarely have I been so impressed by a scholar, as I was when I met with Shaykh Haidar Hobbollah. On the one hand, he has decades of experience teaching at the highest levels (bahth kharij) in Qum complemented by a plethora of books and essays on complex topics, with innovative ideas. Yet on the other hand, he has also retained the respect of traditional scholarship despite having significantly different views.
This series of short posts aims to bring to light how he approaches Fiqh, why it is important, and what the consequences are. I have framed it as a question-and-answer dialogue, even though it is my interpretation of his perspectives, because I believe it will be easier to understand his thought process. The sources for this, is a mixture of (A) his own published works; (B) what I have heard directly from him; and (C) what he said at Mahfil Ali on 27 May 2022 (and/or what I understood from my conversations with him). I will put useful sources under each question for the more interested readers (who can understand Arabic legal texts).
[One note: I have used the term “Shaykh” throughout to refer
to Shaykh Hobbollah. Some may believe this does not accurately reflect the
extremely high stature of Shaykh Hobbollah, and some may prefer to use a term
such as Mujtahid or Marja’. However, Shaykh Hobbollah is truly humble and does
not prefer these titles, even if they appear to be a fairer reflection of his
scholarship and abilities. He also dislikes the term Ayatullah because he
believes we should not associate human fallible scholarship with Allah].
All errors in the below are mine, and mine alone.
What is the scope of Shari’a?
Shaykh Hobbollah covers this issue comprehensively in his 820 page book
entitled “The comprehensiveness of
the Shari’a” (shumul al-shari’a), and in 113 lectures on his website
under the title “The comprehensiveness of the Shari’a: the limits and scope of
Fiqh”. This topic is pivotal to understanding his approach to deriving Islamic
laws.
He recognises that the
vast majority of Muslim scholars believe that the Shari’a is comprehensive and that
there is no situation without an Islamic rule (i.e. it is obligatory,
prohibited, recommended, discouraged or allowed), which can be derived based on
the standard sources of evidence or base principles. [I will not cover the
nuance here about mintaqat al-firagh, which is the view of scholars like
Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr].
In contrast to this vast
majority, Shaykh Hobbollah’s conclusion is that the Shari’a is not
comprehensive i.e. it does not provide an answer for every question. He does
not go so far as to say that the scope of Shari’a is extremely limited or even
non-existent, like Soroush, Shabastari, Ali Abd al-Razzaq, Mahdi Bazargan…etc..
Instead, Shaykh
Hobbollah’s view is that the Shari’a only covers a specific number of issues,
and many of issues that we face, should be resolved not by an Islamic
injunction, rather they should be resolved through other mechanisms such as
ethics, rationality or values (as long as they do not contravene any
established Islamic law). More accurately he believes in the goals of shari’a
(maqasid) or what he calls in his book the the rules of the
constitution (al-qawaid al-dusturiyya). The difference here, is that the conclusions
derived through these other mechanisms are human and fallible, able to be
discussed and disagreed with, as they are importantly not part of the Shari’a.
They therefore cannot be attributed to the religion or to Allah (swt).
For example, if one
were to conclude that the Shari’a does not cover issues such as cloning, then Shaykh
Hobbollah’s view is that there is no Islamic ruling on this issue, and that any
ruling e.g. by the government or by society, which does not contradict an
Islamic ruling or one of the maqasid al-Shari’a (goals of Shari’a),
would be appropriate. If a rule was instituted by the government, it would be
an Islamic duty to not break the law, but there would be no specifically
Islamic rule related to cloning i.e. you could say this rule is not against
Islamic law, but you could not say there is an Islamic law on this issue.
There is an important
nuance to highlight here. Where there is insufficient evidence to derive an
Islamic ruling, traditional scholars would often conclude that the Shari’a states
that you are free to act in any way (asalat al-bara`ah). Shaykh
Hobbollah would argue that there is no Shari’a ruling instituted by Allah (ja’l)
in the first place.
You might think that this
means there is no practical difference between these two positions
(even if there is a major theoretical difference). In and of itself, this may
be true. However, when this position is combined with the other differences of
methodology by Shaykh Hobbollah (see below), the practical differences become
very apparent.
Useful sources:
A short summary of his
views on the topic (19 May 2022): http://hobbollah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/shomoolshariaa.pdf
His written publication
on the topic (2018): https://hobbollah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ShomolAlshariat.pdf
His bahth kharij
lectures on the topic (2017-2019): https://hobbollah.com/mohazerat_category/%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9/
Translations of his
position can also be seen here:
https://www.iqraonline.net/book-summary-part-2-comprehensiveness-of-the-shariah/
No comments:
Post a Comment