In the previous blogs, I explained how Muhammad Shahrour’s theory of limits – basically, that where the Qur’an sets limits, you cannot exceed them (tilka hudud Allahi fala ta'taduha). In some cases, you should not even get close to them (tilka hudud Allah fala taqribuha). However, you can move in between the limits (curvature).
He uses this theory to say that the Islamic Shari'a have boundaries/hudud but these are meant only to establish a general framework but within these boundaries, you are free to legislate laws that suits best the continuously changing circumstances of human life.
Now the issue is that Muhammad Shahrur is not directly dismissing history and tradition. He says that although previous jurists did not distinguish between verses of the Quran and narrations that express limits and those that are instructions, they cannot be blamed as they are articulating their own society’s understanding. But he does note that there is a misconception in his view about how the prophet worked during his life. Women’s rights were improved throughout his prophethood but the traditional mindset considers the end of his life to be the end of the improvement, whereas he considers the model of improvement to be the ongoing process that must be continued.
He uses the theory of limits with these understandings to tackle with the problem of polygamy. From the famous verse in surah Nisa (4:2-3), he notes two types of limits:
Firstly, quantitatively, the lower limit is 1 wife, and the upper limit is 4 wives.
Secondly, qualitatively, the new wives must be young widows (to protect their young children). His view is that after a first wife, any other wife can only be married if the individual can treat the widows’ children with justice and equality which is difficult. He notes, however, that this idea of looking after widows who have young children, is good, as it is an effective way to provide care for orphaned families.
Overall, his idea is like a football pitch, where he believes that the traditionalists are playing on the borders, whereas they should be playing within the main pitch!
Note that his view removes the need for ijma’ as there is no need for certainty in his understanding. Note also that limits can be achieved from the Sunnah. Also, a question that is often posed to the cases in law that are not in the revealed texts – he makes it clear that there are no limits here e.g. new taxes – minimum limit of 0, and maximum limit would be the maximum the society can bear…
On the side, it is useful to see his understanding of the difference between Islam and Iman: The basis of his philosophical view is his different understanding of general religion (al-islam) and on particular religion (al-iman). He considers the former to be an eternal ideal practiced throughout history and based on scientific reason and good moral action (e.g. Prophet Ibrahim was a Muslim); and the latter to be a religion (what we call the actions of Islam) brought into existence in one particular time but contingent on that time. He characterises Salafi islam to be the antithesis of the ethical true islam, as it only considers the ritualistic iman to be the entirety of the religion.
Overall though, his thoughts are an interesting point of view – he has of course been attacked by the establishment and many responses have been written to his work. This must be understood and in this blog, I am not trying to say he is right or wrong, just giving an insight into his views…
In the next blog, we will move onto another progressive thinker!!
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
No comments:
Post a Comment