The Evolution of Fiqh (Islamic Law & The madh-abs)

any system of jurisprudence evolves over time as new circumstances arise. religious jurisprudence is no different. situations arise that are not specifically addressed in the qur'an or in the hadith. the job of scholars then is to deduce/extrapolate from existing law to the new situation, using the existing law as a guide. so God's law doesn't evolve, but the understanding and interpretation/application of it does.
at least that's my understanding.
when i was young i studied jewish law a bit - believe it or not, it was actually quite interesting.

the law doesn't evolve - it is laid out in The General Plan - in this case, the qur'an and the hadith.
jurisprudence is the evolution of the legal system that arises from The General Plan.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

So god just did a "General Plan" and left it to imperfect man to work out the details?

well The General Plan is really all you need - the specifics flow out of it. obviously if every possible situation for all time was to be spelled out, the book would be too heavy to lift! and it isn't really necessary - so you get the principles and from these scholars can deduce and extrapolate to derive rulings for specfic situations.
here's an example from jewish law (and from my crusty memory).
the torah says you can't work on the sabbath. that is believed to be God's law - that never changes. but what constitutes work? is there a way to do something so that it does not fall in to that category? how to classify the use of modern technology on the sabbath? what category does it come under?
so God's law (which does not change) = no work on the sabbath. the rest is jurisprudence.

now i think i better shut up or i will be getting way over my head!

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Since there is so much disagreement about so many things, it is obvious that The General Plan is not really all you need .

point taken.
this is why jurisprudence (which does evolve) comes in to being.
this marks The End of my not-so-vast knowledge of the subject.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Well I have no knowledge on the subject,
I'm just not stupid. (Though some think so )

If it needs to evolve, it wasn't perfect.

*sigh* why do you seek more knowledge when you don't pay heed to what you already know?

Cigerettes weren't around 1400 years ago but they are now, but there is no specific hadith/ayaah that says that cigarettes are haram...then does that make them halal?

No, Why? Because its harmful to your body, and and hence the scholers needed give a ruling based on that.

Or what about using birth control pills? Or renting wombs? or organ transplants?

Can any of them be halal because there isn't any specific wording for the above mentioned? No! The scholers need to derive the rulings for these matters even though they didn't exist 1400 years ago!

Does that make it imperfect? No. Reason? You overlooked the fact that the law itself has not changed but as the world advances more rulings need to be drived!

Like snakelegs said;

so God's law doesn't evolve, but the understanding and interpretation/application of it does.

wilberhum, it isn't talking about the laws it self, but rather about the approaches that Muslim scholars over the years have taken to understand the law and derive rulings from the evidences in the Quran and Sunnah.

And he only said cigarettes are forbidden, not the others. But the point is they are issues that the scholars need to discuss.

Anyway, it is an excellent book, I really learned heaps from it.

If anyone has read the book and liked it, I think they will love the two day course Chronicles of Shariah offered by the Alkauthar Institute, taught by Sheikh Abu Yusuf Tawfique Chowdhury. Check this thread for more info:

London/B'ham - Cronicals of Shariah by Sheikh Tawfique Chowdhury

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

*sigh* When did Cigarettes and using birth control pills become against the law?

They were against the sharia law from the start, but they didn't come about until time went on.

Because its the law. Since when was law the easy? It is the law, it's complex by definition. How do you expect to rule a complex country with a simplistic law?

The good news is that as common people we aren't required to have a detailed understand of how rulings are derived and all that principles of the law and all that stuff. That's for the scholars and stuff. What is required for us is the ruling itself, so we can apply it.

Anyway, God choose to have it this way and what is required from us is that we make the best of what we have been given.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Well I have no knowledge on the subject,
I'm just not stupid. (Though some think so )

If it needs to evolve, it wasn't perfect.

i don't think you're stupid. but either i'm not explaining very well, or you're being dense - or maybe a little of each.
the law doesn't evolve. but jurisprudence does because the world changes - things come in to being that didn't exist 10, 100, 1000 years ago. situations arise that would not have arisen centuries ago. so jurisprudence seeks to apply the law to changing circumstances.
i can't explain it any better. hopefully, after a good sleep, we'll all wake up brighter!

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

How can god's law Evolve?

it cant.


werent expecting such a simple answer were you lol




whats evolved is just peoples practise (in order to understand), the methods they use to find out the islamic rulings/laws etc. Before it was from the prophets lips (sallallahi alaihi wasallaam), then it was from he lips of the sahabi's/tabieen etc, then it was in books, till it was spread all over. Then different views started spreading about the teachings, all are dependant on ijtihaad (the well thought out and deeply considered knowledge of a learned scholar), for a correct ijtihaad Allah rewards two, for a wrong ijtihaad Allah rewards one.


if that didnt make sense then research yourself lol

I understand how God's Law must be translated to fit different situations that might arise in the future. I also understand the feeling that a book many suggest is "perfect" shouldn't be so imperfect in the context of implementing law.

As a Christian, the vast majority of us make no such claim of "perfection" when it comes to the writings gathered in the Bible. When it comes to implementing God's Law, you must use human reason to apply that law to new and developing realities. An example would be abortion. It doesn't take a scholar to come to the conclusion that abortion goes against our understanding of God's Law, even if abortion wasn't specifically mentioned within the Bible.