The Higher Objectives of the Sharī’ah: Nuanced Application or Genuine Abuse?
The pure divine law, i.e., Sharī’ah, as enshrined in the Noble Qur’ān
and Blessed Aḥādīth bear countless advantages, pearls of wisdom and benefit for
those who sincerely accept and adhere to it. Modernists, on the other hand,
apply their hollow thinking methods to scuttle the application of the pure
divine law – based on the Noble Qur’ān, Blessed Aḥādīth, ‘Ijmā (consensus) of
the Muslim Ummah and Qiyās (analogical deduction). Instead of denying the law,
i.e., Sharī’ah, they apply the veneer of Islam – calling it ‘Maqāṣid’ – upon
their base and lowly desires and sugarcoat rulings that conflict with the
entire history of Islamic scholarship.
Modernists use their intellect and deficient understanding to determine
what contains benefit and what entails harm. In essence, the Maqāṣid that are
sourced from pristine and unadulterated texts are being flipped on their
head by the Modernists today and are being replaced with ‘Maqāṣid’ that clash
with the texts that are held with the highest of regard by Muslims worldwide.
The result of this leads to the total abolition of the religion of Islām.
This is because once a person loses his faith in the pure Islāmic law that he
previously accepted and revered (because of Modernist propaganda), he will
accept anything and everything thrown at him, especially if it has an Islamic flavour.
The Modernist invents a ‘Maṣlaḥa’, i.e.,
a concept he feels is expedient and then uses it as the absolute authority,
pushing the principles of Fiqh aside and even totally disregarding the consensus
of the Muslim Ummah over the centuries.
The Modernist Attack
One of the favourite pastimes of the Modernists is to attack the ḥudūd. These
attacks are termed ‘backwards’, ‘barbaric’, ‘ancient’ and so on. This
propaganda is spewed by especially the compassionate scholars, with an agenda:
to cause Muslims to lose faith in the rest of the Islāmic laws.
A recent example that was thrown in our faces is the ‘saving lives’
idea. Whilst the idea seems noble, and Islāmic in content – it was abused. The
agenda: to cause Muslims to go to the Houses of Allāh Ta’ālā in much fewer
numbers and with less frequency. It was further abused to destroy the strong
social structure of the Muslim society, leading people to despise visiting and
serving their ailing kith and kin.
Food for Thought
Do the compassionate scholars screen themselves from their spouses at mealtime?
Did they separate their beds, or at least sleep with masks and a divider
between them and their beloved partners?
The ultimate aim of the Modernists is to abolish the religion of Islām
and replace it with a new religion, new forms of worship and a new social
structure based on whatever they feel stands as the ‘Higher Objectives of the
Sharī’ah’. This is essentially the worship of the intellect and the subsequent
implementation of every whim and desire man has.
Attempts to Abolish Islāmic Law by Modernists: Hair Raising Examples
One: Abdul Majīd Ash-Sharafī is someone who has placed lots of interest in the Maqāṣid theory. He says that the Sharī’ah is living in a crisis with the current modern discourse. He goes on to say that ‘there is no way out of this crisis except by getting rid of all the rulings which do not take the difference of environment time and place into account. He explains that disposal of such rulings, i.e., rulings contrary to modernity can be done through various means. One of them is: ‘The need to get rid of the disease of adhering to the literal text, especially the Qur’ānic Text, and to give the Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah its due place in the enactment of updated legislation that suits the needs of contemporary society.’
One: Abdul Majīd Ash-Sharafī is someone who has placed lots of interest in the Maqāṣid theory. He says that the Sharī’ah is living in a crisis with the current modern discourse. He goes on to say that ‘there is no way out of this crisis except by getting rid of all the rulings which do not take the difference of environment time and place into account. He explains that disposal of such rulings, i.e., rulings contrary to modernity can be done through various means. One of them is: ‘The need to get rid of the disease of adhering to the literal text, especially the Qur’ānic Text, and to give the Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah its due place in the enactment of updated legislation that suits the needs of contemporary society.’
Ash-Sharafī derived a conclusion from his thought process and said,
‘With this under consideration, an opportunity remains open for one to have
different interpretations based on the needs of people, and the difference of
their environments, times, and cultures.'
By reaching this conclusion, Ash-Sharafī abolishes the necessity of all
of the main forms of worship in Islam: ṣalāh, fasting, Zakāt and ḥajj, on the
grounds that the Sharī’ah had come for the benefit of the interests of that
specific time. Thus, he says, ‘if the Maqāṣid brings elevation of the soul and
achievement of justice through any other way, then we are not obliged to adhere
to the specific legislative rulings of the Sharī’ah.’
Two: Al-Jābirī criticizes the
work of the jurists (Fuqahā’) and says that they were preoccupied with
linguistic issues rather than the Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah. In addition, he
criticizes the principle used by the jurists which imply that a judgement
depends on the presence or absence of a cause. Al-Jābirī calls for this
principle to be changed so that the judgement or ruling depends on the presence
or absence of the Maṣlaḥa (expediency). (We know by now that this expediency is
determined by the Modernist himself). He gives the following example: Usury and
interest are forbidden in Islam. However, Al-Jābirī permits some interest-based
transactions and investments, stating that they are allowed because there is ‘no
exploitation in them’.
The difference between the traditional scholars – who detailed and
explained the Maqāṣid based on the Noble Qur’ān and Blessed Aḥādīth and the
Modernist compassionate scholars is that the Modernists use their own Maqāṣid
as a foundation upon which to twist and turn the laws of Islām according to the
time and place. However, Islāmic laws have stood the test of time and place for
centuries already. What gives the Modernist the credentials and capacity to now
wipe out an extremely rigid and solid structure and law system as understood by
upright righteous scholars with much greater intellectual ability than the
Modernist can ever dream of?
Muḥammad Ṭahir Ibn Ashur[1] wrote on the Maqāṣid. Concurrently,
he did a great disservice to Islam by adding Maqāṣid that none before him did. In
their foreword to the English translation of his work on Maqāsid, Anas S.
Al-Shaikh Ali and Gasser Auda state, ‘But Ibn Ashur’s most significant
contribution in this book has been the development of new Maqāṣid by coining
contemporary terminology that was never formulated in traditional Uṣūl
Al-Fiqh. For example, Ibn Ashur developed the theory of the ‘preservation of
lineage’ into ‘the preservation of the family system’, the protection of true
belief’ into ‘freedom of beliefs’ etc. He also introduced the concepts of
‘orderliness’, ‘natural disposition’, ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘civility’, and
‘equality’ as Maqāṣid in their own right, and upon which the whole Islāmic law
is based.’[2]
Now, the concepts introduced by Ibn Ashur resonate very strongly with
the concepts propagated by Modernist and Deformist scholars today. ‘Freedom’,
‘rights’, ‘equality’ are words we hear practically all the time from the
Modernist quarters. What makes it worse is the assertion that the whole of
Islamic law is based on these (modernist deformist) concepts! We seek the help
and protection of Allāh Ta’ālā.
‘Freedom of true belief’ was changed by Ibn Ashur to ‘freedom of
beliefs.’ This basically opened the door to freedom of any and every belief
system, whereas the Noble Qur’ān is emphatically clear in this regard, ‘Indeed
the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. And those who were given the
Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them – out of
jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of
Allāh, then indeed, Allāh is swift in [taking] account.’[3]
Using his work, Modernists today sing a song about Maqāṣid and its great
benefit. Yet, the Modernists cannot provide a clear meaning of Maqāṣid – which
they use to prefer over the pure divine word. The loose and corrupt methodology
of the Modernists does not cover any detailed explanation and plan of action for
the application of their Maqāṣid. This essentially places the corpus of the
Sharī’ah in the hands of the ignorant and wayward to twist and turn how they
want.
The primary motivating factor of the Modernist Maqāṣid is protection,
preservation and increase of life and wealth. This reeks of the love of
worldly wealth and desires to live forever – concepts highly looked down upon in
the Noble Qur’ān and Blessed Aḥādīth.
The clear texts of the Sharī’ah cover expediencies for the body as well
as the soul, whereas the Modernist Maqāṣid only concentrates on the expediency
of the body – rendering man a spiritually bankrupt being, roaming around
aimlessly fulfilling his base desires – more like an animal in the jungle
would.
The Modernists also carefully select the texts that give credibility to
their views. This they would term ‘Nuanced Application’. Now, this one text
they find is applied across the board – to every ruling of the Sharī’ah. This
kind of thought is downright dishonest and will lead to significant
embarrassment when placed before a genuine scholar who is knowledgeable of the
science of Uṣūl-ul-Fiqh.
The Modernists cannot provide answers when faced with contradictions in
their own thought and methodology. They cannot provide an alternative for ḥudūd,
for example. Yet, a place where the ḥudūd laws exist, but are not practically
implemented, would definitely be a much safer place to live, because just the
thought of having one’s hand chopped off for theft is a sufficient deterrent
for various crimes. The places where jail time is obligatory for the same
crimes have much more to deal with in the long run and bring a significant
amount of burden upon the taxpayer, like, funding the prisons and courts.
Modernists seek to remove the essence and soul of religion from the
lives of Muslims. Hence, when a Muslim blurts ‘Maqāṣid’, he or she mostly has
no idea what the entire topic is about. The ‘Maqāṣid’ that he supposedly understands
has replaced the noble and pristine law he held so dearly for so long. This is
the fundamental major crime of Modernist and compassionate scholars.
What do the Modernists do when the Maqāṣid they propagate clash with the
Maqāṣid of other Modernists? What does the Modernist do when the Maqāṣid he
made up are no longer compatible with the times and place? Does the Modernist
today live comfortably with the thought that after five or ten years, he will
be denounced as ‘radical’, ‘barbaric’, and ‘backwards’ by the Modernists of that
time?
Islām does not change to cater for time and place, the time and place
must cater for the laws of Islām. Study the following works for more information:
1. Maqāṣid Ash-Sharī’ah Between Modernist Thought and Uṣūlī Thought, Ibrāhīm Muḥammad Ṣiddīq
[1] Muḥammad Ṭahir Ibn Ashur was born in 1879 in Tunis. After his studies in Tunis, he rose to a number of prominent positions and wrote many books. He wrote his work on Maqāsid Al-Sharī’ah after meeting Muḥammad Abdu – the infamous Egyptian reformist (actually, deformist) and was first published in 1946 in Tunis. After his meeting with Abdu, Ibn Ashur began writing articles on the need for reforming Islamic education, with special emphasis that Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah should occupy a special place in teaching and studying jurisprudence. His cherished aim was to establish Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah as an independent science, under the title of ‘Ilm Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah.
[2] Treatise on Maqāṣid Al-Sharī’ah, Ibn Ashur, Translated by Mohamed El-Tahir El-Mesawi, The International Institute of Islamic Thought
[3] Sūrat āl-‘Imrān: 19
