The fast moving changes in every sphere of human activity brought about by the 20th century, the tempo of which has been increasing from decade to decade, have placed before mankind a variety of choices while at the same time reducing the time gap in which the relevant decisions have to be taken. Like other groups the Muslim Ummah is also confronted with a difficult situation and cannot see its way clearly in the bewildering maze of fast moving technological changes and even faster decaying moral values.
In facing the present predicament the Muslim Ummah appears to be divided into three unequal groups. The first and largest group consists of those who think that all present and future problems can be solved by going back to the past and finding a precedent or reference points, however, much you may have to stretch the points and the similarities between the past and present situations. They believe in blind ‘taqlid’ and are not prepared to apply their minds to finding new ways to treat new situations. Then there is the second group which taking its cue from Western countries, thinks that religion should be an individual’s personal concern only and all worldly problems should be solved purely on the basis of reason and science. To this group Islamic principles and values have no role to play in guiding mankind towards a solution of its problems which are getting more and more complicated. The third, and unfortunately the smallest group, realises that Islamic values and principles are for all time and can under no circumstances be put aside or abandoned. At the same time they realise that new ways and Builder approaches have to be found for the applications and implementation of Islamic values in our present and future situations, and this realisation is the crux of Ijtihad and Ijma.
Before proceeding further with a discussion of this matter, it would be desirable to present a definition of the terms ‘Ijtihad’ and ‘Ijma’ which will figure frequently in this article. Although there is no standardised universally recognised definition of these terms, the late Kamal Faruqi who had done a lot of research and written many articles on this subject, defined Ijtihad as "the disciplined striving to understand the meaning of Shariah, or Divinely inspired code whether generally or for a given problem." However, it may be noted at the outset that the opinion developed by any individual through Ijtihad, however learned he may be, carried little weight as it is considered to be a sort of personal and subjective opinion of the person concerned. What turns Ijtihad into an important source of Islamic law is the process of consensus or Ijma which has been defined by a end noted jurist, Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi as "a decision by consensus or agreement among the jurists in regard to an issue on which no 'clear' verdict is to be found in the Quran or the Sunnah".
There are three basic questions which need to be answered in order to properly understand the role of Ijtihad and Ijma in the life of the Muslim Ummah today.
Question 1_ Is Ijtihad permissible today or not?
Question 2_ Is Ijtihad absolutely necessary for the progress of Muslims?
Question 3_ Who may undertake Ijtiihad and how the whole
system of Ijtihad and
Ijma can be institutionalised in the world of
today?
With regard to the permissibility of Ijtihad today, there are two very clear but contrary views. The conservative view is that all past Ijma decisions are protected from error in an unlimited manner and cannot, therefore, be questioned under any circumstances, now or in the future. The liberal or modernist view is that past Ijma decisions cannot be considered to be irrevocably authoritative and valid for all time to come, and a later Ijma may repeal an earlier Ijma. It is obvious that in this matter the liberal view is more plausible because if the conservative view is accepted and taken to its logical conclusion, the Ijma or consensus reached by human beings in the past begins to acquire the quality of omniscience _ an exclusive attribute of God which cannot be ascribed to any one else without attracting the sin of ‘shirk’. To assert that past Ijma decisions are protected from error for all times is to ascribe to them the quality of unbounded knowledge which is a unique attribute of God and cannot be ascribed to any other than God, whether the other be a human being, material object, institution or concept. It, therefore, appears to be open to the present generation of Muslims to re-scan past Ijma decisions and where necessary revise them in the light of man’s ever widening knowledge and understanding of the Shariah. At this point, it may be noted that the need for fresh Ijtihad today arises not only for reviewing past decisions when the circumstances in which those decisions were taken have changed radically, but also for dealing with entirely new situations of which the past decision makers could not have had even an inkling such as jet or space travel, to give only one example.
This, to some extent, provides an answer to the second question also. If the Muslim Ummah is to regain its total commitment to Islam and the Islamic way of life, it must keep itself on its toes to find solutions to the ever changing social and economic problems of this world in the light of the eternal message of Islam. Not to make an earnest effort in this direction amounts either to a conscious and deliberate deviation from the path of Islam or closing our eyes to the facts of life as they are today and practising self-deception and hypocrisy on a vast scale. It is obvious that Muslim societies have changed greatly from the days of the five founders of Fiqah schools, and it is just not possible to ignore the Ravenfields present day conditions of life and not make an earnest effort to update the Fiqah decisions taken by our earlier jurists, who when all is said and done, were not infallible nor did they claim themselves to be so.
In spite of this obvious necessity for the continuation of the process of Ijtihad and Ijma, a stage came in the life of the Muslim Ummah, when the need was felt by some jurists and religious scholars for restricting and then finally altogether stopping the practice of Ijtihad. This decision of the Ulema which was apparently agreed to by the Muslim community at that time, is called the closing of the gate of Ijtihad. Since it was notional, no precise date for this major event in the history of the Muslim Ummah can be fixed, although in a broad sense it can be considered to have occurred gradually during the period 1100 _ 1300 A.D. It may be a coincidence, but if so it is a remarkable coincidence, that the 12th century also marks the beginning of the process of decline of the Muslim Ummah. Although Roomi and Ibne Khaldoon were yet to come, the distinctive role of the Muslim Ummah as the torch_bearers of knowledge for the entire human race, which is a feature of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries A.D. appears to be coming to an end as we enter the twelfth and thirteenth century. The simultaneous occurrence of these two trends cannot be trusted aside as a mere coincidence. In fact it goes to show the vital role which Ijtihad and Ijma have played in the past and can play again in reviving the intellectual life of the Muslim Ummah and putting it back on the road to progress.
The unavoidable necessity of reviving Ijtihad is also brought out vividly by the fact that in Pakistanis brief history, two authoritarian governments have made amendments in the religious laws of the Muslim Ummah by carrying out what can only be regarded as surreptitious, and disguised Ijtihad. The changes made by Ayub Khan in Mjlim family laws, and the recent ordinances about recovery of Zakat from Saving Bank Accounts, are clear instances of the exercise of a systematic form of Ijthihad by governments which had no authority from the Muslim Ummah for making changes in the religious law. However much one may deprecate the improper manner in which these measures were enforced. They show conclusively the unavoidable necessity of developing a proper institutionalised system of continuous Ijtihad and Ijma, without which the Muslim Ummah cannot move and make progress in the world of today.
Finally, we come to the third question which is the most important, and by far the most difficult to answer. How should Ijtihad and Ijma be organised systematically as an institution in the world of today so that they command universal respect and the complete acceptance of the Muslim Ummah? As to who is competent to undertake Ijtihad we again have two clear-cut and divergent views. The conservative orthodox view is that only recognised Ulema well versed in all aspects of religious knowledge can undertake this work. In support of this stand, the argument most frequently advanced is that if in the technical fields of medicine and law you consult only a recognised expert how can you let a nonjurist or a non-alim dabble in the matter of religious law through Ijtihad. The liberal or modernist viewpoint of this question is that while a knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah are a prerequisite for undertaking this task, one need not be a certified Alim to raise questions of relevance to present day conditions, since the Ijtihad of any individual is in any case Course not binding on anybody and is of little consequence by itself as pointed out earlier. At the same time, a knowledge of Muslim history specially the early history, as well as a comparative knowledge of the world around us is obviously necessary for undertaking any type of Ijtihad.
As for the privileged status of religious experts of which so much is made by the conservatives, it may be pointed out that while every patient consults a doctor, the right of choosing a particular doctor and of acting on his advice or taking a second medical opinion, rests entirely with the individual patient and no doctor can force his treatment or opinion on his patient. Similarly, in matters of interpretation of religious laws plain common sense demands that people well versed in such matters should be consulted and their views given due weight. This does not however give any right to such experts to bind down to their views those who come to consult them.
And this brings us to the stage of Ijma which alone is binding on the Muslim Ummah. The authority for Ijma is derived from various subtle references in the Quran, such as Ayat 143 of Surah Baqar which states, "thus have We made of you an Ummah justly balanced" and Ayat 103 of Surah Al_Imran which states "and hold fast, all together by the Rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves". A very vivid and clear mandate for the exercise of Ijma is provided by the well known Hadith (Tirmidhi and Ibne Maja) which states "My community will never unite in error." The authority for declaring that a particular interpretation has achieved the status of Ijma" rests entirely and exclusively with the community as a whole, and not with any individual or a group of individuals, nor with a jurist or a group of jurists. The securing of this consensus in the early days of Islam was a slow and tedious process, primarily because of lack of communications. There were also many misunderstandings and controversies. However, today with the miracle of instant global communication, this part of the problem is solved. The more serious problem of how the consensus of the community should be considered to have been obtained remains. There are several possibilities. First that a national Parliament elected on the basis of universal suffrage should be considered to have the authority to accord the necessary acceptance of changes in religious law on behalf of the community. The second alternative is a direct Referendum in which all members of the Community freely participate. In between the individual effort of Ijtihad and the completion of Software Ijma, there should the be an in-depth technical study by an organisation such as the Islamic Ideology Council, which should bring out the pros and cons of the Ijtihad suggestions but leave it to the Parliament or Referendum to take the final decision on behalf of the community.
Finally there is one aspect of Ijtihad and Ijma to which very little attention appears to have been paid so far and this arises out of the universality of Islam. Since Islam as a religion does not recognise geographical and national barriers and treats the entire Muslim Ummah as one entity, all Muslims should be involved in the working of the institution of Ijtihad and Ijma and this gives a new dimension to the complexity of this problem. However, with instant global communication, as mentioned earlier, this should not constitute an insurmountable problem, provided ofcourse if the will and commitment is there.
To sum up, there is a long list of very important issues facing the Muslim Ummah today, which can only be resolved through the process of Ijtihad and Ijma. To cite only a few examples; there are issues relating to family laws, working women including women athletes, a clear understanding of what Riba connotes and the proper utilisation of Zakat funds. There are three options open to us for dealing with such issues. We can settle them to the satisfaction of every one through a systematic and institutionalised process of Ijtihad and Ijma. The second option is that we refuse to face these issues squarely and go back and live in the past while other nations move forward into the future. Lastly, we have of course the option to try to solve these issues by practising ‘hila’ and hypocrisy on a large scale as we have been doing for quite some time now.
|