-
Is The Sharia Law Timeless?
Would you bother to “get your horses ready” if you’ve got machines?
-
18 Replies
-
Is The Sharia Law Timeless?
updated 2 years, 6 months ago
4 Members
·
18
Replies
-
Please refer to:
-
All sharia laws and injunctions are “sadd e zaria” as they aim to end injustice in any from (based on 7:32-33.)
Am I right in concluding that if God shows us (thru science and technology) a better way to eliminate, control or indemnify injustice, we will prefer it over the ancient ideas given in holy books to achieve it as sharia laws are time bond and may not be the most effective solutions in all times until the day of judgement?
Is there any example, where we are supposed to follow the tradition despite being able to apply better ideas to eliminate injustice – i mean is there any “absolute timeless injunctions” in sharia law?
I can’t think of any. E.g.
– if one can behave his wife by changing wifi password, he does have to “beat her”, right?
– if one can record deals using a camera, he wouldn’t need two women witnesses, right?
– if siblings mutually agree to use a different formula to divide the inheritance, the sharia shouldn’t have any problem with that right?
– if women are safe in a dress consider modest in their society, they don’t have to cover their heads?
-
Being a Muslim, when we are talking about sharia directives, their nature (whether permanent, termporary or sadd-e-Zaria) must be determined from the Quran itself. We cannot use external reasoning to give a verdict about their nature. Each directive needs to be studied with it’s proper context to determine it’s nature. Wherever in Quran, a particular form has been prescribed, that form needs to be followed in it’s letter and spirit, unless content and context of that directive makes it clear that it was a temprary or sadd-e-zariya directive e.g. Punsihments mentioned in Quran with all their conditions, are timeless, as they relate to perpetrators who are conscious Muslims only and are extreme in their nature. Below that, society can come up with any punsihment it deems fit. Same is the case with inheritance law, as Quran clearly states that humans have no basis of knowing which relationship is more close / beneficial to another, therefore shares have been prescribed by Allah. Laws relating to iddat are based on Sadd-e-Zaria as it can be seen by their application in Quran itself where iddat has been reduced in cases with no chance of pregnancy.
Please refer to the video in the following link, it offers great insight into this matter:
-
1. “The nature of sharia directives, their nature (whether permanent, termporary or sadd-e-Zaria) must be determined from the Quran itself.” What is your reasoning to support this principle? I believe the law of nature, science and technologies and ideas how to make a good use of them all comes from God so why we “must restrict to the divines books to seek guidance and solutions to eliminate injustice?
2. What if in a culture the letter kills the spirit – which one of the two should be followed e.g we get our horses ready (instead of machines) to end zulm and lose the battle? where did Quran said this direction is temporary and if you have something better than horses you need not to worry about this advice?
3. Is it true that all sharia laws are to stop the 5 sins given in Sura Aliraaf? if so all of them are ‘sadd e zaria right?
4. What if a brother does not want a share in inheritance as he believes her sisters deserve all of it? There are two options
a. they follow sharia law and give him two parts and one part to her sister. He then gifts his two parts to her sister. Anything wrong here?
b. they dont follow sharia law and with mutual consent give all to the sister? anything wrong here?
5. Is it “unIslamic” if someone always tries to find a better way to achieve the substance or intent of sharia rather than sticking to old fashion ways e.g. can women arrange a safe passage to toilets for them or they must draw their cloaks over their heads so save themselves from mischief makers?
6. If we can cure criminal minds do we have to chop off limbs to serve justice? Would it kill the spirit of sharia?
Will appreciate you point by point response.
-
1) They are called divine books for a reason, because they give divine guidance. A Muslim, who believes in Quran to be a Divine Book, cannot ignore this fact. Just like a human being gives importance to laws of nature, science and technology, similarly a Muslim cannot ignore Quran as a book of divine guidance. And it is Quran that will decide the nature of guidance given in it, whether it be injunctions of permanent, temporary or Sadd-e-Zariya basis.
2) We all know that horses were not the only resource to fight even at that time, there were swords, camels, armors and other resources as well. Men and cavalry represented military might. Just the way swords and armors were used in addition to horses, similary, other means can also be used to achieve the purpose of striking terror into the enemies of Allah, anything which represents military might.
3) Not all of them are Sadd-e-Zariya e.g. in case of inheritance, Quran says:
آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا فَرِيضَةً مِنْ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
“You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and All-Knowing“. (4:11)
in case of punishment of thievery, Quran says:
وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنْ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ فَمَنْ تَابَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
“And as to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as a reward of their own deeds, and as an exemplary punishment from God. But whoever repents and mends his ways after committing this crime shall be pardoned by Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”. (5:38-39)
The wordings like, law of God, you know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit, exemplary punishment from God, are all indicative of their permanent nature.
4) Anyone, whether brother or a sister, can forego their rights in favour of another person, there’s no need to follow options a or b. The inheritance shares as ordained by God, establish rights of the said parties, and any party can let go of his/her rights in favour of another party.
5) This is again reference to a measure that was taken temporarily and verses are very clear in this regard. This has been discussed at length in following videos:
6) Islamic punishments are subject to some conditions i.e. they are for conscious muslims, they are the maximum sentence and are to be given only when nature of crime and condition of the perpetrator do not allow for any concession. However, as discussed in point (3), they’re imposition of punishment by God in this world and cannot be changed.
-
1. So the natural law, the basis of science, is not divine? Is it God who creates modern tools and systems e.g. robots or it’s the mankind?
2. So are you saying if we have machines we should still get the horse ready or no need for horses any more? In my view, there is no need even though horses are specifically mentioned in the divine directive.
3. My understanding of sadd e zaria is anything that prevents the 5 sins in Sura Al Iraaf are sadd e zaria. Even the divine laws are to prevent those sins and therefore except for ibadaat, every things in sharia is sadd e zaria and therefore following them may be obligatory for the direct audience of Quran but for the others, it’s obligatory only if they are the best ideas to prevent the sins.
4. So we agree that the mutual agreement will prevail over the inheritance law. That was exactly my point.
5. I agree with you here.
6. I agree here too as you said Islamic punishments define the maximum limits meaning under no circumstances one can get punished more than that. there is no minimum punishments and a criminal can even be forgiven. so no disagreement.
-
1) I do not understand your use of term ‘Divine’ in this context. If by divine you mean that Natural Laws, laws of physics etc. were created as a result of Divine intervention, then yes I agree with you. However, this divine intervention is different from Divine Revelation in the form of Book i.e. Quran, which is more direct and more potent in terms of addressing humans as to what is required of them, what is their purpose in this life, and how to achieve ultimate salvation. The laws of nature, physics and mathematics were left to humans to discover and explore through a procees of evolution, but the laws which were directly related to our success in the life in the hereafter, were not left to human intellect solely, instead guidance was available since day one and no room was given to humans in this domain to discover them on their own through a process of societal evolution.
2) No, horses will not be used, as the directive was clearly pointing towards military might and there’s nothing which point towards its permanent nature as opposed to examples I quoted in Point (3) to my previous reply.
3) “every thing in sharia is sadd e zaria” – this point needs to be substantiated from the Divine Book itself, we cannot conclude this on a purely philosophical basis, especially when we have the source available with us in its pure form. Examples I quoted above in Point (3) to my previous reply, do indicate toward their permanent nature. And there are examples which also point toward some directives to be of Sadd-e-Zaria nature e.g. iddat directives, having witnesses etc. But all of this process has to go through the source book itself, not on surmise.
Regarding other points (4,5 and 6), It’s true that we may be in agreement, but our approach is different in this regard e.g. in case of punishment of cutting hand of a thief, it is the principles of liguistics, when applied to the text of Quran, has led Ghamidi Sahab reach this conclusion that these are extreme punishments and are subject to other conditions as well, as pointed out in my previous response. Same is the case with inheritance and cloak requirments in Surah Ahzab. We have to go through the text of Quran to reach this conclusion; no blanket statement can be given in this regard. Each directive has to be studied separately, in the light of principles of linguistucs, the content and context of the text, the intended audience etc.
-
the fundamental point that we need to decompose is about the exhausted list of 5 sins in Sura AlIraaf.
am I right in my understanding that the 5 sins are the only sins in Islam?
is this correct that all those sins are actually different forms of injustice or zulm?
is it true that all other do’s and don’t are actually “application of control” to prevent those sins?
-
…“am I right in my understanding that the 5 sins are the only sins in Islam?
is this correct that all those sins are actually different forms of injustice or zulm?”…
Yes, this statement is correct.
…“is it true that all other do’s and don’t are actually “application of control” to prevent those sins?”…
Most of them, but not all of them. For example, the reason for punishment of thievery has been mentioned in Quran as “reward of their own deeds, and as an exemplary punishment from God”. This means, the reason is not primarily the prevention, it could however be a secondary benefit here.
-
Any other example to support your point. This one is not good one as the word “exemplary” means making it a example for other as a deterrence to commit similar sins. so that is actually for prevention of zulm that actually supports my understanding.
-
– ““And as to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as a reward of their own deeds, and as an exemplary punishment from God. But whoever repents and mends his ways after committing this crime shall be pardoned by Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”. (5:38-39)
– ” The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread anarchy in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter, theirs will be an awful doom except those who repent before you overpower them, then you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful”. (5:33-34)
– “And We enjoined for them therein: life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, wound for wound. Then he who forgoes, then this shall be an atonement for his own self. And those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the wrongdoers”. (5:45)
– “…And there is life for you in qisas O men of insight that you may follow the limits set by Allah”. (2:179)
– “The man and the woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. The man guilty of fornication may only marry a woman similarly guilty or an idolatress and the woman guilty of fornication may only marry such a man or an idolater. The believers are forbidden such marriages”. (24:2-3)
– “You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and All-Knowing“. (4:11)
-
It is clear from the above verses that the punishments for crimes are for deterrence to prevent criminals and others from such crimes in the future. In other words those are sadd e zaria
2ndly, those are the maximum punishments and therefore even if they are understood as “timeless” they do not become a hinderance in applying better ways to prevent crimes or cure criminal minds if technology makes it possible in the future.
Based on the above discussion, am I right in concluding that hikmah is timeless but the shriah is time-bond. It was meant for the time and the people of the prophet SW, In other cultures or times it should be followed with care and only where the letter does not kill the spirit?
-
السلام علیکم!
Wudood Bhai, can you clarify your argument with regards to when the Quran says, “جزاء بما كسبا نكالا من الله”? Let me clarify my question. First of all, the Quran says that this is recompense for their crime. So, it is not just to deter others from commiting the same, but rather as a reward. Secondly, the Quran doesn’t just say that it is an exemplary punishment. In that case, we may have said that any exemplary punishment would do. No, the Quran says “an exemplary punishment from God” (Himself). How would you replace a punishment set by God Himself? When He Himself mentions specifically that this is the punishment that has been set by Him (as opposed to any other).
-
It’s a punishment to criminals of highest level of evil will, who do not deserve any commutation, reduction or mitigation in their punishment.
However, no matter how brutal a crime one commits, his punishment can’t be more than the prescribed limited. In that sense it can be taken as a timeless guideline I agree.
Since it’s up to the judgement of the court to determine if any underlying mental or physical disorder has caused the crime or it is due to some unfavorable circumstances to which the criminal was exposed, which led him to commit a crime, the court may end up giving a much lower punishment than what the criminal actually deserved. That wouldn’nt matter because Allah can always reward punishments to criminals in the hereafter no matter they are punished in this world or not. In other words, whether a person gets punished to the level he deserves in the eyes of God is not our concern. Our concern should be to make sure we do not end up punishing more than what one deserves as this would tantamount to zulm and injustice.
In short, we should always use the modern knowledge and technology to explore causes of a crime that were beyond the reasonable control of the criminal so the courts can give him minimum possible punishment to avoid a possibility of zulm.
In that sense, the maximum punishments become irrelevant in the modern world.
The other point is defining limits or justice is actually Hikmah and therefore timeless. Our argument here is about those commandments that tell us how to deliver justice . this how to part is not time less that is time bond for culture s and times where abetter way of delivering justice is not available
-
I think the verses I quoted above are self-explanatory regarding their timeless nature. However, if you’re more inclined toward universal sadd-e-Zaria nature of all Quranic directives, then of course you’re free to opt that.
-
-
Please also refer to the video below from 30:03 to 34:37
Alternative Link: ilm-o-Hikmat 02-07-2017
-
Please also refer to the video below from 33:12 to 36:50
Alternative Link: ilm-o-Hikmat 26-09-2021
-
Please also refer to the video below from 40:31 to 47:33
Alternative Link: ilm-o-Hikmat 01-07-2018
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
