Originally Posted by
Merryprankster
The distinction about how you interpret ijtihad then is probably important. Some may interpret one way and some another which will have a direct impact on what's legal or not in their opinions.
Well see, this is one important thing when talking about Islam. Not only are there Sunni and Shia, but there are different schools of law/jurisprudence within each major sect. Each differs in the weight given to certain interpretive methodologies
BTW, I'm not suggesting the process isn't fallible (or pushing it towards the divine). I was suggesting that IF ijtihad is the seeking of Allah's will on a particular issue, then the legitimacy is, in fact, derived from the divine.
No problem - a misunderstanding on my part 
The legitimacy of any ruling is based on it being derived in some way from the Sources, but not the same as saying it is divine. In history many people were making rulings based on their whim and some mystics were saying things like "i saw this in a dream" or "the Prophet told me in a dream" and so on - so the whole legal methodology was developed, so as to take out the more personal and hence un-provable/un-critiqueable aspect. This is why anyone who wants to become a jurist has to study many subjects, a major one being classical arabic, grammar, etymology and morphology of the language and other things more specific to Islamic law.
As i said a misunderstanding, but anyway i hope it was useful
They don't have to, nor should they if it's unacceptable. I'm not suggesting that that is a solution. I was merely pointing out that the answer the question "why don't they just do 'x' like we have" is somewhat silly once you get into the meat of the issue.
Im glad to hear it, and hope everyone can work towards a realistic and amicable solution.
I'm trying to identify if there is an "issue" we are working our way through using the process of debate or if we are just having a discussion, because I agree with you on all counts.
I dont think it was a debate - more i thought that it may be useful to share a more "insiders" perspective relating to this issue. Like i said initially, i disagree with your comment about Islamic jurisprudence lacking, as someone who has studied specifically the principles of law for a few years now i feel exactly the opposite.
I did learn that there are different interpretations of what ijtihad is, and I believe that will have a direct impact on how you perceive "where law comes from," which will also have a direct impact on what you perceive as acceptable or not within an Islamic context.
Again, this is why consulation and a type of consensus is important when talking about rulings and other legislative methods.
Good to know. I thought it was a commonly accepted definition. It appears it is not.
it gets much more complex once you start talking about specifics. Anything which is not a mere application of some type of precedent is a type of Ijtihad. Specifically its relating to providing answers to new problems based on existing materials. So Qiyas according to one of the most important jurists (Imam Shafii) is basically singular/personal Ijtihad, while Ijma is collective Ijtihad. But there are also many other aspects included within this such as "public interest", "custom", "neccessity", "culture", "juristic preference", "presumption of continuity", "blocking the means" and many other tools which form the corpus of islamic jurisprudence. Different schools of law put different weight on all of these, and some exclude various aspects mentioned above completely. Sunni Law (which i study) is very different to Shi'i law because of the difference in theology. Something Iraq also needs to take in to account when doing any type of legislation.
Zim: Its quite a confusing scenario because "technically" there is no priest class in islam. Any adult male can lead a congregation in prayer, perform a marriage ceremony, do a funeral and all these other things. But yes, most of the legal jurists were also practising Muslims too. The confusing aspect is that even though they were practising, they had various different political and theological beliefs. Some in history for example were purely Aristotlean in their philosophy and theology, minimising the revelatory aspect of islam completely. others were the complete opposite and engaged in spirituality a lot. The principles of law can be studied by anyone really - anyone can learn arabic and learn the interprative process etc. But quite simply its only really Muslims who would bother to do such things as its quite a hard subject to study (as is any type of law).
One of my favourite scholars from the middle ages ibn Rushd (Averroes) said that islamic law is based on logical principles so much so that even a non-Muslim could study it and understand how to form and apply rulings. From my experience of "islamic studies" subjects at Universty i can see its so.
But try telling that to the majority of Muslims today 
Last edited by dezhen2001; 03-05-2005 at 07:27 PM.
Peace is not the product of terror or fear.
Peace is not the silence of cemeteries.
Peace is not the silent result of violent repression.
Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution of all to the good of all.
Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity.
It is right and it is duty.
Reply With Quote
