“Each individual has direct access to the Quran and hadith and is in principle entitled
to engage in ijtihad, so long as she has the requisite knowledge. Thus not only countries,
but also individuals are entitled to their own jurisprudential choices.”
(al-Hibri in ‘Muslim Women’s Rights in the Global Village’)
Discuss al-Hibri’s statement on the position in Islamic law today

by

Johannes S. Müller

Introduction  3

1. Al-Hibri’s Statement in the Framework of Islamic Modernism 5

2. Theoretical Issues of al-Hibri’s Approach  8

2.1 Who is Entitled to Perform Ijtihad?  8
2.2 Individual Ijtihad and the Notion of Community  9
2.3 Individual Ijtihad and Cultural Bias  11

3. The Practical Framework  13

3.1 Muslims in North America  13
3.2 North American Muslims as a Vanguard  14
3.3 General Considerations 15

Conclusion 16

Bibliography 17
 

Introduction

The history of the sharia¹, or Islamic law², has been one of permanent changes and challenges. It has been constantly subjected to influences from its social environment. Also today, in the current globalizing context, the question arises as to how Muslims can react to these structural changes, and how the sharia can be adapted to the new social reality.

In her paper ‘Muslim Women’s Rights in the Global Village’, al-Hibri suggests that “each individual has direct access to the Quran and hadith and is in principle entitled to engage in ijtihad, so long as she has the requisite knowledge. Thus not only countries, but also individuals are entitled to their own jurisprudential choices.”³ This statement raises several issues that will be discussed in this essay. As W. Hallaq states, “the success of any legal methodology hinges not only upon its intellectual integrity and sophisticated level of theorization but also upon its feasibility in a social context.”⁴ This statement will serve as a guideline throughout this essay, as I will examine al-Hibri’s statement from both a theoretical and a practical perspective.

I intend to argue that while al-Hibri’s approach offers a perspective for Islamic law in the North American context that is both apt to the social structure and able to emancipate women from the problematic adherence to the traditional schools, both the theoretical and practical examinations of her approach raise a number of questions. The key problem of her approach is the ill-defined middle position between modernist views and adherence to traditional principles, which make her approach neither theoretically convincing nor easily applicable.

To prove this thesis, I will put al-Hibri’s statement in a larger context in the first section. The second section will be concerned with theoretical questions. Here, I will show that her notion of individual ijtihad is questionable, and that while she mentions the principle of ijma as a source of law, her approach lacks a notion of community or systematic contiguity, and that the concept of individual ijtihad alone does not convincingly solve the problem of cultural influences. Third, in a practical section, I will discuss both the applicability to the North American context and the transferability to Muslim states. Finally, I will summarize the findings of this paper and suggest modifications of al- Hibri’s approach.

1. Al-Hibri’s Statement in the Framework of Islamic Modernism

The sharia is believed to be valid at all places, situations, and times. This belief requires that it is flexible, and can be adapted to new places and times⁵. In the late 19th century, when the growing impact of Western ideas and modernisation processes led to a challenge of the Islamic world⁶, early reformists tried to synthesize the jurisdiction of the Sunni schools by selection (takhayyur) and combination (talfiq)⁷, and thus create a positivized version of the sharia. Their aim was the conservation of Islam and its immunisation against secular influences⁸.

Others demanded a more radical departure from traditional interpretations of the sources. Modernists like M. Iqbal in India⁹ suggested that the Quran and the sunna can and even should be interpreted “independently from prevailing opinions of the lawyers of the four madhhabs”¹⁰. New interpretations of the principles revealed in the sources had to be found in order to find a way to adapt Islam to the modern context. Al-Hibri speaks in this tradition when she argues that the culturally influenced rulings of the jurists often suffer from inconsistencies, they become ‘outmoded’, and have therefore to be eliminated¹¹. Individual ijtihad may take their place.

[...]

1 For reasons of readability, I will abstain from transliterating the `ayin and other sounds alien to the English language.

2 The term ‘law’ might be misleading if understood as law in a European sense. The word sharia literally means path and encompasses a much larger horizon than just provisions of what is allowed or prohibited. The term Islamic law is used here for purposes of simplification. Nevertheless, the sharia will be confronted with Western perceptions of law, as this is the context to which al-Hibri’s approach refers.

3 Al-Hibri (2000), p.44.

4 Hallaq (1997), p.254.

5 Cf. Shepard (1987), p.311.

6 Cf. Peters (1984), p.131.

7 Cf. Layish (1978), p.263.

8 This aim, however, had actually the opposite effect. Cf. Layish (1978), p.265.

9 Cf. Coulson (2003), p.202.

10 Peters (1984), p.131

11 Cf. Al-Hibri (2000), pp.41.43.