Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Discussion in the “Awan-e-Waqt” Assembly Debate of the Daily “Nawa-i-Waqt”
In the present era, our academic circles have begun to use the term ‘Ijtihad’ (independent reasoning) incorrectly. Generally, I have observed that when people use this term concerning certain religious injunctions and some directives of Shariah, their intention is that due to the evolution of civilization and changes over time, the application of these injunctions and directives has become impossible. Therefore, they believe that through ijtihad, efforts should be made to adapt them to the demands of the present age. My perception is that this issue stems from a lack of understanding of the term ‘Ijtihad’.
The word ‘Ijtihad’ originates from a well-known narration attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), based on a conversation with Mu‘adh ibn Jabal (RA). When the Prophet (PBUH) appointed Sayyidina Mu‘adh ibn Jabal (RA) as the governor of Yemen, he asked him, “How will you make decisions?” He replied, “I will decide according to the guidance in the Book of Allah.” The Prophet inquired again, “If you do not find guidance in the Book of Allah, then what will you do?” He responded, “Then I will turn to the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (PBUH).” The Prophet further asked, “If you do not find the guidance there as well, then what?” He replied, “Ajtahidu bi-ra’yi wa la alu juhdan.” meaning, “I will make the utmost effort to form my opinion and will not spare any endeavor.” The Prophet (PBUH) then said, “Praise is to Allah, who has guided you to say what is pleasing to Allah’s Messenger.”
This is the very tradition that led to the use of the term ‘Ijtihad’ in our jurisprudence and law. If we consider this source, ijtihad does not mean altering the religious commands according to the times. Instead, it refers to forming an opinion in the light of reason and nature on matters where the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent. This is the correct meaning of ijtihad. Scholars should elucidate this meaning and dispel the misconception that allows even a layperson to claim that a certain punishment mentioned in the Qur’an or a certain directive of the Prophet (PBUH) is no longer applicable in the modern age, and thus should be subjected to ijtihad.
The commands that Allah Almighty has given us through the Holy Qur’an and the guidance that the Prophet (PBUH) has provided through his Sunnah are not subjects for ijtihad, but rather subjects for contemplation. This means that one must strive to understand the true intent behind any command in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It will be examined whether people have wrongly determined the intent of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Any shortcomings in research will be identified, and errors in interpretation will be clarified. However, all these efforts will be aimed at reaching the true intent of the religion, not for making any changes or alterations in it.
There are two realms in Sharia regarding the affairs of life:
There is one domain that pertains to the interactions between Allah Almighty and His servants. This domain encompasses matters of servitude and worship. In this, Shariah has legislated to the utmost degree. In these devotional matters, Shariah does not permit humans to introduce anything from their side. If a directive has been given in these matters, it must be followed. If something has been prohibited, it must be avoided. Taking even one step beyond the defined edicts of this domain will be deemed innovation and misguidance. Hence, the declaration of the Qur’an that the religion has reached its perfection in every respect necessitates that there should be no interference in these matters.
The second domain pertains to matters between human beings. This includes matters of politics, economics, society, etiquette, as well as prescribed punishments. In all these matters, the Sharia has commanded the performance of certain acts and prohibited others.
Within this context, the Sharia addresses only those issues where human intellect has faltered or is likely to falter. Thus, there are a few specific things that the Sharia has defined. For example, there are seven or eight commandments related to economics, similarly, there are a few commandments pertaining to politics, certain commandments concerning society, and five to seven matters have been specified related to etiquette and religious symbols. In the realm of limits and punishments, there are only five crimes for which punishments have been stipulated. Apart from these, all other matters have been left to human intellect. That is, all matters for which the Sharia has provided no command will be resolved through ijtihad in light of religion. Muslim scholars and intellectuals, considering civilization, circumstances, and customs, can legislate on these matters.
Neither can society be halted in one place, nor can its civilization be rendered stagnant; therefore, the need for ijtihad cannot be eliminated. The Sharia is eternal, whereas ijtihad is not eternal. It can be altered according to time and circumstances. People of one country can adopt one opinion based on their circumstances, their civilization, their culture, and their social setup, while people of another country can adopt a different opinion. Ijtihad is essential for the progress and survival of society. If this path is blocked, it is akin to depriving an individual of water.
This is my perspective on the necessity and importance of ijtihad. However, there are two questions in this matter that are very important:
One question is whether there are specific conditions for ijtihad?
The second issue is how ijtihad takes the form of law?
The answer to the first question is that discussing conditions in matters of ijtihad is completely meaningless. It is the argument for one’s own ijtihad that determines its validity or invalidity. The person presenting their opinion must necessarily provide its justification. If this justification is strong, there is no reason to reject their opinion based on our hypothetical conditions. Conversely, if the justification is weak, regardless of how comprehensively qualified the person conducting the ijtihad may be, it should ultimately be deemed unacceptable.
The answer to the second question is that ijtihad can attain the status of law only through the decision of the majority of the authoritative representatives of the Muslim community. These representatives, after thorough discussion and deliberation, can form their own opinion or accept the opinion of a knowledgeable and skilled scholar. In both cases, the final decision rests with them. Whichever ijtihad is accepted by their majority will be enforced as law. No individual among the Muslims will have the right to violate it. However, everyone will retain the right to disagree with it. It is possible that the majority of these representatives, influenced by differing opinions, may decide to amend the law. Thus, whether it pertains to the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah or ijtihad in matters where the Quran and Sunnah are silent, it is the elected representatives of the Muslim community whose decisions grant it the status of law in an Islamic society.