1 Islamic Jurisprudence Comparison

The concept of centrism is both generic and specific.  The generic aspect is understood to be Islamic centrism (al-wasaṭiyyah al-islāmiyyah), which implies moderation (iʿtidāl) against all forms of excessiveness (ghulūw) or extremism (taṭarruf).  By contrast, the specific aspect is understood as the centrist methodology (minhāj al-wasaṭiyyah), which endeavours to occupy a theoretical midpoint (wasaṭ) between opposing extremes in the methods of extracting legal rulings (ṭuruq istinbāṭ al-aḥkām al-sharʿiyyah) and argued to be the better course of legal reasoning.

Aqeedah: On justice, reason, free will, and wisdom, the Shia supported the Mu’tazilah stance

The Mu’tazilites emphasized Gods justice, the Asharites emphasized God’s omnipotence.  The Mu’tazilites believe that it would be unfair and act of injustice if God would be responsible of creating people’s actions and in the same scenario be the one responsible of punishing them because of the action that he himself created while denying him the free will.

The Shias, in the same way that they maintained independence in matters of jurisprudence and the “branches” of faith, were also independent in the “roots” and principles of religion: theology, philosophy, and what is termed as Islamic Scholastics (ma’arife Islami).

The issues of Divine justice and unity were also tabled in the Shia school of theology and philosophy, and the opinions expressed in their regard in this school were some of the most profound.  On the four famous issues of justice, reason, free will, and wisdom, the Shia school supported the Mu’tazilah stance and consequently also came to be called “justifiers” (adliyyah).  But in the Shia school, the concept of each one of these four was different from that of the Mu’tazilah.

In the Shia school, fundamentality of justice, sanctity of human reason, dignity of human free will and sagacious ordering of nature were established without any detriment to the principle of Divine unity-in essence or acts.  Man’s free will was demonstrated without him becoming a partner to God’s dominion and power and without God’s will becoming subservient to the human will.  Divine decree and destiny were also proven to encompass all of Being without it leading to man being determined in his actions and subjugated to predestination.

All the tendencies in the Shia school of theology were unitive or tawhidi.  To explain: in the debate over the unity or multiplicity of attributes, the Shia sided with unity.  In so doing, they denied the Ash’arite belief in this regard and agreed with the Mu’tazilah.

Fiqh: The Traditionalists and the Analogists

Islamic jurisprudence, like other sciences, quickly developed and evolved leading to the formation of different systems. Among the Sunnis, two main systems or schools of jurisprudence developed: The Traditionalist system (ahl al-hadith) which was popular amongst the jurisprudents of Medina, and the Analogist system (ra’y wa qiyas) which was influential amongst the jurisprudents of Iraq.

The methodology of the Traditionalists was that at the first they would refer to the Qur’an, and if they did not find the ruling on the issue that they were looking for there, they would turn to the Prophetic traditions. If they found the traditions to be different from one another, they would give preference to one depending upon the chain of transmission. But if they either did not find a tradition on the issue, or if they could not give preponderance to any single tradition among a group, then they would turn to the opinions and rulings of the Companions of the Prophet. If this latter way was also to no avail then they would try to find useful hints and intimations in the texts at hand. Hence it was very rare that they would take recourse in analogy or baseless opinions (qiyas wa ra’y).

The methodology of the Analogists was different from that of the Traditionalists. If they did not find the ruling on an issue in the Qur’an or in categorical and definitive Prophetic traditions, they would not so readily turn to and trust the transmitted (manqul) traditions-for they held them to be for the most part made-up and doctored. They were of the belief that a Muslim jurisprudent, due to his command over and experience of categorical Islamic rules and regulations, was in tune with the spirit of the Law and could come to the ruling on any particular issue by way of analogy and comparison.

Along these lines, the Analogists were of the opinion that “justice” and “expediency” were good guidelines for jurisprudents to follow. Hence it was incumbent on the jurisprudent to ponder and deliberate on the “dictates of Divine justice” and the “callings of expediency.” It was due to this that terms such as istihsan and istislah; were coined.

• The Traditionalists made it clear that depending upon analogy led a person to making mistakes and deviations in apprehending the Law.  The Traditionalists held that there were three sources of jurisprudence: the Book (Qur’an), Tradition (sunnah), and consensus.
• The Analogists on their part accused the Traditionalists of trusting a series of transmitted reports and traditions whose correctness and validity was not clear.  The Analogists on the other hand held that there were four sources of jurisprudence: the above mentioned three in addition to analogy (qiyas wa ra ‘y).

The Shia Jurisprudential Method

While it is true that not all the rulings of all issues are spelled out in detail-something which is not even possible because particulars are unlimited, the general principles of Islam are laid out such that they meet the demands of these endless particular instances and the differing situations of various times and places.

Accordingly then, the responsibility of a jurisprudent is not to be pedantically stuck on literal words-wanting the particular ruling for each and every event from the Qur’an and traditions; nor is it his obligation – with the excuse of not having a ruling for a particular issue – to let his imagination go wild and make liberal use of analogy (to come up with a ruling).

Reason vs Imagination

Shia jurisprudence made distinctions between reason and imagination – in other words, between logical proofs and irrational (zanni) analogies (which are the same as the “analogies” of formal logic).  It was affirmed that the sources of jurisprudence are four in number:  The Book, Tradition, consensus, and reason.  Hence, while analogy was rejected in this school of jurisprudence, in its stead reason and formal proofs were given credence.

The Shia refutation of analogy was not due to the argument used by the Traditionalists among the Sunnis-namely, reason lacking the authority to be one of the sources of the Law.  It was rather due to two other reasons:

1. the fact that analogy is based on supposition and not on certain knowledge – it is the preference of imagination over the intellect;
2. turning to analogy or unfettered opinions is tantamount to saying that the general principles of Islam are insufficient; and this is either an injustice to Islam or an ignorance of it.

The use of general principles

On the contrary, the mandate of a jurisprudent is deduction (tafri’) and inference by reasoning from the general to the specific (i.e. weighing particular facts or instances against general principles).  Islamic principles already exist in the Book and Tradition; only one skill is necessary, and that is ijtihad or the skillful correlation and application of general Islamic principles to transient and changing particulars.