An often repeated point in many Islamic forums that raise the subject of ijtihad and Fiqh revival concerns the theory and practice of such ijtihad. Let us remind ourselves here that ijtihad means the exercise of mental, intellectual and scholarly effort in order to determine the Islamic view in respect of issues that are presented to a scholar or a judge.
Some writers and some interested people claim that contemporary Islamic scholars often confine themselves to theory when they speak of the need of reviving Fiqh scholarship and the continuity of ijtihad. They accuse them of not putting in practice what they speak about in theory. Islamic scholars are often severely criticized and accused of thinking that they have re-opened the closed door of ijtihad by merely speaking about it and advocating its reopening.
Other people who listen to such criticism often believe it to be true. They think that no Islamic scholar today uses his knowledge, reason and ability to arrive at verdicts to new problems and issues. Rather, they continue to live in the past, advocating no opinion and giving no ruling except what they copy from earlier scholars, repeating their arguments.
All such claims are totally unfair. Ijtihad is indeed being practiced right across the Muslim world, on practical, legal and intellectual issues. Books, the press and the media bring us every day new views arrived at by eminent scholars in every country of the Muslim world, as they deal with various issues. The problem is that the monitoring machinery in all our countries is far too inadequate to undertake the necessary task of recording and documenting what is actually taking place in intellectual and scholarly circles. Needless to say, such recording and documentation must be undertaken on a continuous basis in order to make available the emerging results of scholarship and to enhance the experience gained through the scholarly efforts of ijtihad exerted by contemporary scholars.
Many of these efforts represent a fundamental change in the Islamic outlook at the questions raised. Had these changes been properly and accurately monitored, recorded and documented, today’s Muslims would have had all they need to be reassured on two main points. First, today’s scholars are up to their task and, secondly, the principles and operative rules of Islamic scholarship are adequate to arrive at suitable verdicts on contemporary issues.
Documenting ijtihad in the field of the work of Islamic movements is no better than its documentation in the legal (i.e. Fiqh) and intellectual fields. In many situations we find that the contemporary Islamic movement, and its spokesmen, adopt attitudes betraying their lack of study of the ijtihad undertaken even by the founders of their movement.
Shortly before the 1987 parliamentary elections in Egypt, it was recommended that a number of women should contest the elections on the Islamic Alliance lists of candidates. In fact, a number of ladies enjoying a good measure of popularity in Islamic circles were approached for this purpose. But suddenly the whole idea was discarded and the very concept of women candidates was buried under the pretext that a woman may not be assigned a position of authority. This claim is based on the Hadith which quotes the Prophet as saying: “A community that assigns its authority to a woman shall not be successful.” This argument, or ijtihad, is contrary to the views published by Imam Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the very question of women participation as voters and candidates in elections.
In the Egyptian parliamentary elections of 1987 and 1995, the question of including some Christians on the lists of candidates nominated or supported by the Islamic Alliance was a major issue of controversy. Yet this controversy flies in the face of the highly practical and enlightened steps taken much earlier by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading and most influential Islamic movement throughout the Muslim world. The whole controversy centered round the need to abide by the rule stating: “A non-Muslim may not have authority over a Muslim.”
In the run-up to the 1995 parliamentary elections I was asked more than once about both issues of electing women and Christian candidates and the statements quoted by those arguing against such candidacy. In my answer I mentioned that both statements are quoted out of context to prove something to which neither of them refers. Contesting elections may not be construed as seeking authority, nor does membership of parliament mean assigning authority to an elected candidate.
A member of parliament is a representative of the people and their agent. When they contest the elections, individual or party candidates present to the people the measures they intend to take on behalf of the people and the services they will offer to their constituents and other citizens as they become their agents when elected. An agent represents and acts on behalf of the person or persons who appoint him, and he has no authority of any type over them.
From the linguistic point of view, walayah, means authority and power. In Islamic context, the term waliy al-amr denotes a person who actually wields and exercises power, more or less monopolizing it.
Today, there is not a single country where authority is exercised according to the Islamic definition of the term. The whole concept of government, its institutions and machinery has undergone a total change leaving no one exercising such a monopoly of power.
“Authority”, as used in the two statements quoted above, denotes the overall authority which includes the duties assigned to the head of an Islamic state. These include certain purely religious duties which we would be unfair an unkind if we were to assign them to a Christian, while Islam urges us to be fair and kind to our fellow citizens of other religious denominations. They also include religious and military duties that women cannot undertake.
Neither of these aspects has anything to do with the role of a member of parliament who, in most aspects of his parliamentary duties, is an adviser. He is certainly a part of the process of decision-making. In no way does a member of parliament take a decision on an individual basis, nor is he ever able to prevent taking one at his own behest. All decision-making procedures are determined by a majority of votes, where every member of parliament, regardless of status, religion or sex, has one vote.
In such a process, no single member of parliament exercises any part of the overall authority. Not only so, but the legislative authority that parliament enjoys depends at the end of the day on the legislative measures being approved by the president of the republic. This means that the full measure of authority is not enjoyed by parliament as a whole. Parliament only exercises certain aspects of such authority.
My answer to those who put the questions to me was that our criteria for giving our votes to particular candidates should be: their suitability as advisers, seriousness in fulfilling their promises, ability to serve the interests of the general public, firmness in fighting corruption, courage in standing up for the truth and opposing evil and falsehood. In all these Muslims and Christians, men and women are equal. Distinction between them should not be made on the basis of their religion or sex, but on their personal morality, character, history and ability.
I presented these views of mine to Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, may God bless his soul, and Sheikh Yussuf Al-Qaradawi, and Dr. Muhammad Imarah and they all approved them in full. My answers and the approval of these eminent scholars were published in Al-Shaab newspaper on Nov. 21, 1995.
I am glad to say that their publication put an end to a simmering conflict that was about to erupt in a certain constituency in Cairo where one of the leading Christian figures was contesting the elections. His rival, a candidate of the ruling National Party, was raising in his electioneering sectarian issues that threatened to engulf the whole constituency in sectarian trouble. The publication of the views I have outlined and their endorsement by our eminent scholars served as an effective antidote to the poisonous propaganda that aimed to fuel hatred and discord among the people.