First 620 words of the document:
To what extent does the Sharia provide complete guidance for Muslims today? (20
Sharia law is a guide for Muslims revealing the road to submission. There are four sources to
this guidance the Quran, which is the word of God, the Sunna, which is the word of
Muhammad the Prophet. Then there is a ijma (consensus) and qiyas (analogy).
Some schools of fiqh (the science of law) which support qiyas believe in the role of reason in
ijtihad. Other schools are opposed to qiyas, they do not approve of any role for reason,
neither in the form of qiyas nor in any other form. These people are called modernists and
Traditionalists only trust the Quran and the Sunna, they know both inside out. They argue
these are articles of faith and their regulations are timeless because God's word is eternal
therefore the word of God the Quran is eternal too.
They believe that today Muslims can find resolutions to new situations using both articles.
For example to decide upon inhaling cocaine the Quran declares from the example of wine,
that anything that intoxicates you and give hallucinations is Haram, so cocaine is Haram. The
traditionalist's fear that in a situation such as this individual judgement will lead to division
and a lack of unity destroying the submission and Islam. They stick to what they feel they
know. The Ulema (religious scholars) are the ones able to decide upon what the ijma
(consensus) and qiyas involve. The Ulema tend to be traditionalists.
A large extent of the reason industrial judgement is not permitted by Ulema is due to Osama
bin Laden. He was a political Muslim, not an Alim (scholar) who use his own judgement to
create ijtihad. It all went badly as he manipulated verses in the articles to interpret what he
wanted people to believe, for example he tried to get Muslims to abandon western
civilisation calling it `the enemy of Islam' and `Corrupt'. This all caused great conflict with
the traditionalists, closing the gates of ijtihad.
In debate with the traditionalists are the modernists who argue that the gates of ijtihad must
be reopened. They are influence by modern idea, and believe traditional ideas need to
change and become relevant. Modernists like Sardar argue that Sharia Law doesn't provide
complete guidance as it is outdated. It doesn't include medicine and technology changes.
The Ulema are all men who are unaware of these changes. Sardar wants the Ulema to be
more broadened, to include Muslim scientists and Physiologists for example, people who
understand the world in an intellectual sense as well as religious.
Because Sharia is outdated it can clash on a Muslims geographical area. Muslims are
expected to follow the land in which they live, not just via your beliefs, for example in
England, they wouldn't allow a punishment such as cutting off a thief's hands. Some of the
Sharia even applies to the desert which is only where people at the time of the Sharia law
enforcement lived, thousands of years ago. Now many live elsewhere and so land rules etc
need not apply.
Many feminist modernists would argue that the Sharia law not only needs to be broadened
scientifically, but also sexually. All the Ulema are men, thus they think like men and have no
feminine views and put their own sex first. If women were involved then Sharia might be
Other pages in this set
Here's a taster:
A women in
Saudi Arabia was stoned to death for adultery.....her husband had died 8 years before this.
Yet a man can remarry. These morals are all wrong.
Finally modernists see federal law change all the time due to different circumstances. So why
is it that Sharia can't be altered to fit in with the modern world? For example at least the
Catholic Pope is aware of condoms and then has said Catholics should not use them.…read more