Pros and Cons of Separation between MaqÄÂá¹£id and Uṣūl al-Fiqh (A Study of The Periodization of MaqÄÂá¹£id History and Responses to Its Independence)

Tholkhatul Khoir*  -  Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.21580/ihya.25.2.18463

Interests related to human needs always invite the possibility of the birth of new knowledge. However, if it differs from previous beliefs and ideologies, the findings from the embryonic new knowledge research should be addressed. Currently, the maqÄÂá¹£id has become the most popular research theme in the field of Islamic legal theory and eclipsed uṣūl al-fiqh was facing such challenges. This article explores the evidence for the pros and cons of the separation between maqÄÂá¹£id and uṣūl al-fiqh, explains the causes, and predicts the implications. Data was obtained from secondary sources in the form of maqÄÂá¹£id and uṣūl al-fiqh works, both in the form of books, book reviews, journal articles, and dissertations, obtained from the web and libraries, and then analyzed using content analysis. This paper finds that there are indeed pros and cons of separating maqÄÂá¹£id and uṣūl al-fiqh. The evidence is: first, there are differences in periodizing the development of maqÄÂá¹£id; and second, there are differences in responses to efforts to make maqÄÂá¹£id an independent knowledge. The pros and cons are triggered by differences of opinion regarding the theory of ratiocination, the method of istiqrÄÂ', and accusations of utilitarianism. These pros and cons can have implications: positive, because in turn, the Islamic law reform project can be handled more comprehensively, or negative, if the scholars get caught up and struggle with the debate until they forget to respond to real contemporary issues.

Keywords: Periodization, Independence, Ratiocination, Istiqrā', Utilitarianism

  1. Abdallahi, T., Alhourani, M. I., & Haswa, M. (2022). The Purpose of Ratiocination and its Impact on Text Construct from the Viewpoint of the Author of Aá¸ÂwÄÂ’ al-BayÄÂn fÄ« Ä«á¸ÂÄÂḥ al-Qur’ÄÂn bÄ« al-Qur’ÄÂn: A Jurisprudential-Syntactic Study. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2022-0114.
  2. Adib, M. (2023). Kategorisasi Dalil-Dalil Yang Tidak Disepakati (Adillah Mukhtalaf Fiha) Dalam Kajian Usul Fikih (Sebuah Tinjauan Kritis). Kasta Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Agama, Budaya, Dan Terapan, 3(1), 72–86. http://ejournal.baleliterasi.org/index.php/kasta.
  3. AḥmÄ«dÄÂn. (2008). MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah al-IslÄÂmiyyah (Vol. 1). Mu’assasah al-RisÄÂlah.
  4. al-‘UbaidÄ«, H. (1992). al-ShÄÂá¹­ibÄ« wa MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah [DÄÂr Kutaibah]. https://archive.org/details/shmqshshmqsh.
  5. al-AsmarÄ«, á¹¢ÄÂlih bin Muhammad bin Ḥasan. (n.d.). al-FusÅ«l al-MuntaqÄÂh al-Majmū’ah fi MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah. https://elibrary.mediu.edu.my/books/MAL12611.pdf.
  6. al-ḤasanÄ«, I. (1995). Naẓariyyah al-MaqÄÂá¹£id ‘ind al-ImÄÂm Muhammad al-ṬÄÂhir Ibn ‘ĀshÅ«r. al-Ma’had al-‘ĀlamÄ« li al-Fikr al-IslÄÂmÄ«. https://books4arabs.com/B5/books4arab.com_1140.pdf.
  7. al-KhÄÂdimÄ«. (1421). ’Ilm al-MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Shar’iyyah. Maktabah al-Abikan. https://books4arabs.com/B8/books4arab.com_SP0451.pdf.
  8. al-KhÄÂdimÄ«. (1427). al-MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Shar’iyyah: ḌawÄÂbituhÄ TÄÂrikhuhÄ Taá¹­bÄ«qÄÂtuhÄÂ. DÄÂr KuzÅ«z Iá¹£biliyÄÂ.
  9. al-Khaujah, I. (2004). Muhammad ṬÄÂhir Ibn ‘ĀshÅ«r wa KitÄÂbuh MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah al-Islamiyyah. WizÄÂrah al-AuqÄÂf wa al-Shu’ūn al-IslÄÂmiyyah. https://ia802702.us.archive.org/1/items/FP64275/01_64275.pdf.
  10. al-Qaraá¸ÂÄÂwÄ«. (2000). Naẓariyyah MaqÄÂá¹£id al-IslÄÂmiyyah bain Syaikh al-IslÄÂm Ibn Taimiyyah wa JumhÅ«r al-UṣūliyyÄ«n [Universitas Kairo]. https://down.ketabpedia.com/files/bkb/bkb-ol01333-ketabpedia.com.pdf.
  11. al-Qaraá¸ÂÄÂwÄ«. (2006). DirÄÂsah fÄ« Fiqh MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah bain al- MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Kulliyah wa al-Nuṣūṣ al-Juz’iyyah. DÄÂr al-ShurÅ«q. https://foulabook.com/ar/read/دراسة-ÙÂي-ÙÂقه-مقاصد-الشريعة-pdf.
  12. al-RaysÅ«nÄ«. (1995). Naẓariyyah al-MaqÄÂá¹£id ’ind al-ImÄÂm al-ShÄÂá¹­ibÄ«. al-Ma’had al-‘ĀlamÄ« li al-Fikr al-IslÄÂmÄ«. https://archive.org/details/nzrmqaemasha.
  13. al-RaysÅ«nÄ«. (2014). MuḥÄÂá¸Âarah fÄ« MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah. DÄÂr al-Kalimah. https://archive.org/details/FP146667.
  14. al-RaysÅ«nÄ«. (2015). al-Dzarī’ah ilÄ MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah. DÄÂr al-Kalimah. https://archive.org/details/20230702_20230702_0525.
  15. al-YÅ«bÄ«. (1998). MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah al-IslÄÂmiyyah wa ‘AlÄÂqatuhÄ bi al-Adillah al-Sharī’ah. DÄÂr al-Hijrah. https://archive.org/details/waq35870.
  16. al-ZuḥailÄ«, W. (2019). Uṣūl al-Fiqh al-IslÄÂmÄ«. DÄÂr al-Fikr. https://archive.org/details/zulhusnimatresat93_yahoo_201508.
  17. Alnemari, H. H. (2017). Utilitarianism in Classic Islamic Jurisprudence. Journal of Islamic Studies and Culture, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15640/jisc.v5n1a1.
  18. Alsomali, N., & Hussein, G. (2021). CRISPR-Cas9 and He Jiankui’s Case: an Islamic Bioethics Review using Maqasid al-Shari’a and Qawaid Fiqhiyyah. Asian Bioethics Review, 13(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00167-1.
  19. Asim, M., Hassan, U., Rehmani, A. I., Fareed, G., Hussain, T., & Keifatullah, H. M. (2023). The Historical and Critical Thinking of Usul-ul- Fiqh and its Evolution in contemporary era. Central European Management Journal, 31(3), 820–828. https://doi.org/10.57030/23364890.cemj.31.2.88.
  20. Aá¹­iyah. (2001). Naḥw Taf’īl al-MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah. al-Ma’had al-‘ĀlamÄ« li al-Fikr al-IslÄÂmÄ«. https://ia904506.us.archive.org/17/items/fiqh06001/fiqh06312.pdf.
  21. Auda, J. (2011). MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah DalÄ«l li al-Mubtadi’īn. al-Ma’had al-‘ĀlamÄ« li al-Fikr al-IslÄÂmÄ«. https://down.ketabpedia.com/files/bnr/bnr22021-1.pdf.
  22. Awalia, R., Amri, M., & Santalia, I. (2022). Qath’i Dan Zanni Serta Peran Akal Dalam Menginterpretasikan Nas. MUSHAF JOURNAL: Jurnal Ilmu Al Quran Dan Hadis, 2(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.54443/mushaf.v2i3.76.
  23. Aykul, A. (2022). Discussions Around Legitimacy of the Istihsân’s Definitions in the Early Period. Cumhuriyet Ilahiyat Dergisi, 26(1), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.1071242.
  24. Beka, R. (2021). Maqaṣid and the Renewal of Islamic Legal Theory in ‘Abdullah Bin Bayyah’s Discourse. American Journal of Islam and Society, 38(3–4), 103–145. https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v38i3-4.2987.
  25. Belhaj, A. (2023). AbÅ« Ya’rÅ«b al-MarzÅ«qÄ« and His Critique of the maqÄÂá¹£id Theory. Religions, 14(1212), 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel14091212 Academic.
  26. Burns, J. H. (2005). Happiness and Utility: Jeremy Bentham’s Equation. Utilitas, 17(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820804001396.
  27. Bykwist, C. (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.utilitarianism.com/perplexed.pdf.
  28. ÇÖKLÜ, R. (2022). Muhkam and MutashÄÂbih in the 4th Century HijrÄ« Fiqh UsÅ«l Thought: A Comparison of al-JassÄÂs, al-BÄÂqillÄÂnÄ« and KÄÂdÄ« Ê¿Abd al-JabbÄÂr. Bozok University Journal of Faculty of Theology, 22, 199–227. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.51553/bozifder.1179774.
  29. Díaz-Loving, R. (1999). The Indigenisation of Psychology: Birth of a New Science or Rekindling of an Old One? Applied Psychology, 48(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999499377402.
  30. Ferrari, M., & McBride, H. (2011). Mind, Brain, and Education: The Birth of a New Science. LEARNing Landscapes, 5(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v5i1.533.
  31. Frolova, E. A. (2018). Russian Studies in Philosophy The Concept of Epistemological Rupture in the Work of the Moroccan Philosopher , Muḥammad ‘Ābid al-JÄÂbirÄ« The Concept of Epistemological Rupture in the Work of the Moroccan Philosopher, Muḥammad ‘Ābid al-JÄÂbirÄ«. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 56(3), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1459377.
  32. Gutting, G. (Ed.). (1980). Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. University of Notre Dame Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0360966900023185.
  33. Jum’ah, A. (2010). TartÄ«b al-MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah: AbḥÄÂs wa WaqÄÂ’i’ al-Mu’tamar al-‘Ām al-TsÄÂnÄ« wa al-IsyrÅ«n (pp. 7–8). https://ia601700.us.archive.org/8/items/economy_0004/economy3364-.pdf.
  34. Kamali, M. H. (2001). Issues in the Legal Theory of Usul and Prospects for Reform. Islamic Studies, 40(1), 5–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20837072.
  35. Kamali, M. H. (2003). Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (3rd revise). Islamic Texts Society. https://its.org.uk/catalogue/principles-of-islamic-jurisprudence-paperback/.
  36. Kamali, M. H. (2004). IstiḥsÄÂn and the Renewal of Islamic Law. Islamic Studies, 43(4), 561–581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20837374.
  37. Kamali, M. H. (2020a). Approaches to MaqÄÂá¹£id: Reductionism, Expansionism and Moderation (TafrÄ«á¹­, IfrÄÂá¹­, IÊ¿tidÄÂl). In Actualization (Taf’īl of the Higher Purposes (MaqÄÂá¹£id) of Shari’ah (pp. 6–9). International Institute of Islamic Thought. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv19prr6v.6.
  38. Kamali, M. H. (2020b). Scriptural Sources and Uṣūl al-Fiqh. In Actualization (Taf’īl) of the Higher Purposes (MaqÄÂá¹£id) of Sharī’ah (pp. 10–12). International Institute of Islamic Thought. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv19prr6v.7.
  39. Kamali, M. H. (2021). History and Jurisprudence of the MaqÄÂá¹£id: A Critical Appraisal. American Journal of Islam and Society, 38(3–4), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v38i3-4.3110.
  40. Koujah, R. (2017). Divine Purposiveness and its Implications in Legal Theory: The Interplay of KalÄÂm and UÅ«l al-Fiqh. Islamic Law and Society, 24(3), 171–210. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-00243p01.
  41. Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1984). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.
  42. Lyle, K. (2017). Shaping the Future of Sociology: The Challenge of Interdisciplinarity beyond the Social Sciences. Sociology, 51(6), 1169–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516653728.
  43. Malkawi, F. H. (2020). Thought in Islamic Sources. In Mapping Intellectual Building and the Construction of Thought and Reason (pp. 1–39). International Institute of Islamic Thought. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv19prr39.6.
  44. March, A. F. (2011). Theocrats Living under Secular Law: An External Engagement with Islamic Legal Theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 19(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00364.x.
  45. Moussavi, A. K. (2011). Rethinking Islamic Legal Methodology with Reference to Maqasid al-Syari’ah. Islam and Civilisational Renewal Journal, 2(2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.52282/icr.v2i2.648.
  46. MukhtÄÂr, A. W. (2014). MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Sharī’ah ‘ind al-ImÄÂm al-ShÄÂfi’ī. DÄÂr al-SalÄÂm. https://down.ketabpedia.com/files/bkb/bkb-fi06298-ketabpedia.com.pdf.
  47. Nasution, M. K. M. (2020). The birth of a science. History of Science and Technology, 10(2), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2020-10-2-315-338.
  48. Rabī’ah, I. (2002). Ilm MaqÄÂá¹£id al-ShÄÂri’. Maktabah al-Malik Fahd. https://archive.org/details/w00000w5_yahoo.
  49. Rubin, A. (2016). Modernity as a Code : The Ottoman Empire and the Global Movement of Codification. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 59(5), 828–856. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685209-12341415.
  50. Sa’īd Azhar, H. (2010). MaqÄÂá¹£id al-Shari’ah ‘ind ImÄÂm al-Ḥaramain. Maktabah al-Rushd. https://archive.org/details/FP108959.
  51. Savage, M. (2010). Unpicking Sociology’s Misfortunes. British Journal Sociology, 61(4), 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01333.x.
  52. Setia, A. (2016). Freeing Maqasid and Maslaha from Surreptitious Utilitarianism. Islamic Sciences, 14(2), 127–157. https://cis-ca.org/_media/pdf/2016/2/A_fmamfsu.pdf.
  53. Sharif El-Tobgui, C. (2019). Reason and Revelation in Islam before Ibn Taymiyya. In Ibn Taymiyya on Reason and Revelation. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004412866.
  54. Smith, S. J. (2019). Pragmatism. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Second Edition, 11(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10687-0.
  55. Takim, L. (2021). Islamic Law and the Neoijtihadist Phenomenon. Religions, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010006.
  56. Thalib, P. (2016). Application of Qowaid Fiqhiyyah in Contemporary Islamic Law’. Yuridika, 31(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v31i1.1958.
  57. Ward, L. F. (1895). Relation of Sociology to Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 8(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/658507.
  58. Weller, R. C., & Emon, A. M. (2021). Introduction: Reason, Revelation, and Law in Global Historical Perspective. In Reason, Revelation and Law in Islamic and Western Theory and History (pp. 1–182). http://www.systems.wsu.edu/scripts/wsuall.pl?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2759107&site=ehost-live.

Open Access Copyright (c) 2023 International Journal Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

International Journal Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din 
published by Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Walisongo Semarang, Indonesia

Jl. Walisongo No.3-5, Tambakaji, Kec. Ngaliyan, Kota Semarang, Jawa Tengah 50185
Phone: +62 857-3303-6860
Website: http://pasca.walisongo.ac.id/
Email: [email protected] 

ISSN: 1411-3708 (Print)
ISSN: 2580-5983 (Online)
DOI : 10.21580/ihya

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 
View My Stats
apps