Hello all segments of humanity,
Ijtehad is a tool used by muslim clerics/scholars to declare the introduction of new technology into the mass of humanity as religiously allowed or permissible. Yes, Ijtehad is utilized in new situations within Shariah (Islamic Law). Remember, Shariah is divided into segments involving not only punishments(Hadud, which is criminal law) but also contracts and family law. I will stick to two main points to make it short to relevant issues concerning the Islamic chaos.
In contrast to Christianity, Islam has commands and dictates by Prophet Muhammad to move beyond the technologica/cultural limitations set by the Qu'ran and hadiths.
For example; a new invention like "vehicles", not stated in the Qu'ran and hadith sources, have forced new legal interpretations concerning the mention of "horses" in many Islamic religious texts. There are then interchangeable when "horses" are mentioned and then "vehicles" could replace the previous term in Islamic legal matters. (Which begs the question, where is the evidence that Muhammad received a message concerning new inventions??? The previous creates doubts of his message was from a divine source!).
Nevertheless, there are other concerns or contradictions existing in the modern settings:
1. There is no legal precedent to say Muslims could fight without a declared Khalifah. There is simply no valid permission for such thing as fighting(Qital) without a valid Khalifah. Even according to Islamic records, the Khalifah has to be declared among all segments of the Muslim community. There is an absence of such conditions for a single unknown individual to declare himself "khalif" even with only a few muslims like 10,000 individuals to declare a 'Khalif' (if this was the case then the late Usama bin Laden or Gulbadeen Hikmatyar in Afghanistan could simply declare a Khalifah after defeating the Soviet Russians). In other words, without a collective joint agreement among the Muslim community there is no khalif. The previous could be derived from the comprehensive meaning of al-'aqd and 'Uqud which means contracts (or contracts made, Putting a tie to a bargain).
If you want evidence for the previous paragraph then compare it with "The Present Rulers and Islam. Are they Muslims or not? by ...Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdurrahman (The Blind Egyptian Cleric). He provides plenty of evidence against fighting rulers in predominantly Muslim nation because it would have caused more "Fitnah" than good. The term Fitnah would mean chaos and disorder which is more dangerous because it would destroy Muslim society in the process. In other words, just because someone does not rule according to Islamic commands that does not mean it is a perfect condition to revolt. ( I am aware of his criminal conviction but I am using his own book as evidence ).
In conclusion, to this first point, If there is no VALID Khalifah then there is no Jihad(or rather Qital)! To this point, then all TRUE Muslims are technically Sufi Muslims. The term "sufi" derive from the word "Soof" or "Suffah" where the poor and hajis used to hear Prophet Muhammad give sermons and daily talks.
Therefore, rebelling against say... the Syrian government (or any government by so-called true muslims) would not be permissible.
And also the highly improbable election of a valid Khalif makes this task one of the contradictions of Islam which has succumbed to the material realities (of the historical timeline).
2. The next contradiction is the pursuit of nuclear weapons and clearly using "fire" as a weapon. There are hadiths, by prophet Muhammad, which makes it clear that using "fire" to destroy trees(and other structures) are not allowed. There are so many problems with the previous. It's really about causality or cause of action. The problem is the absence of a divine command concerning the attainment and use of nuclear weapons. For example, why Muhammad was not given a divine command concerning "mass fire to destroy enemies and their structures"? In military terms, it is the counter-value(hitting all targets) and counter-strike(hitting only military targets). The use of nuclear weapons will most likely lead to a counter-value scenario. The original Islamic doctrine is to hit only military combatants in the battlefield. So, the use of ijtehad may allow bullets but where does nuclear weapons fit into the previous paradigm? The term "sword" is interchangeable with "guns" but NOT "nuclear weapons" or chemical weapons or biological weapons. What if bullets hit non-combatants? Is the Qur'an (Sahih hadith sources) stuck with the "sword" technology paradigm?
3. The previous two main points presents the problem with ijtehad (deriving an interpretation from Islamic sources). The beginning always starts at revealed sources to hidden sources from a divine command. But there are many problems with the Qur'an. Eventhough the Qur'an (and Hadiths) gives Muslims to order to fight(mostly in defensive reasons) in combat there are many perimeters and conditions for fighting ... which are missing. Then the question comes up, why is the Qur'an not structured in a manner which provides the guidelines for example: For the Muslim community to fight collectively and accordingly, there would need to be a khalifah(with exceptional qualities in knowing Shariah and many other aspects of Islamic legal exceptions) with no nuclear weapon arsenal or a chemical weapons arsenal or a biological weapon arsenal. Currently, there are no Islamic entity with the given ETHICAL standard which fits this highly improbable paradigm.
In fact, the process of ijtehad proves the weakness of Islam. Of course, it has room to address new technological problems but it simply means that the DIVINE COMMANDS (Qur'an and Hadith Qudsi) are supplemented with human reasoning and words.
There is also the absence of the mentioning (or clear hint) of dinosaurs in any Islamic source. Or past technological achievements. Women are still classified as property despite some freedoms given (from outside sources). Abrogated verses are not needed to be addressed.
Ijtehad is a tool used by muslim clerics/scholars to declare the introduction of new technology into the mass of humanity as religiously allowed or permissible. Yes, Ijtehad is utilized in new situations within Shariah (Islamic Law). Remember, Shariah is divided into segments involving not only punishments(Hadud, which is criminal law) but also contracts and family law. I will stick to two main points to make it short to relevant issues concerning the Islamic chaos.
In contrast to Christianity, Islam has commands and dictates by Prophet Muhammad to move beyond the technologica/cultural limitations set by the Qu'ran and hadiths.
For example; a new invention like "vehicles", not stated in the Qu'ran and hadith sources, have forced new legal interpretations concerning the mention of "horses" in many Islamic religious texts. There are then interchangeable when "horses" are mentioned and then "vehicles" could replace the previous term in Islamic legal matters. (Which begs the question, where is the evidence that Muhammad received a message concerning new inventions??? The previous creates doubts of his message was from a divine source!).
Nevertheless, there are other concerns or contradictions existing in the modern settings:
1. There is no legal precedent to say Muslims could fight without a declared Khalifah. There is simply no valid permission for such thing as fighting(Qital) without a valid Khalifah. Even according to Islamic records, the Khalifah has to be declared among all segments of the Muslim community. There is an absence of such conditions for a single unknown individual to declare himself "khalif" even with only a few muslims like 10,000 individuals to declare a 'Khalif' (if this was the case then the late Usama bin Laden or Gulbadeen Hikmatyar in Afghanistan could simply declare a Khalifah after defeating the Soviet Russians). In other words, without a collective joint agreement among the Muslim community there is no khalif. The previous could be derived from the comprehensive meaning of al-'aqd and 'Uqud which means contracts (or contracts made, Putting a tie to a bargain).
If you want evidence for the previous paragraph then compare it with "The Present Rulers and Islam. Are they Muslims or not? by ...Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdurrahman (The Blind Egyptian Cleric). He provides plenty of evidence against fighting rulers in predominantly Muslim nation because it would have caused more "Fitnah" than good. The term Fitnah would mean chaos and disorder which is more dangerous because it would destroy Muslim society in the process. In other words, just because someone does not rule according to Islamic commands that does not mean it is a perfect condition to revolt. ( I am aware of his criminal conviction but I am using his own book as evidence ).
In conclusion, to this first point, If there is no VALID Khalifah then there is no Jihad(or rather Qital)! To this point, then all TRUE Muslims are technically Sufi Muslims. The term "sufi" derive from the word "Soof" or "Suffah" where the poor and hajis used to hear Prophet Muhammad give sermons and daily talks.
Therefore, rebelling against say... the Syrian government (or any government by so-called true muslims) would not be permissible.
And also the highly improbable election of a valid Khalif makes this task one of the contradictions of Islam which has succumbed to the material realities (of the historical timeline).
2. The next contradiction is the pursuit of nuclear weapons and clearly using "fire" as a weapon. There are hadiths, by prophet Muhammad, which makes it clear that using "fire" to destroy trees(and other structures) are not allowed. There are so many problems with the previous. It's really about causality or cause of action. The problem is the absence of a divine command concerning the attainment and use of nuclear weapons. For example, why Muhammad was not given a divine command concerning "mass fire to destroy enemies and their structures"? In military terms, it is the counter-value(hitting all targets) and counter-strike(hitting only military targets). The use of nuclear weapons will most likely lead to a counter-value scenario. The original Islamic doctrine is to hit only military combatants in the battlefield. So, the use of ijtehad may allow bullets but where does nuclear weapons fit into the previous paradigm? The term "sword" is interchangeable with "guns" but NOT "nuclear weapons" or chemical weapons or biological weapons. What if bullets hit non-combatants? Is the Qur'an (Sahih hadith sources) stuck with the "sword" technology paradigm?
3. The previous two main points presents the problem with ijtehad (deriving an interpretation from Islamic sources). The beginning always starts at revealed sources to hidden sources from a divine command. But there are many problems with the Qur'an. Eventhough the Qur'an (and Hadiths) gives Muslims to order to fight(mostly in defensive reasons) in combat there are many perimeters and conditions for fighting ... which are missing. Then the question comes up, why is the Qur'an not structured in a manner which provides the guidelines for example: For the Muslim community to fight collectively and accordingly, there would need to be a khalifah(with exceptional qualities in knowing Shariah and many other aspects of Islamic legal exceptions) with no nuclear weapon arsenal or a chemical weapons arsenal or a biological weapon arsenal. Currently, there are no Islamic entity with the given ETHICAL standard which fits this highly improbable paradigm.
In fact, the process of ijtehad proves the weakness of Islam. Of course, it has room to address new technological problems but it simply means that the DIVINE COMMANDS (Qur'an and Hadith Qudsi) are supplemented with human reasoning and words.
There is also the absence of the mentioning (or clear hint) of dinosaurs in any Islamic source. Or past technological achievements. Women are still classified as property despite some freedoms given (from outside sources). Abrogated verses are not needed to be addressed.
