THE TRADITIONAL FIQH IS INSUFFICIENT
The jurisprudence (fiqh) developed during the second and third centuries of the Islamic era came to be widely accepted among Muslims as a complete and comprehensive legal system. It was believed that all the teachings of the Quran and Hadith relevant to human life were fully detailed and perfectly encapsulated within it. This belief led to the notion that, after the compilation of this fiqh, the door to unrestricted ijtihad was effectively closed, leaving only limited forms of ijtihad available to Muslims.
This assumption appeared valid in earlier times, but as circumstances evolved—particularly with the end of the traditional era and the advent of the modern scientific age—it proved to be significantly detrimental. Muslims, adhering to the belief that the existing corpus of fiqh constituted a complete legal system, saw no reason to seek solutions beyond it. Consequently, they were deprived of many valuable insights present in the Quran and Sunnah that had not been incorporated into the compiled fiqh. This issue can be illustrated with a few examples.
In the modern era, the rise of democracy introduced a new political system. The existing fiqh, developed during an age of monarchy, contained no concept of modern democracy. As a result, those confined to the framework of traditional fiqh failed to grasp its significance. Some outrightly dismissed democracy as un-Islamic and declared it haraam (forbidden), while others trivialized it as mere “head counting,” mocking it with statements like:
“Democracy is a form of government where people are counted, not measured by their qualities.”
In reality, democracy represents a political blessing for Muslims. Unlike the monarchy of old, democracy is founded on the principle of power-sharing. It offers Muslims the opportunity to gain political influence in various countries through strategic participation. However, due to their lack of ijtihadi thinking, Muslims failed to capitalize on this opportunity. Instead, an imitative mindset led to impractical ideas, such as establishing a caliphate in countries like the United States and even imagining converting California into “Khaleefornia.” This mindset blinded them to the more practical and achievable objective of securing political representation through the modern principle of power sharing.
The root cause of this intellectual stagnation lies in Muslims’ rejection of direct guidance from the Quran and Hadith, a consequence of their imitative approach to ijtihad. Had this intellectual error not occurred, and had they approached the Quran with an open mind, they would have discovered clear guidance on such matters.
This guidance is evident in Chapter 12 of the Quran, which recounts the story of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph). During his time, Egypt was ruled by a polytheistic king who, recognizing Joseph’s exceptional capabilities, invited him to join his administration as a powerful partner. Joseph accepted this offer and assumed a governmental position, which, in theory, was that of the minister of food and agriculture but, in practice, amounted to being the kingdom’s vice-regent. In the agrarian society of that time, all economic and administrative activities revolved around agriculture, making Joseph’s position the most pivotal in the nation.
If modern Muslims had gone beyond the taqlid (imitation) of the traditional fiqh and engaged with the Quran in an ijtihadi manner, they would have recognized this incident as a profound prophetic example. It demonstrates how the principle of power-sharing can be effectively utilized, even within non-Islamic systems, and assures Muslims that such participation aligns fully with the prophetic tradition.
