Explore the vast range of titles available.

The objective of this research article is to investigate Nahdlatul Ulama's perspectives on the discourse of Fiqh Al-Ḥaḍarah, also known as \"Fiqh of Civilization,\" within the context of contextualizing Islamic political thought toward the concept of global peace. Sociological disparities in national and state dynamics, keeping in view the intensity of conflict at the global level, demand the attention of the leaders from all across the world . Fiqh Al-Ḥaḍarah through the discourse of Fiqh Al-Siyāsah,  advocates that the idea of peace contained in the UN charter has a strong basis in Islamic Sharia. All Muslims must campaign peace as a form of adherence to the Sharia. Therefore, the notions in classical Fiqh Al-Siyāsah must be interpreted and recontextualized as theyaim to straighten the view that politics in Islam is an intermediary for realizing prosperity through peace. This study used an annotated bibliography and descriptive qualitative method, while data was collected by using the desk research method. The approaches used included the textual-contextual approach, sociological approach to Islamic law, and critical theory. The results showed that Fiqh Al-Ḥaḍarah can be used to recontextualize Fiqh Al-Siyāsah in an ideal direction according to the needs and demands of the contemporary times. Similarly, Fiqh Al-Ḥaḍarah can present Islamic thought as a solution to establish peace and allow the emergence of a better civilization in the future. 

Purpose: This paper aims to analyze the jurisprudence of prayer in the ocean based on the book Is'af Ahl Al-'Asr Bi Ahkam Al-Bahr and identify the problems that often occur when performing prayer. Theoretical framework: This book was chosen because it touches on and discusses the laws of maritime jurisprudence related to prayer. In this book, there are seven main chapters, namely water, purification, prayer, funeral, fasting, zakat and Hajj.   Design/methodology/approach: this study does not discuss all chapters in this book but analyzes selected topics according to the problems of prayer that often occur while at sea. This study uses a qualitative method with a library research design, while data collection is done through the study of documents obtained through books, articles and journals related to the research topic. This study also used the method of interviewing respondents involved in research in the ocean to obtain data. Next, the data obtained is analysed using content analysis to obtain accurate research findings.   Findings: The study found that the implementation of prayer in the ocean has a method and guide in the Sharia based on the book Is'af Ahl Al-'Asr Bi Ahkam Al-Bahr.   Discussion: The responsibility as a Muslim in prayer in the ocean field can be carried out perfectly with the existence of accurate guidance according to Islamic teachings.

This article comprehensively analyzes the conceptual and methodological differences between tafsīr and fiqh, two core disciplines in Islamic scholarship, emphasizing their respective relationships with the Qur’ān. The study employs a historical and comparative approach to explore key Islamic texts, highlighting the evolution of each discipline and their distinct approaches to Qur’ānic interpretation. The primary objective is to clarify the unique intellectual aims, methods, and outcomes of tafsīr and fiqh, despite both disciplines engaging with the Qur’ān as their foundational text. The research concludes that tafsīr, as an exegetical field, is dedicated to interpreting the Qur’ān’s verses by examining their original meaning within their historical, linguistic, and theological contexts. In contrast, fiqh focuses on deriving legal principles from the Qur’ān, addressing the pragmatic needs of the Muslim community through ijtihād. This foundational methodological divergence has led to the frequent merging of tafsīr and fiqh, especially in the formulation of fiqh-based tafsīr (tafsīr fiqhī), which the study contends distorts the independent scholarly character of tafsīr and obscures the distinct functions of both disciplines. This article contributes to the academic discourse by challenging contemporary interpretations of fiqh-based tafsīr, urging a more precise differentiation between tafsīr as an exegetical discipline and fiqh as a juridical field. The study advocates for a more thorough and methodical approach to Qur’ānic interpretation, stressing the importance of maintaining tafsīr’s independent role in understanding the Qur’ān in its original context, without the influence of the legal frameworks that often shape fiqh interpretations. Additionally, the article encourages further scholarly investigation into the historical progression of the Aḥkām al-Qur’ān literature, particularly about the influence of madhāhib (legal schools) on Qur’ānic exegesis. The study proposes that such future research would significantly enrich contemporary Islamic scholarship and offer a deeper understanding of tafsīr and fiqh’s roles in Qur’ānic interpretation.

Abstract To say that the issue of Islamic legal reform is on the minds of most scholars and students (Muslim or otherwise) of Islamic law is hardly an exaggeration. But what does reform look like? Rumee Ahmed engages the issue in his recent book, Sharia Compliant: A User's Guide to Hacking Islamic Law. Intended for a broad audience and aimed at catalyzing legal change from the bottom up, Sharia Compliant attempts to demystify Islamic jurisprudence and provide a blueprint for lawmaking, or \"hacking\" Islamic law, through reverse-engineering. In the process of his critique of Islamic law, Ahmed revises its history and method. This review argues that in lieu of reform, Ahmed argues for re-forming Islamic law. The hyphen is meant to indicate that Ahmed's proposal amounts to a transmutation of fiqh and uṣūl al-fiqh: Islamic law is not interpreted, but arbitrarily willed; its sources (the Qur'an and Sunna), ornaments of this will, are instrumentalized to serve any desired end. In the end, Ahmed's re-formed system undermines his hope for a democratic process of lawmaking.

The third expansion of the Islamic Caliphate (AD950–1450) produced the need for formalising an ethical framework to create an institutionalised approach to market regulations. During these times significant contribution to the literature was made regarding the modelling of the ethical premise of the duty to subscribe good and prohibit wrongs. It ranged from the formation of vigilante-styled civil duties to the institutionalisation of ethics in the form of the institution of hisbah, which is broadly understood as a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (quango) designed to establish the ethical mandate within the medieval Muslim world. Our investigation maps the development of thoughts on embedding ethical rules in markets and within society between AD950–1450. This study explores and conceptualises the models for market regulations proposed by Al-Mawardi (d.AD1058), Al-Ghazali (d.AD1111), Ibn Taymiyya (d.AD1328), and Ibn Khaldun (d.AD1406). We formulate and compare the ethical models of these scholars in the context of their political–social positionings. The rationale for choosing these four scholars is the wide articulation and recognition of their logical ideas throughout Islamic history. This research examines the historic–ethical patterns within the corpus of Islamic thoughts that provide a discourse deixis for constructing regulatory models as conceptualised by these scholars for the institutionalised governance of markets and society in general.

Abstract The function of uṣūl al-fiqh (legal theory) within classical Islamic law has been the object of protracted debate. Based on the writings of Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (d.476/1083), I propose that uṣūl al-fiqh served two pedagogical purposes within the Iraqi legal community of the 4th/10th and 5th/11th centuries: first, to avoid taqlīd, defined as the subscription to a position without evidence; and second, to provide jurists with tools to assess the validity of a proof when they were confused about its merits. My analysis sheds light on uṣūl al-fiqh's role in providing epistemological foundations for juristic reasoning. It also reveals that practical engagement on disputed legal matters (masāʾil al-khilāf) prevailed over uṣūl al-fiqh in the training of jurists. The consequence: uṣūl al-fiqh was a methodology of last resort.

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi – a prominent Muslim jurist of the contemporary period, the jurisprudence of priorities is intended to mitigate excess and negligence in legal reasoning. This article examines the fundamental principles of the jurisprudence of priorities as propounded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi in relation to the foundational sources of Islamic law. The purpose of this article is to dissect the constituent legal principles of the jurisprudence of priorities and critically evaluate their validity and coherence against the textual and rational evidences of Islamic law. This article argues that the fundamental principles of the jurisprudence of priorities are validated in the sources of Islamic law, and do facilitate the mitigation of excess and negligence in legal reasoning.

The position of maqasid shariah as reference for Islamic legal ruling has been a source of dissenting opinions among contemporary ulama. Some of them accept maqasid shariah as a method of determining legal principles, whereas others do not. In classical usul fiqh literature, the discourse on maqasid shariah among the ulama only appears in discussions on the position of maslahah mursalah as a method of determining Islamic legal ruling. In light of this, the issue arises when the position of maqasid shariah, specifically as a source of law, is not mentioned by classical ulama. Therefore, a small number of scholars are of the view that maqasid Shariah is not clearly applied in the process of determining legal ruling, such as what had happened in the Shafie school of law. This article aims to review the concept of maslahah mursalah and maqasid shariah in the context of its status as a method of determining Islamic legal ruling. The findings of the study show that maslahah mursalah is not maqasid shariah because both of them originate from different sources. The rejection of maslahah mursalah by some ulama does not refer to maslahah that is in line with the higher objectives of Islamic law (maqasid shariah), but refers to maslahah that relies solely on logic and intellect. The difference of opinion among contemporary ulama regarding the position of maqasid shariah as a method of determining legal principle stems from confusion in defining and categorising maslahah mursalah and maqasid shariah.

One of the figures who deeply influenced Islamic thought in general and fiqh thought in particular is undoubtedly Qāḍī 'Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025). Most of his life took place in the 4th/11th century and he was the most important representative of the Basra Muʿtazilites after the Jubbāʾīs. With his works in both theology and the methodology of jurisprudence, he was regarded as a groundbreaking scholar not only in Muʿtazilite circles but also in Sunnī circles. According to the common opinion of many Sunnī jurists, 'Abd al-Jabbār is one of the most important figures in the field of usul al-fiqh after Imam Shāfi'ī. Having been so influential in the fields of theology and methodology, it has been a matter of curiosity in which systematic framework Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār conducted his practical life and whether he maintained his allegiance to the Shāfiʿī madhhab, which he had adopted as a student. In the relevant literature, the claim that Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār adopted the Shāfiʿī madhhab throughout his life has been widely voiced. So much so that in the works of tabakāt, where Shāfiʿī jurists are introduced, ʿAbd al-Jabbār is included as a Shāfiʿī. This understanding, which has continued until today, has become a continuing acceptance in academic studies. But is this the reality? In pursuit of this question, the present study examined the issue in the following steps: First, the claims in the literature about Qāḍī 'Abd al-Jabbār's path in fiqh are presented, and then 'Abd al-Jabbār's position in Mu'tazilite jurisprudence is presented. After mentioning the distance of the founding imam of the sect, al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), who is claimed to have been adopted by a Muʿtazilite scholar, from the Muʿtazilites and even his struggle with them, Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār's opposition to Imam al-Shāfiʿī's famous views on usul was identified. This study, which proceeds by comparing ʿAbd al-Jabbār's views on usul with Imam Shāfiʿī's views on usul, concludes that his claim that he adopted the Shāfiʿī madhhab in the practical field is not very accurate. Conducting the comparison through the six (6) most distinctive issues of Shafi'i juristic thought, the study shows that 'Abd al-Jabbār clearly opposed Imam Shafi'i and the Shafi'i jurists. These six issues, which are among the most important topics of debate in Islamic legal methodology, are as follows: Whether the Qur'ān and Sunnah can abrogate each other, the prerequisite for the acceptance of the Prophet's words and deeds is their submission to the Qur'ān, that is, the determination of whether they are compatible with the relevant regulation of the Qur'ān in order to be evidence, and istihsān, which means abandoning the ruling reached as a result of syllogism on the basis of a justification and making another ruling, In the event that the new issue awaiting a solution is similar to two or more principals/makisu'n-'aleyh, the syllogism of shabah, which means to give the ruling of the new issue in question to this original by taking into account the original that is thought to be the most similar in many respects, whether the proof of the opposite concept, which means the transfer of the opposite meaning of a word, i.e. the opposite meaning of a word, to the issue that is the opposite of the issue in that word and whose ruling is not specified, should be considered as a sahih istidlal, and the meaning of the imperative.

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi – a prominent Muslim jurist of the contemporary period, the jurisprudence of priorities is intended to mitigate excess and negligence in legal reasoning. This article examines the fundamental principles of the jurisprudence of priorities as propounded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi in relation to the foundational sources of Islamic law. The purpose of this article is to dissect the constituent legal principles of the jurisprudence of priorities and critically evaluate their validity and coherence against the textual and rational evidences of Islamic law. This article argues that the fundamental principles of the jurisprudence of priorities are validated in the sources of Islamic law, and do facilitate the mitigation of excess and negligence in legal reasoning.