elfurqan.com – Imam al-Shatibi was an Islamic scholar, jurist, and philosopher prominent in Andalusia. He is renowned for his work in the field of usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence).
His most famous work is “Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah“ (Harmony of Islamic Legal Principles), in which he sought to reconcile various sources of Islamic law, such as the Quran, Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), consensus (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas). This work had a significant influence on subsequent developments in Islamic legal theory and jurisprudence.
In “Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah,” Imam al-Shatibi attempted to unify various approaches in understanding and applying Islamic law. He considered the importance of understanding the context of the time as well as the objectives and values underlying Islamic law.
Through a profound analysis of these legal sources, he sought to find harmony among them, avoiding conflict and inconsistency. Al-Shatibi also emphasized the importance of understanding maqasid al-shariah (the objectives of Islamic law) in comprehending the established laws.
For him, a proper understanding of these objectives was crucial for the correct application of Islamic law and to avoid misuse or narrow interpretations. Al-Shatibi’s works, including “Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’ah,” have served as a crucial foundation for Islamic legal thought and have been a primary reference for scholars and jurists of Islam for centuries.
His profound and holistic contributions to the field of usul al-fiqh have earned him respect and appreciation in the Islamic intellectual tradition.
Musthafa Saidal-Khin in his book “al-Kafi al-Wafi fi Ushul al-Fiqh al-Islamy” made a new breakthrough regarding the trends of schools in the Science of Ushul Fiqh. Whereas previously only two trends were known, namely the Mutakallimun and the jurists or the Shafi’i and Hanafi schools, al-Khin divided them into five categories: the Mutakallimun, the Hanafiyyah, the al-Jam’i, the Takhrij al-Furu’ ‘alal Ushul, and the Shatibiyyah. This division, in the author’s opinion, is the latest division in which the path taken by Imam Shatibi in “al-Muwafaqat” becomes one part of the separate pattern of the school, different from other usul schools.
Indeed, it’s not exaggerated because in his pattern, Shatibi tried to combine the theories (nadhariyyat) of Ushul Fiqh with the concept of Maqashid al-Shariah, thus resulting in legal products that are more lively and contextual.
There are two important values, the author believes, if this model of Shatibi is developed by contemporary scholars in exploring the law. First, it can bridge the gap between the “right-wing” and “left-wing” trends. The “right-wing” referred to are those who firmly adhere to the concepts of the Science of Ushul Fiqh, while the “left-wing” are those who are vocal with their ideas of renewing the Usul al-Fiqh in the sense of the need for deconstruction of Usul Fiqh to produce more capable fiqh products.
Among the most vocal proponents of this concept is Hasan al-Turaby with his book “Tajdid Ushul al-Fiqh” — a book declared prohibited for sale. Although the author may not fully agree with this “left-wing” movement, it should be noted that what they articulate stems from their dissatisfaction with the fiqh products of scholars that are too fixated on texts without considering the context.
Thus, the legal products produced become lifeless, ambiguous, and sometimes, according to them, less humane. This ambiguity is caused by methodologies that are too usul-based and pay little attention to Maqashid al-Shariah.
It is true that the early scholars of Ushul have discussed Maqashid al-Shariah as part of the Science of Ushul. However, it should be noted that the discussion of Maqashid al-Shariah by the early scholars can be said to be only superficial because of its brevity and tendency to be less representative.
With Shatibi’s methodological pattern in his “al-Muwafaqat,” which attempts to combine Ushul theories with Maqashid al-Shariah, it becomes a link and bridge to “rectify” the two trends mentioned above. Separating Ushul Fiqh theories from Maqashid al-Shariah is a big mistake because not all contemporary or ancient issues can be solved with Maqashid al-Shariah.
Although Thahir bin Ashur in his book “Maqashid al-Syari’ah al-Islamiyyah” confidently makes Maqashid al-Shariah an independent science separate from Ushul Fiqh. However, in the author’s view, Thahir bin Ashur’s theories and frameworks, consciously or not, are themselves Ushul Fiqh theories but in a different format.
Secondly, Shatibi’s model will produce legal products that, in Ibn Qayyim’s terminology, are “living fiqh,” fiqh that is alive. Therefore, the excessively textbook-like fiqh, which the author terms Ushuli Fiqh, will transform into Maqashidy Fiqh.
The author invites readers to reflect on Indonesia. In the author’s observation, there is a fatal mistake in the attitude of Indonesian society, especially towards fiqh. It is understood more as a science that deals with rituals and worship procedures per se, detached from pure rububiyyah values and human values.
For example, they are more concerned with touching their foreheads to the prayer mat than paying attention to their neighbors struggling against diseases that are consuming their emaciated bodies due to malnutrition. They feel more sinful for not remembering God after prayer or eating dog meat than for lying, cheating, and corruption. At least, this mistake arises from the understanding of fiqh solely as worship related to the relationship between humans and God.
There seems to be a limitation in understanding fiqh among today’s society, thus prioritizing memorization of conditions for validity, obligations, pillars, and others over the effects of worship itself. Whereas initially, fiqh also encompassed issues of monotheism and ethics as found in Imam Abu Hanifah’s Kitab al-Fiqh al-Akbar or Imam Ghazali’s Ihya Ulumiddin.
Moreover, the fiqh teaching syllabus in Indonesia, to the author’s knowledge, also lacks direction towards Maqashidy Fiqh. There is almost no specific syllabus that discusses Maqashid al-Shariah.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the impact of fiqh on daily practical matters is negligible, it is more at the level of individual obligatory matters. Eventually, prayer and worship are performed diligently, while corruption continues. This is how fiqh becomes lifeless, ambiguous, overly usul-oriented, not living, and not maqashidy.
From the above exposition, it is clear that the need to understand and promote Maqashid al-Shariah alongside Ushul Fiqh becomes very
important. To move towards that goal, the author feels compelled to briefly outline Imam Shatibi’s journey as the First Father of Maqashid al-Shariah as well as briefly discuss the version of Maqashid al-Shariah by Shatibi.
