limit11

One fresh contribution to the contemporary study of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is the theory of limits (nadzariyyat al-hudûd) promoted by a Syrian liberal Islamic figure, Muhammad Shahrur. According to Wael B. Hallaq, Shahrur’s theory of limits solves the epistemological deadlock of previous works (Wael B. Hallaq: 1997). Through his controversial works, al-Kitâb wal Qur’ân: Qirâ’ah Mu`âshirah, Shahrur asserts that the theory of limits is an approach within ijtihad (individual interpretation) to study the muhkamât verses (clear and direct verses of law) of the Koran. The term limit (hudûd) used by Shahrur refers to the meaning of “the bounds or restrictions of God which should not be violated, contained in the dynamic, flexible, and elastic domain of ijtihad.”

The theory of limits makes four significant contributions to the enhancement of fikh. Firstly, by the theory of limits, Shahrur makes a fundamental paradigm shift for fikh. The meaning of hudûd is perceived rigidly by the fukaha (experts in canon law) as verses and hadits concerning legal punishment (al-`uqûbât) which should not be added to nor reduced, such as hand amputation for the thief, 100 lashes for adultery, and so on. Apart from that, the theory of limits (nadzariyyat al-hudûd) offered by Shahrur tends to be dynamic and contextual, not only in regards to legal punishment (al-`uqûbât). His theory of limits also concerns other legal restrictions, such as those concerning libâsul mar’ah (woman’s attire), ta`addud al-zawj (polygamy), inheritance, and usury etc.

Secondly, Shahrur’s theory of limits offers the stipulation of minimum limits (al-hadd al-adnâ) and maximum limits (al-hadd al-a`lâ) within which to carry out Allah’s laws. It means that Allah’s laws are elastic, as long as the sentence is between the minimum and maximum limits. To Shahrur, the domain of human’s ijtihad is between that minimum and maximum limit. The elasticity and flexibility of God’s law is illustrated as the one who plays soccer within restraints, as long as it is inside the limits of the sports ground. Briefly, as long as a Muslim acts within the domain of hudûd-u-lLâh (Allah’s determination between the minimum and maximum limits) he should not be consider to be outside of Allah’s law.

Take for instance: the stipulation of hand amputation for a thief (Q.S. al-Mâ’idah: 38). To Shahrur, hand amputation is the maximum sanction (al-hadd al-a`lâ) for a thief. Its minimum limit is to be forgiven (Q.S. al-Mâ’idah: 34). Here Shahrur assumes that a judge may perform ijtihad by observing the objective conditions of the thief. Besides giving the punishment of hand amputation to enforce sharia, the judge may perform ijtihad around those maximum and minimum limits, such as giving a prison verdict. The dismissal penalty for a corrupt officer is also still between both limits. Shahrur argues that the essence of a legal punishment is daunting for the offender. Therefore state or government which do not execute hand amputation, stoning, qishas (death sentence) and several other laws in Koran and hadits, should not be accused as being infidel states as claimed by the fundamentalists.

In the case of woman’s attire (libâs al-mar’ah), Shahrur considers the minimum limit of woman’s attire to be satr al-juyûb (Q.S al-Nur: 31) or covering the chest (breasts) and genitals so as not to be naked. Its maximum limit is the covering of the whole body excluding the palms of one’s hand and one’s face. In this approach, the woman who does not wear hijab has in fact fulfilled Allah’s stipulation. On the contrary, women who cover their whole body including the face are considered to have gone beyond hudûd-u-lLâh (Allah’s limits) since it is beyond the maximum limit determined by Koran. This means that women who cover their face and their whole body are “not Islamic”.

Thirdly, through his theory of limits, Shahrur deconstructed and reconstructed the methodology of ijtihad, mainly of the verses of hudûd that have been claimed as muhkamât verses which contained single interpretations. To Shahrur, the muhkamât verses may be perceived dynamically and may have interpretational alternatives, since the Koran was revealed to respond to human problems and is valid forever. All the Koranic verses can be perceived, even pluralistically, since the meaning of a verse can develop, and sometimes have changed from the former meaning when it was revealed for the first time. Hence, an interpretation is relative according to the progress of the ages. In other word, by the theory of limits, Shahrur wants to make a productive reading (qirâ’ah muntijah) of muhkamât verses and not a repetitive and retrospective one (qirâ’ah mutakarrirah).

Fourthly, by the theory of limits, Shahrur wants to prove that Islamic teaching is truly a relevant teaching for all times and places. Shahrur assumes that the positive side of the Islamic message is that it contains two aspects of movement: constant movement (istiqâmah) and dynamic and flexible movement (hanîfiiyah). This Islamic flexibility is within the frame of theory of limits which he perceived as the bounds or restrictions that God has placed on man’s freedom of action. The analytical framework of the theory of limits is based on two main Islamic characters (the constant and the flexible) which will lead to Islam’s survival. Those two contradictory things will deliver dialectic movement (al-harakah al-jadaliyah) in knowledge and social science. Here the new paradigm is expected in the formation of the Islamic legal legislation (tasyri’), therefore it will result in an incessant dialectic and progress of the Islamic legal system. (Abdul Mustaqim, MA, Lecturer of UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta)