We forget to trace the fact of this difference in the history of Islamic jurisprudence to find out whether there were similar differences in the past and how the scholars used to react to it.
This kind of difference, if it is not immediately brokered, or if each party continues to pursue its opinion while being lazy to study further, it can turn into unnecessary divisions. Often the symptoms are the emergence of a layer of religious students who, because they feel they have learned religion, feel that they have monopolized the truth to require bullets in the form of a verdict to others who are not in line.
Painful shots to fellow Muslims by calling ahlul bid'ah and the like created unnecessary distances between Muslims. As a consequence, imaginary boundaries are formed between groups A, B, C and so on, just because of the fiqh problem. This has happened since the days of 'local' mass organizations until now when there are also 'import' groups.
If the symptoms have reached a chronic stage like this, then lay people become victims. First, they can join in to love convicting without knowing their fiqh fihth. The second possibility is that they might switch away from da'wah, after knowing by misunderstanding that it turns out that Islam is difficult: a little bit unclean, a little bit bid'ah.
If the emergence of a layer of people that is too strict (intractable) to intolerance towards differences is at one pole as a result of unnecessary splits, then at the other pole also appears a layer of people who are actually different, pretentious (flexible) in fiqh. They hold the belief that fiqh is flexible and can change according to the times, and therefore we must tolerate differences in fiqh matters.
But strangely, those who believe are actually even intolerant of other Muslim brothers who hold firmly to certain things that are in the realm of principles, taken for granted, for example cases of obligation to wear headscarves for Muslim women, the obligation to apply Shari'a accordingly, etc. They argue that Islam is flexible while convicting other Muslim brothers with old-fashioned, conservative and the like, just because they don't want to be 'flexible' in their lives.
Don't Spread Jurisprudence with Jurisprudence
Feeling that fiqh differences have only occurred in the present is a reckless attitude and the root of this unnecessary division. In the past even those differences have occurred. In fact, differences (ikhtilaf) occur from the top of scholars. This is what triggers the birth of fiqh schools.
However, the birth of these schools did not necessarily lead to religious divisions because the priests of the school of thought, as well as the scholars, responded wisely to those differences. Imam Shafi'i once said, "my opinion is correct, but there is a possibility that it is wrong. Your opinion is wrong, but there is a right possibility. "This is a true tolerant attitude, as well as a firm attitude that is not original.
So if we who are at the grass-root actually make the differences into divisions, don't we feel more pious than the priests of the school?
Moreover, the fiqh dimension is not one side. Assuming that fiqh is final and that from its sono so that it is not adaptive to change has eliminated the function of fiqh as a solution to the problems of life (ma’alij li masyakilil hayah). Likewise, assuming fiqh as a law that is very flexible to be able to keep up with the changing tastes of the times also means underestimating God's law.
In simple terms, fiqh has two regions. There is a principle area, and there is a flexible area. The principle area is similar to natural law. The law of gravity, freezing of water, laws of motion and so on cannot and cannot be changed. We cannot oppose natural law, we must follow it. There are several things in jurisprudence like this, usually marked by theorems which are qathiy (clear), like sanction laws in the quran (hudud, jinayah, qishash). In addition, the scholars also compiled the fiqh rules (qawa'id fiqhiyah) which were placed in ushul (principles). These two things become the principle in determining Islamic law. The arguments of qathiy become "direct instructions" from Allah to do, without rebuttal, without multiple interpretations.
The second area is flexible territory, or more appropriately referred to as a divided areaaan: Jurisprudence aspects that tolerate differences in legal provisions. Usually marked by dzanniy propositions (unclear / guess) that still allow the emergence of different interpretations, or because of the diversity of the power of the argument. The issue of furu '(branch) such as qunut, the movement of prayer, isbal, the determination of the type of zakat fitrah, the method of da'wah and the like are areas which allow for differences as long as they stand on valid arguments (having a proposition).
This second area is the area of implementation of ijtihad (exploring the laws of the Qur'an and the Sunnah to resolve new problems). Ijtihad allows fiqh to answer contemporary problems that have never appeared in the past. Ijtihad products are now popularly known as 'fatwas'. In this area precisely the power of fiqh is visible until fiqh continues to be relevant to the times. As a representation, 4 volumes of 'Contemporary Fatwa' by Dr. Yusuf Qaradhawi show that the development of ijtihad which follows developments while not being separated from ushul (roots).
These are the two areas of fiqh that go hand in hand in solving human problems. Dr. Shalah Shawi mentions there are aspects of tsawabit (principle) and mutaghayirat (flexible / flexible). So, banging on these two things is an attitude that shows a lack of understanding of Islamic fiqh character.
Danger 'Flexurization' Jurisprudence
However, even though Islamic jurisprudence has two aspects, we still need to remain vigilant about some parties who understand it too far. Knowing that Islamic jurisprudence has aspects of mutaghayirat, they try to make Islamic jurisprudence too flexible, with the pretext that Islam remains in accordance with the times.
It's just that what happened was the tsawabit holy region was violated. What has been forced into the flexible territory, as if the argument is dzanniy. Suffice it to be the case for Counter Legal Draft (CLD) The compilation of Islamic Law initiated by Siti Musdah Mulia represents this excessive group. In the CLD, it was stated, among other things, that marriage is not worship, women may marry themselves, polygamy is illegitimate, consent is not a pillar of marriage, and so on.
Some people like him also think that the law of qishash and hudud is no longer suitable, the headscarf is not mandatory, Muslim women may marry unbelievers, may women be priests of Friday prayers and so on.
This haphazard community, which in this decade has blatantly embed the word liberal for the name of their group, has a problem in determining the standard for determining the law. Those who are dazzled by foreign tsaqofah (thought) make hermeneutics a method of interpretation, and make the values of humanism, democracy, women's emancipation and modernism the standard of determining fiqh law. Cash only, the verses were raped in order to adjust Islam to what they called modern society.
For us, chaos and freezing in Islamic jurisprudence must be broken down, as well as Jurisprudence lenturization must be rejected. These two opposite poles both eliminate the function of fiqh origin as a solution to human problems through obedience to God. Jurisprudence must be maintained so that the principle area remains valid and has not changed throughout the ages, on the other hand, the mutaghayirat region can answer new problems that arise in every era, until fiqh remains relevant to the changing times.
Loading...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar