چکیده:
7s
The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20:2
Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 2002. 209 pages.
If Michael Mumisa’s goal in his monograph Islamic Law: Theory &
Interpretation is to reacquaint the relatively advanced student with, or per-
haps even introduce the intelligent novice to, the early historical develop-
ment of Islamic law (figh) and Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-figh). it can be
said fairly that his work does an adequate job. It would, however, be too gen-
erous to hold that it succeeds according to his wishes in making a significant
advancement — even if limiting one’s scope to the English medium only —
toward Islamic jurisprudence’s theoretical or interpretive development.
This outcome is unfortunate, given the promising first chapter that
showcases the author’s relative familiarity with the plight of the modern
world vis-a-vis the traditional outlook. as well as his cognizance of the
impracticability of applying Islamic jurisprudence in the modern world,
dominated as it is by competing secular and profane forces at every practi-
cal level of law, polity, and policymaking. Very few, if any, contemporary
Islamic jurists (fugaha’) or legal scholars (those steeped in figh or usul al-
figh but not licensed to practice) demonstrate a priori knowledge of the
nuances of modernity’s philosophical underpinnings sufficient enough to
engage in any meaningful discourse that would constitute an enduring
guidepost by which, as Mumisa proposes, to “revive and broaden the dis-
cipline of usul al-figh in order to bring about a methodology which will
truly enable us [i.e., Muslims] to refer all our matters to Allah and His
Messenger.” Upon learning of Mumisa’s motivation, the Muslim reader’s
cautious optimism is that, finally, here comes one of those rare Islamic legal
scholars who can identify the modern world’s intellectual errors as well as
those of the contemporary Muslims who deal with them.
Not so fast. Throughout the first chapter and the remainder of the
book, Mumisa’s rhetoric is at worst confused (thus, confusing) as well as
internally inconsistent. It can be described even as sentimental, insofar as
it reflects incidentally in its form the author’s sentiments. In other words,
the rhetoric’s point of departure is determined more by feeling than by
objective reality. The most obvious expression of this sentimentality and
internal inconsistency is Mumisa’s rhetoric relating to economic law,
which is sometimes socialist if not Marxist in tone. This is an oddity,
given that socialism and Marxism embody modern materialist perspec-
خلاصه ماشینی:
If Michael Mumisa's goal in his monograph Islamic Law: Theory & Interpretation is to reacquaint the relatively advanced student with, or per haps even introduce the intelligent novice to, the early historical develop ment ofIslamic law (fiqh) and Islamicjurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), it can be said fairlythat his work does an adequatejob.
This outcome is unfortunate, given the promising first chapter that showcases the author's relative familiarity with the plight of the modern world vis-a-vis the traditional outlook, as well as his cognizance of the impracticability of applying Islamic jurisprudence in the modern world, dominated as it is by competing secular and profane forces at every practi cal level of law, polity, and policymaking.
Winkel in his Islam and the Living Law - offer theoretical contributions to Islamic jurisprudence in the English medium in greater depth and detail than Mumisa.