Masud’s article, Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha: Diversity in Fiqh as a Social Construction, closed a few gaps in my understanding that I’ve been wrestling with the past few classes, trying to understand how the way of life from well over 1,000 years ago could dictate how small matters of life ought to be lived today. In his article on Islamic jurisprudence, he explains how there naturally will be variety in the rulings made by judges. The question then becomes “Well, which one is right?”
I particularly appreciated how Masud explained the multiple schools of thought with respect to how Muslims handle ikhtilaf. Although he clearly shows his hand, which could perhaps be deemed progressive by more fundamentally-minded Muslims, Masud argues that the diversity in ikhtilaf should be fit into modern, social times. This viewpoint has the potential to massively impact the social structure of Muslim society–and to a certain extent, it already has. Granted, many of these things have been positives, moving in favor of human rights. But my question is as follows: does the sunna or hadiths hold any weight or claim upon ikhtilaf if it can be interpreted into modern times? Can one hold such a view as Masud while also putting up safeguards to ensure that fiqh isn’t easily swayed to whichever way relativism bends?
Islam & Christian-Muslim Relations, Hamaty 
I really appreciate this question. There’s a particularly concerning passage in Masud’s article, which argues that the task of contemporary islamic jurisprudence is to “push for whatever is socially practical and useful.” It seems to me this solution would undermine any resistance to legal and cultural relativism on the part of Islam. Perhaps a more developed account of the jurist’s fidelity to the tradition, while seeking what was “Socially practical,” would be useful?
LikeLike