Reddit reviews An Introduction to Islamic Law

I know of two books which deals with this directly.

1. Mizan by Javed Ghamidi. This deals with each aspect of Sharia and it's philosophy behind it and it's boundaries.
   
   
2. An Introduction to Islamic Law - Wael Hallaq

There's a very interesting book called "An Introduction to Islamic Law" by Wael B. Hallaq. I definitely recommend it if you're interested in learning more about the implementation of Islamic law through history.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Islamic-Law-Wael-Hallaq/dp/0521678730

In my opinion, there are three major false assumptions among many Muslims in regards to Islamic law and the Islamic state. First of all, that there is a single definition of shariah and a shariah-based state. There isn't and there never was in pre-modern, pre-colonial Muslim world. Shariah was implemented differently both within caliphates and between caliphates. In broad strokes: legal disputes were brought to the qadi (judge) who was appointed by the caliph directly or through intermediaries. He based his legal decisions on either legal precedent (taqlid) formulated by legal scholars /lawmakers (muftis) or the independent reasoning of said muftis (ijtihad). But then, the muftis don't necessarily agree? Just like lawmakers in modern time don't necessarily agree (majority vs. minority opinion in a court for instance). And perhaps they disagree because they use different methodologies thus the different legal schools (madhab) in Islamic jurisprudence.

What's amazing and quite beautiful about the shariah is the intellectual complexity of it all. But in a more practical sense what happens then (as we also see in modern times in questions such as "is interest-based mortgage allowed?"), is that there is a choice. In most cases the qadi would listen to the mufti appointed to a certain district or a court, or even follow the school favoured by the caliphs. And if the disagreement persisted it, they'd take it to the grand mufti (basically, the supreme court) who most likely was a scholar in the legal tradition favoured by the caliph. But what we then realize is that there was quite a bit of legal variation in pre-modern Muslim empires. And that variation could be because the empires were huge and decentralised. One court in one district would differ from a neighbouring court, and it wouldn't have any significant consequences.


So the second assumption is that it is possible to implement this great legal variation in a centralised, modern state that has fixed legislature. How do you that? Hallaq in the aforementioned book discusses this in great length by referencing other scholars. For instance, contract law differs between the traditional legal schools? What interpretations would you choose to put in your law book? And if your constituents adhere to different madhabs?

You could just force one opinion on everybody as they do in some Muslim countries today. But that's brutal, in my opinion and in opposition to the historic complexity of the shariah.

Imam Ghazali, theologian and philosopher, formulated the purposes of shariah (maqasid al-sharia). Rather than asking what does the shariah say about X, Y and Z. Let's ask what's the shariah supposed to do. And in his own words the shariah is supposed to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

I believe what many deem "un-islamic" ideologies are capable of doing that and perhaps even more so than the laissez-faire capitalism of many Muslim countries.

So lastly the third false assumption which isn't necessarily wrong, but misguided: there are certain matters that traditional theologians simply don't answer even if one tried to base an entire political system on a notion of "one shariah". Like, a comprehensive economic theory.

You mention social democracy. Most social democracies adhere to some sort of a mixed-economy or variations on a Keynesian model. Basically: capitalism is okay, but the state should maintain control of the market (i.e fiscal responsibility). Is that more or less Islamic than Hayek's economic theory (capitalism is great, and the state should absolutely not regulate the market)? What about Marxist economy (capitalism is bad, the state should own the market)? Or even something totally else not formulated by a dead white guy?

Muslims differ and disagree on this - as they should. So my thing is, as a Muslim, I consider what the purposes of my Islamic ethics are (Ghazali's maqaasid) and then I use the intellect God has granted me to find out the best way and the best system to preserve life, intellect, religion, property and offspring.

In my case and in Western terms that would be being a socialist in terms of acknowledging both class struggle and the role of a strong government in combatting social and economic inequity. However, also social democrat/Keynesian in that I'm not opposed to capitalism and accept that free market drives innovation. And I guess I'm quite the liberal as well (not in the American, "I watch CNN"-sense) in that I believe in freedom from government. Especially in the private sphere. No government should regulate how I carry my life as long as I don't hurt others.

It's fun figuring all this out! And does spend a life time just doing that. Especially in your late teens early twenties. I did! Read alot, is my suggestion!

Best one by an academic researcher:
An Introduction to Islamic Law by Wael Hallaq

Deals with its history, theory and contemporary practice.

Edit: an older submission:
A TLDR description of Islamic law in one paragraph