In its early beginnings, Islamic jurisprudence was born as a human endeavor to understand the text and as a response to the needs of a changing society—not as a closed system of commands, nor as a mechanism for regulating minds.
Yet over time, and with the changing position of the state and authority, jurisprudence began to move from the space of questioning to the space of obligation, and from the realm of independent reasoning to the realm of justification.
Here began one of the most dangerous turning points in the relationship between religion and freedom.
Jurisprudence… When It Was a Question
In its earliest phases, jurisprudence was founded upon:
There was no single binding opinion imposed on everyone, nor a school claiming absolute truth. Instead, there was breadth of understanding and coexistence among those who differed.
Juristic disagreement was a sign of vitality, not a cause of division.
From Independent Reasoning to Codification
The problem began when the state required a single juristic opinion to codify reality and grant it religious legitimacy.
At that point, jurisprudence was no longer merely interpretation; it became an instrument of organization, and then an instrument of control.
With this transformation, the space for disagreement began to narrow—not because disagreement was wrong, but because it unsettled authority.
When Religion Is Invoked to Justify Rule
At moments of political conflict, jurisprudence was not always invoked to discipline authority, but rather to legitimize it.
Instead of the jurist serving as a critical voice, he sometimes became a confirmer of reality—or a justifier of it.
Here, opinion was not suppressed in the name of the text, but in the name of “public interest,” “blocking the means,” and “preventing strife.”
Strife… The Decisive Word
“Strife” became the magical word by which the doors of debate were closed.
Every differing opinion could be classified as a gateway to chaos, and every question could be accused of threatening the unity of the community.
Yet the paradox is that the fear of strife often became more harmful than strife itself.
Who Protects Whom?
When jurisprudence becomes an arm of authority, it loses its moral function.
Religion ceases to be a reference for values and instead becomes an instrument of administration.
Jurisprudence ceases to be a human exercise of reasoning and becomes a “sacred law” that cannot be questioned.
At that point, the circle of freedom closes.
Was This Path Inevitable?
No. Islamic history has always known independent jurists, free circles of reasoning, and spaces of resistance to the idea of sacralizing authority.
Yet these voices—whether on the Sunni traditionalist side, such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, or within the Mu‘tazilite intellectual tradition, as later seen in Ibn Rushd—were often pushed to the margins because they disturbed the prevailing balance.
What Do We Learn Today?
We learn that:
In the next installment, we will continue this path and ask:
How was independent reasoning suffocated—and why was its gate closed?
To be continued…
Cairo: Five in the evening, local time in al-Mahrousa.
