Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Conflict Between Divine texts and Human Legal Needs?

A Conflict Between Divine texts and Human Legal Needs? This paper presents excerpted translations from a longer text by the Moroccan jurist, Ahmad al-Raysuni, which highlight a key facet of contemporaneous Muslim legal debates about law and religion. They especially focus on the thorny question of whether textual sources are liable to conflict with pure rational legal considerations and hence must be sidestepped to protect personal or public interests. In these excerpts Raysuni defends his position, and that of many of the so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists, who–while decry the rigid literalism of other traditionalists—maintain that explicit textual injunctions could never conflict with rationality. They believe, as Raysuni asserts here, that any conceived contradiction between texts and rationality is either a misconception of rationality or a misunderstanding of texts. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Islamic Africa (continuation of Sudanic Africa) Brill

A Conflict Between Divine texts and Human Legal Needs?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/a-conflict-between-divine-texts-and-human-legal-needs-Q5fYQ2as0K

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Subject
Sources and Commentary
ISSN
0803-0685
eISSN
2154-0993
DOI
10.1163/21540993-00701006
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper presents excerpted translations from a longer text by the Moroccan jurist, Ahmad al-Raysuni, which highlight a key facet of contemporaneous Muslim legal debates about law and religion. They especially focus on the thorny question of whether textual sources are liable to conflict with pure rational legal considerations and hence must be sidestepped to protect personal or public interests. In these excerpts Raysuni defends his position, and that of many of the so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists, who–while decry the rigid literalism of other traditionalists—maintain that explicit textual injunctions could never conflict with rationality. They believe, as Raysuni asserts here, that any conceived contradiction between texts and rationality is either a misconception of rationality or a misunderstanding of texts.

Journal

Islamic Africa (continuation of Sudanic Africa)Brill

Published: Apr 12, 2016

Keywords: Usul; furu‘; ijtihad; maqasid; maslaḥa; shar‘; istiḥasan; istidlal; ḥudud; ‘urf; ḥijab

There are no references for this article.