SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.78 número4African Pentecostal spirituality as a mystical tradition: How regaining its roots could benefit Pentecostals'How shall we kill him? By sword, fire or lions?': The Aramaic Targum and the Midrashic narrative on Haman's gallows índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados



Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google


HTS Theological Studies

versión On-line ISSN 2072-8050
versión impresa ISSN 0259-9422

Herv. teol. stud. vol.78 no.4 Pretoria  2022 



Rethinking of contemporary Islamic law methodology: Critical study of Muhammad Shahrūr's thinking on Islamic law sources



Arip Purkon

Department of Family Law, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, Jakarta, Indonesia





This study examined the contemporary ijtihād paradigm, especially in understanding the Islamic law sources, according to Muammad Sharūr. This study focused on answering two things, namely Sharūr's thinking in understanding the sources of contemporary Islamic law and compared it with the opinions of 'ulamā (Muslim scholars in Islamic law). An explorative method was used to explore the Sharūr's thinking in understanding the contemporary Islamic law sources, and a comparative method was used to analyse it using 'ulamā's methodology. This research study used an Islamic law methodology (uṣūl al-fiqh) approach. This study concluded that the Sharūr's thinking in understanding the sources of contemporary Islamic law is not comprehensive and less of combination among sources and propositions used by 'ulamā. Etymology understanding is most dominant in his methodology. In addition, there are some misunderstandings on Islamic law concepts raised by 'ulamā.
CONTRIBUTION: This research enriched the study of contemporary Islamic law in responding to challenges of different times. Sha
rūr offered a new paradigm that in al-Quran, the laws have certain limits and they should not be violated. The sunnah was divided into two parts, the changing and the unchanging. Qiyas is an analogy with the problems that happen now with those that happened in the past. And ijma is an agreement from people who have authority in certain matters.

Keywords: Ijtihad; Qirāat; al-Quran; Sunnah; Ijma; Qiyas; al-Kitāb; al-Nubuwwah; al-Risālah.




Understanding of a theory not only leads people to concrete explanations or to things that are concrete and set out in detail, but also gives rise to philosophical explanation. In this case, legal theory is also included in such reasoning. It wanted to continue pursuing issues of a legal nature. As stated by Radbruch, the task of legal theory is to make it clear that the values produced by legal postulates come to the highest philosophical ground (Raharjo 1996).

Legal theory cannot be separated from the socio-historical situation which it raised. This legal theory is often seen as an answer provided to legal problems or to challenge a dominant legal thought at one time (Raharjo 1996). Therefore, although legal theory wishes to say one thought universally, it should be noted that this theory emerged and developed according to its socio-historical background. Thus, legal theories should not be separated from the context of the time they appeared. So it is better if a theory is understood along with the thoughts and socio-cultural conditions that underlie it. The theories born in one century deal with the problems that existed at that time and are not the characteristic of problems for another century (Purkon 2003).

This issue became one of Sharūr's worries when he saw the stagnation of thought in Islamic world. Sharūr emphasised the need for jurists to develop new legal theories according to the socio-cultural background and objective scientific knowledge of the contemporary period. History records that these efforts to reform the law have not always gone smoothly or acceptable to the society and the holders of legal authority consisting of scholars and rulers, although it is necessary to question whether legal authority must exist and must be controlled by certain parties (Esha 2001).

Starting from the belief that Islam is always relevant at any time and place, Sharūr argues that every generation of Muslims must treat the holy book as the totality of revelations that have just been revealed and with the assumption that as if the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had just died. An attitude like this will direct the understanding of Muslims to al-Kitāb always contextual and relevant in all situations and conditions. In line with this attitude, Muslims must desacralise all the products of interpretation produced by previous scholars because in essence, the sacred is only the text of the holy book itself (Sharūr 2000).

Sharūr is a modern scholar and is often called a liberal because his legal thinking tends to be different from the established conventional Islamic law (Clark 2007). However in methodology, it can be said that Sharūr never came out with texts. He often only has dialectics with texts using a linguistic approach (Mujahidin 2012). Therefore, Sharūr's thinking academically deserves to be critically appreciated as a product of modern Islamic law methodology that offered a new approach in understanding religious texts, especially in the Islamic law.


Literature review

There are several articles that examine Muammad Sharūr's method of al-Qurān interpretation. Sahiron Syamsuddinin's dissertation contained debates between Sharūr and his critics. Abdul Mustaqim explained Muammad Sharūr's method of al-Qurān interpretation. He did not discuss the methodology of Sharūr's fiqh. The examples presented in this article are problems outside of fiqh, namely the concepts of Shahwat, Faith and Islam (Mustaqim 2003). Burhanuddin explored the study of relevance and the possible role of Sharūr theory boundaries in the development of Islamic law epistemology in Indonesia. The Sharūr boundary theory discussed descriptively without any analysis of the concept (Burhanuddin 2002).

M. Amin Abdullah, in the book Neo Uūl al-fiqh Menuju Ijtihād Kontekstual, did not specifically discuss the methodology of Sharūr fiqh, but the discussion is more focused on alternative offers for the development of contemporary uūl al-fiqh. The methodology offered by Sharūr is discussed descriptively without any comprehensive analysis or comparison with the opinions of the scholars (Abdullah 2002). In thesis written by Imam Syaukani, the concept of Sharūrfiqh methodology is mentioned as an example for the reconstruction of modern methodology; however, there is no analysis of the concept (Syaukani 2006).

This article explored and analysed comprehensively the Sharūr's thinking in understanding the sources of contemporary Islamic law and compared it with the opinions of 'ulam ā (Muslim scholars in Islamic law).



This study used the library research. The library research was conducted by gathering data from sources of bibliography related to the topic.

The data obtained from primary and secondary sources are classified according to their proportions, and then processed using exploratory and comparative methods. This research used an Islamic law methodology (uūl al-fiqh) approach. The data related to the study problem are described systematically and objectively, and then analysed using content analysis techniques.


Results and discussion

Rethinking of contemporary ljtihād paradigm

According to Sharūr, there were several problems in laying the Islamic jurisprudence foundations in second-century Hijriyyah, including socio-religious problems. There is a view that the time of Prophet and the four caliphs was the time of Islam. All things in the form of decisions, teachings, commands and prohibitions that have been implemented in it are the essence of Islam. The problem here is that the time of Prophet and his companions with all their dimensions, ethics and culture have become part of religion. Therefore, Islam turned into a temporal religion that lost its universality.

In addition, in laying the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence in the second-century Hijriyyah, there were political problems. When the standardisation of the basics of Islamic jurisprudence was carried out, war raged between the Abbasiyyah and Umayyah. The war had a major impact on the Islamic law. And no less important is the language problem. The codification of hadith, tafsir and the determination of ushul fiqh are performed simultaneously with the codification of language (nahwu and sharf). The nahwu rule has overcome the rules of semantics and content of meaning. According to the problems, Sharūr argued that Muslims must lay down new foundations if they want to produce a new Islamic jurisprudence.

Sharūr argued that ijtihād in its strict linguistic sense was not related to the concept of interpretation. Ijtihād is a process in which the language of law is used to produce certain laws according to a certain time and place so that it may result in a different law, in another place and time. Meanwhile, interpretation includes changes in the meaning of an ambiguous text so that two perceptions or more than one word are the same (Sharūr 2000).

It seems that Sharūr did not define ijtihād comprehensively. What is explained is only one part of ijtihād, namely ijtihād tabīqī. Ijtihād tabīqī is ijtihād in the application of law. While ijtihād istinbāī, which is the activity of ijtihād which seeks to extract the law from predetermined arguments, Sharūr seems to be more defined as qirāat (Sharūr 2000).

In relation to ijtihād and interpretation, there are two words that the Sharūr often mentions, namely qirāat and mu'āirah. Qirāat (reading) is an effort to find evidence, contemplate, find, describe and analyse a problem. After all these have been performed, one comes to understand what one reads. Reading in this sense is different from the general meaning of reading, which is reading calligraphy and understanding letter forms, even though this can lead to deduction or interpretation that is no longer satisfying (Sharūr 2000).

The Muslim scholars set several conditions that mujtahid must have, namely having adequate knowledge of the al-Qurān and sunnah, knowing the issues that became the ijmā' of previous Muslim scholars, and mastering the science of uūl al-fiqh and Arabic (Zuailī 2004).

Sharūr mentioned several conditions that need to be considered when carrying out ijtihād or interpretation, especially those relating to contemporary issues. Some of the conditions are that Arabic must be understood as a language free from synonymity of any linguistic text, whether sourced from the al-Qurān, and must be understood based on logical premises. Legal authorities must have an understanding of the basics of scientific knowledge at their time, and master economic and social laws and consider the products of scientists' natural thinking such as mathematics, medicine, astronomy, physics and chemistry, because the scientists are the main partners in determining the law. Besides that, one must stick to the principles of qiyās al-shāhid 'alā al-syahid supported by objective material evidence before issuing any legal decisions. In this context, legal determinants must cooperate with survey experts or competent statistical data managers. If one of the factors changes, especially the objective conditions surrounding a legal event, the law that has been decided must be reviewed (Sharūr 2000).

Some of the requirements for ijtihād that were put forward by Sharūr were actually covered by two conditions put forward by Muslim scholars, namely mastering Arabic and the science of uūl al-fiqh. Basically, ijtihād is carried out in the face of problems the laws of which are not explained in the al-Qurān or the adīth. In other words, ijtihād applies in matters for which there is no text, it also applies to problems for which there is a text but is not certain for that matter (Syarifuddin 2000).

Rethinking of ljtihād legal source


Sharūr began his study of the al-Qurān by analysing several words that were considered important and main points contained in al-Qurān. The analysis conducted by Sharūr was more linguistic. Sharūr assumed that there were no synonyms in the language included in the al-Qurān (Yusuf 2014). However, in several places, Sharūr was less consistent in this respect; for example, equating the meaning of al-sab'u al-mathānī and sab'an min al-mathānī, or the word al-Qurān with al-hadīth and hadīth.

Sharūr started his discussion by presenting the definition of the al-Kitāb. What is meant by the term al-Kitāb in the view of Sharūr is the collection of all objects of revelation that Allah delivered to Muhammad PBUH, which includes the textual form of revelation and its contents. AI-Kitāb consists of all the verses that have been compiled in the Muṣḥaf from Sūrah al-Fātiah to the end of Sūrah al-Nās (Sharūr 2000).

The al-Qurān as understood by the majority of Muslims, in Sharūr's opinion, called the al-Kitāb. However, in several places in his book, Sharūr still uses the term al-Qurān for the meaning of al-Kitāb. This can lead to the perception that Sharūr is inconsistent in using the term al-Kitāb (Sharūr 2000). And in understanding the concepts in the al-Qurān, it seems that Sharūr prioritises understanding etymology and pays less attention to how the concept is used in the sunnah and tafsīr as opined by Muslim scholars, even though the etymological understanding is often biased (Wathani 2018). According to ulama, al-Kitāb is another name for al-Qurān (al-Suyūṭī 1979 & Shihab 2000).

Al-Kitāb was revealed to Muhammad PBUH in his capacity as Prophet and Messenger at the same time. Al-Kitāb has a composition in accordance with the prophetic and apostolic position. Therefore, the al-Kitāb is divided into two major parts, namely al-nubuwwah and al-risālah. In the context of al-Kitāb, al-nubuwwah is understood as accumulated knowledge that was revealed to Muhammad Saw who later positioned him as a Prophet. The concept of al-Nubuwwah includes all information (al-akhbār) and scientific knowledge (al-ma'lūmāt) contained in the al-Kitāb, which also functions as a differentiator between what is right and what is false or between the truth of reality (al-aqīqah) and presumption only (al-wahm) (Sharūr 2000).

In general, Sharūr explained that in the provisions of Allah mentioned in the al-Kitāb and the Sunnah, there are lower and upper limits for all mankind actions. The lower limit is the minimum boundary required by law in special cases, while the upper limit is the maximum boundary. The actions less than minimum limit, as well as those that exceed the maximum limit, are not valid. When these limits are breached, penalties must be imposed in proportion to the violation that occurred. Thus, humans can perform dynamic movements within predetermined limits. By understanding this theory, many legal provisions will be generated (Abdullah 2002).

Based on his legal verses study, Sharūr constructed six forms of the limit theory, which are as follows:

Firstly, a legal provision that only has a lower limit (al-add al-adnā). This happens in terms of mentioning women who cannot be married, various types of forbidden food, debts and receivables, and about women's clothing. The author argues that ijtihād in this case means ijtihād tabīqī, that is, an attempt to apply the law extracted from the text to the law object. The scope of ijtihād tabīqī is the application of laws contained in the al-Qurān and the sunnah to events, incidents or problems that arise in a society. As for istinbāī, the law taken is as stated in the verse in question. Because this is ijtihād is tabīqī, it is casuistic and temporal in nature. So, the law that must be taken is the law mentioned in the verse (al-Shāṭibī 2003).

Secondly, a legal provision that only has an upper limit. This applies to theft and murder crime. The punishment of cutting off a hand for a thief is the highest punishment; therefore, a punishment that is heavier than that cannot be given. However, in the case of theft, it can provide a lower penalty. In the concept of Islamic criminal law, there are terms udūd and ta'zīr. udūd is a punishment determined by Allah. The point defined here is that both quantity and quality are determined. And ta'zīr is a punishment, whose quality and quantity are based on the policies of the power holders, according to the situation and conditions (Awdah 1992 & Sanad 1991).

Thirdly, a legal provision that has both an upper and lower limit. This provision applies to inheritance law and polygamy.

Fourthly, the legal provisions where the lower and upper limit is one point. There is no legal alternative, neither less nor more than what has been determined.

Fifthly, a legal provision has an upper and lower limit but cannot be touched because it means that someone has fallen into Allah's prohibition. This form is applied in social relationships between men and women, which start from not touching each other (lower limit) to relationships that are close to adultery. If a man and a woman approach adultery but have not committed adultery, then both of them have not fallen into the Allah's boundaries.

Sixthly, a legal provision that has an upper and lower limit, where the upper limit is positive (+) or cannot be exceeded, while the lower limit is negative () or may be exceeded. This applies to material relations among humans. The upper limit that is positive (+) (should not be exceeded) is usury, while zakat is the lower limit which is negative () (may be exceeded). This lower limit may be exceeded with various forms of alms besides zakāt. The position in the middle between the positive upper limit and the negative lower limit is the value of zero, namely benevolent loans (al-qar al-asan), which is to provide loans without charging interest (usury) (Sharūr 2000).


Sharūr argues that the definition of sunnah is generally understood to be wrong. The definition that the Prophet's sunnah is something that comes from the Prophet in the form of words, actions, orders, prohibitions and provisions (al-Khāṭib 1975) is somewhat wrong. This definition is not the one given by the Prophet himself or his companions, so that it can be accepted or rejected. This definition is stagnant among Muslims. The Prophet and his companions never knew this definition for sunnah. And the basis for determining the Sharia in Islam is the al-Kitāb and the sunnah (with an updated definition) not the al-Kitāb and Hadīth (Sharūr 2000).

Sunnah, according to Sharūr, is the method of applying the laws of umm al-Kitāb easily without going out of the limitations of Allah's law in matters related to udūd or to establishing temporal local boundaries in matters outside udūd. This effort is made by paying attention to the real reality, space, time and objective conditions, which become the area and space for the application of these laws while remaining based on the word of Allah (Sharūr 2000).

When analysed, the actual definition of sunnah that has been understood so far is something that comes from the Prophet in the form of words, deeds, provisions or characteristics, which is a general definition. The definition put forward by Sharūr is part of that definition that is related to the function of the sunnah.

Sharūr divided the sunnah into two kinds, namely the sunnah risālah and sunnah nubuwwah, as the theoretical framework he used from the beginning. Sunnah risālah, like the al-Kitāb, can be differentiated into al-u-dūd (boundaries in law), worship, morals and teachings (al-ta'līmāt). As for the sunnah nubuwwah, Sharūr divided it into two types, namely those relating to unseen issues and to explanation of tafīl al-Kitāb; so according to him, understanding adīth must be based on understanding the al-Kitāb and not the otherwise (Sharūr 2000).

The criteria for each category of sunnah distribution mentioned by Sharūr are not clear. This division seems to view only the essence of the sunnah, not in terms of coming (wurūd). One of the sunnah functions is the limitation of the absolute (taqyīd al-mulaq) and the denial of the restricted (ilāq al-muqayyad) within the area of al-alāl (something permissible). It seems that the mutlaq and muqayyad definitions meant by Shahrur are different from those put forward by the ushul al-fiqh scholars. In ushul al-fiqh, mutlaq is defined as a text that shows the substance of something without mentioning a limiting provision. Even muqayyad is defined, among other things, as a text, which shows the substance of something that is limited by a provision. These restrictions and legalisations illustrate the shaping dimension for the fluctuations in the growth and development of society in a general frame that limits the area of al-arām (something prohibited) and the area of al-alāl (Sharūr 2000).

According to Sharūr, Sunnah is also a stipulation of the Prophet's ijtihād in the legalised area, regardless of whether the source is prophetic, which is not part of Islamic law, but is only a civil law (qānūn madanī) which is subject to social conditions. This means that the Prophet during his lifetime established laws for civilians to organise the society in legalised territories and to establish Arab governments and societies in the seventh century. Because of that, it is not eternal even though there are hundreds of adīth mutawātir and adīth aīh that tell about it. From some of the sunnah characteristics, it seems that Sharūr only saw the Prophet's sunnah which was the result of the Prophet's ijtihād apart from revelation. The issue of the Prophet's ijtihād has long been a matter of debate among scholars. This discussion of the Prophet's ijtihād seems quite broad and convoluted. Theoretically, the scholars generally agree that the Prophet's ijtihād occurs in worldly matters, such as in determining war tactics and strategies as well as decisions related to disputes. Although theoretically there is some kind of agreement, but from a religious perspective, the Ulama have different opinions on all issues (Shawkānī 1995).

Therefore, according to Sharūr, there is a very clear difference between prohibiting (al-nahy) and arām (al-tarīm). alal and arām are tauqīfī (guidance) from Allah alone, while commands and prohibitions are shared rights between Allah and humans. Allah justifies and forbids as well as rules and prohibits, whereas humans only rule and forbid (Sharūr 2000).

In uūl al-fiqh, it is explained that many phrases are used by the Al-Qurān and the Sunnah to show arām. Among these phrases are demands that directly use the word al-tarīm and which are similar to it, īghat al-nahy, demands to stay away from an act, word lā yaillu, an act accompanied by the threat of punishment both in the world and in the hereafter and every word that shows a denial that is fit to a job (Zuailī 2004).

In uūl al-fiqh, the functions of sunnah towards the al-Qurān are grouped into three, namely, the sunnah which serves to strengthen what has been stipulated by the al-Qurān, clarifies or details what has been outlined in the al-Qurān and establishes laws that have not been regulated explicitly in the al-Qurān (Khallāf 1978).

At this level, it seems that Sharūr does not pay attention to the main problem which is the standard of the Sunnah, namely sanad. Sharūr only saw the sunnah from the side of its content as a product of the ijtihād of a (Prophet) Muhammad PBUH in practising the al-Qurān in his time. If care is not taken, this will lead to desacralisation of the entire sunnah, so it becomes relative and temporary.

Contemporary Ijmā' formulations

Sharūr explained that ijmā' is the consensus of a majority of people who approve the law relating to their interests and they comply with the results of this consensus by implementing it (Sharūr 2000). Therefore, the people's representative council, independent legal institutions and freedom of expression are inseparable parts of the Islamic political system which cannot be implemented without the support of the ijmā' democratic concept. This concept needs to be understood as the true concept of legal democracy ijmā' and freedom of opinion within the limits of God's law (Sharūr 2000).

Ijmā' is, thus, an agreement of people who are still living under the legislation in the form of orders (amr), prohibitions (nahy), acquisition (simā) and prevention (man'u), and has nothing to do with things that are clearly forbidden by Allah. The things that are clearly forbidden are as follows: associating partners with Allah, disobeying parents, killing children, committing heinous acts (al-fawāhish), adultery, homosexual acts, killing someone without justified reasons, wrongdoing with orphans, cheating in scales, not acting fairly, breaking a promise to Allah, marry murim (which is prohibited to marry), practicing usury, and eating food that is forbidden. Ijmā' like this can be performed, for example, in situations such as banning cigarettes after it is known that these are poisonous. This can be carried out by giving fatwās, by state assembly and parliament. Likewise, polygamy, which may be banned if consciously decided on by a person or a society by holding a referendum or through parliament, but it is not tarīm (Shahrur 2001).

In the history of Islam, the formation of this law has been known since the beginning, namely, the existence of the Medina Charter which was made by the Prophet Muhammad. If we look closely at the Medina Charter, it actually uses the language of laws as it is known in modern times (Zahrah 1997).

On this basis, Sharūr emphasised that what was performed by the Prophet must be carried out again by the people's representative assembly in maintaining the boundaries of Allah's law regarding arām, limiting things that are mubah then absolutes it again and in the case of a change from one legal provision to another within the scope of the legal limits established by Allah. All of these things can be realised in the hands of the assembly members, in addition to the advisory board consisting of scholars from all fields who attend the assembly by prioritising statistics, data and evidence.

Ijmā' is defined by Muslim scholars as a consensus between all Muslim mujtahid at a time after the Prophet died on a sharia law regarding a case (Khallāf 1978).

Sharūr seems to have narrowed the meaning of ijmā' further from the meaning of ijmā' put forward by a majority of Muslim scholars. Sharūr's understanding of ijmā' leaned more towards a qānūn understanding. Because of this, the harshness of ijmā' as understood by Sharūr is not as strong as the ijmā' defined by Muslim scholars. Ijmā' defined by Sharūr is more relative and temporary.

Contemporary Qiyās formulations

Sharūr argues that defining qiyās by analogising things that occur in the present (al-shāhid) with events that occurred in the past (al-ghayb) is wrong and unfair. The analogy of the problems of modern society with the problems faced by society at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) cannot be justified because this would only lead to dubious and vague conclusions. Sharūr stated that the definition of qiyās is a measure of something or a party that is present now with something else that is also present at the present time within the boundaries of God's law (Sharūr 2000).

The first evidence consists of material evidence that is objective in nature, while the second evidence is a human society with an interest in being analogous to that which is alive today. For example, in the smoking prohibition law, the position of the first evidence is medical data and statistical survey results on the problem of smoking, while the second evidence is the human society that will accept the application of the prohibition law. In this case, what must be considered is that the events that occur in humans can have similarities; however, the laws that are applied to them are not always suitable to be applied, in general (Sharūr 2000).

Thus, qiyās is an analogy based on material and scientific evidence put forward by natural scientists, sociologists, statisticians and economists. So, they are the authentic advisors to the legislative and political authorities, not religious scholars and fatwā institutions. Based on these evidence, permitting (simā) or prohibition (man') of something can be determined, but this is not prohibition (talīl) or prohibition (tarīm) (Sharūr 2001).

According to the author, Sharūr misunderstood the qiyās explained by the Muslim scholars. Muslim scholars explained that qiyās analogise the law, which is not mentioned in the text with the law mentioned in the text (Zuailī 2004). Qiyās is not analogising something that is happening now with something that happened in the Prophet's time, as understood by Sharūr. The object of analogy in qiyās can be something that is happening right now. So, the measure is not the time of occurrence, but whether there is a legal appointment of the text to the matter in question.



From the above discussion, the authors concluded that firstly, there are no synonyms in the al-Qurān. Each word has its own meaning. In establishing the law, the al-Qurān established boundaries that should not be violated. Sunnah is a method of applying the laws of umm al-Kitab easily without going outside the boundaries of Allah's law in matters related to the hadd or to set local temporal boundaries in matters outside the hadd. This effort is carried out by taking into account the real reality, space, time and objective conditions that become the territory and space for the application of the law. Ijmā' is consensus of a majority of people who agree on a draft law related to their interests, and they comply with the results of this consensus by implementing the law. Qiyās is an analogy based on material and scientific evidence proposed by natural scientists, sociologists, statisticians and economists. They are authentic advisors for the legislative and political authorities, not religious scholars and fatwa institutions.

Secondly, the concept of ijtihād offered by Sharūr still does not appear to be comprehensive, and there are misunderstandings regarding some concepts explained by Muslim scholars in Islamic law, namely, the definition of al-Qurān, sunnah, ijmā' and qiyās. The basic concepts related to Islamic law are not given definite explanations or measurements so that they are easy to understand. Therefore, the author recommends that there is a need for a continuous study of ijtihād so that Islamic fiqh is always felt to be actual and not out of date. This study needs to be carried out in a comprehensive and in-depth manner, without neglecting the corridors established by Muslim scholars. The opinions of previous Muslim scholars are still used as a source of reference.



Competing interests

The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.

Author's contributions

A.P. is the sole author of this article.

Ethical considerations

This study followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

Funding information

This research work is funded by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan Republik Indonesia (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education).

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author and the publisher.



Abdullah, M.A., 2002, 'Paradigma Alternatif Pengembangan Ushul Fiqh dan Dampaknya pada Fiqh Kontemporer', in Ainurrofiq (ed.), Mazhab Yogya: Menggagas Paradigma Ushul Fiqh Kontemporer, pp. 146-163, Ar-Ruz, Yogyakarta.         [ Links ]

Awdah, ', 1992, Al-Tashrī 'al-Jināī al-Islāmī: Muqāranan bi al-Qānūn al-Wa'ī, vol. I, Muassasah al-Risālah, Beirut.         [ Links ]

Burhanuddin, 2002, 'Artikulasi Teori Batas Muhammad Sharūr dalam Pengembangan Epistemologi Hukum Islam di Indonesia', in S. Syamsuddin (dkk.), Hermeneutika al-Quran Mazhab Yogya, pp. 141-189, Penerbit Islamika, Yogyakarta.         [ Links ]

Clark, P., 2007, 'The Shahrur phenomenon, A liberal Islamic voice from Syiria', Islam and Christian Muslim Relation 7(3), 337-341.        [ Links ]

Esha, M.I., 2001, 'The methodological historical construction of Muammad Sharūr's thought', Al-Huda Journal 2(4), 120-132.         [ Links ]

Khallāf, ', 1978, 'Ilm Uūl al-Fiqh, Dār al-'Ilm, Kuwait.         [ Links ]

Khāṭib, al, M.A'., 1975, Uūl al-Hadīth, Dār al-Fikr, Damascus.         [ Links ]

Mujahidin, A., 2012, 'Subyektivitas dan Obyektivitas dalam Studi al-Quran (Menimbang Pemikiran Paul Ricoeur dan Muammad Sharūr)', Kalam: Jurnal Studi Agama dan Pemikiran Islam 6(2), a410.        [ Links ]

Mustaqim, A., 2003, 'Mempertimbangkan Metodologi Tafsir Muhammad Sharūr', in S. Syamsuddin (dkk.), Hermeneutika al-Quran Mazhab Yogya, pp. 121-139, Penerbit Islamika, Yogyakarta.         [ Links ]

Purkon, A., 2003, 'Pendekatan Hermeneutika dalam Kajian Hukum Islam', Ahkam 13(2), a930.        [ Links ]

Raharjo, S., 1996, Ilmu Hukum, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.         [ Links ]

Sanad, N., 1991, The theory of crime and criminal responsibility in Islamic Law Saria, Office of International Criminal Justice, Chicago, IL.         [ Links ]

Sharūr, M., 2000, Al-Kitāb wa al-Qurān: Qirā'ah Mu'āirah, Shirkah al-Mabū'ah, Syria.         [ Links ]

Sharūr, M., 2001, Nawa Uūl Jadīdah li al-Fiqh al-Islāmī: Fiqh al-Mar'ah (al-Waiyyah, al-Irth, al-Qawāmah, al-Ta'addudiyyah, al-Libās), Al-Ahālī li al-ibā'ah wa al-Nashr, Syria.         [ Links ]

Shāṭibī, al.A.I., 2003, Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uūl al-Sharī'ah, vol. IV, Al-Maktabah al-Tawfīqiyyah, Cairo.         [ Links ]

Shawkānī, al., 1995, Irshād al-Fuūl, Dār al-ibā'ah al-Munīrah, Cairo.         [ Links ]

Shihab, M.Q., 2000, Tafsir al-Mishbah: Kesan, Pesan dan Keserasian al-Quran, vol. 1, Lentera Hati, Jakarta.         [ Links ]

Suyūṭī, al. J., 1979, Al-Itqān fī Ulūm al-Qurān, vol. II, Dār al-Fikr, Damaskus.         [ Links ]

Syarifuddin, A., 2000, Ushul Fiqh, vol. II, Logos Wacana Ilmu dan Pemikiran, Jakarta.         [ Links ]

Syaukani, I., 2006, Rekonstruksi Epistemologi Hukum Islam Indonesia dan Relevansinya bagi Pembangunan Hukum Nasional, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.         [ Links ]

Wathani, S., 2018, 'Kritik Salim al-Jabi atas Hermeneutika Muammad Sharūr', el-Umdah: Jurnal Ilmu al-Quran dan Tafsir 1(2), a550.        [ Links ]

Yusuf, M., 2014, 'Bacaan Kontemporer: Hermeneutika al-Quran Muammad Sharūr', Jurnal Diskursus Islam 2(1), 52-72.         [ Links ]

Zahrah, I.M.A., 1997, Uūl al-Fiqh, Dār al-Fikr al-'Arabī, Kairo.         [ Links ]

Zuailī, al.W., 2004, Uūl al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, vol. I and vol. II, Dār al-Fikr al-Mu'āṣir, Beirut.         [ Links ]



Arip Purkon

Received: 22 Sept. 2021
Accepted: 14 Jan. 2022
Published: 16 Mar. 2022

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons