THE ISLAMIC STATE AND THE QUESTION OF CHANGE IN SHARIA

Abstract

This paper is a response to An-Naʿim’s thesis opposing the notion of the Islamic state. It begins by critiquing the premises of his arguments and goes on to propose the thesis of underdetermination of Sharia rulings by their textual sources. My main criticism of An-Naʿim is that he overlooks the potential for change in Islamic law and considers it unable to accommodate new concepts of democracy, human rights, and gender equality. I argue, in contrast, that Sharia has the potential to diverge from what is considered the literal meaning of its textual sources and accommodate new theories, concepts, and values. My argument is based on a detailed exploration of the three-step exegetical procedure through which religious rulings are shaped. Throughout this procedure, there is extensive room for any jurist to insert their own personal preferences. Based on this, I conclude that sacred texts proper do not determine Islamic legal rulings and that extra-textual factors play a more important role than the text itself in determining the content of final rulings.