[usadatronourl]

As Salam Alikum

I was attending a lecture on Fiqh and Usul by a Professor of Islamic Studies @ the University of Toronto and he said something which I couldn't respond to and I was wondering if any of the brothers/sisters here could formulate a response to his argument.

The professor states & I quote

"When jurists talk about evidence from the Qur`an and Sunnah, they actually mean a ruling that is derived from a specific expression of a verse or hadith, according to one of the categories of linguistic expression. Expression or terms are categorized in terms of clarity (wuduh), impliaction (dilalah) and scope (shumul)..."

He also states that a binary classification of clarity is agreed upon amongst schools, in which expressions are classified into clear and unclear rulings. They further divided clear terms into four levels of clarity...

"This purely linguistic approach to the prioritization and the application of evidences is endorsed by most schools of law. However, some jurists suggested evidences outside al-nass, such as interest (masalah) and custom (urf). Al-Tufi from the Hanbali school gave precedence of al-masalah over a specific nass. Ibn Abidin the Hanafi jurist, restricted the meaninf of al-nass with al-urf."

"These opinions raise a serious question about the "absoluteness" of the direct implication of al-nass that is claimed in all the schools, which had resulted in a great deal of inflexibility in dealing with evolving realities (al-waqi). "

I had more to say but I need to get to my next class. Any idea's on how one can respond to the last paragraph?

[usadatronourl]

^bump