booke

102chapter two2. His ijtih§ds in restricting the allowed ( al-Èal§l) did not need divinerevelation.3. MuÈammad’s restrictions of the ‘unrestricted permissions’ (Èal§lmuãlaq) were subject to constant corrections due to changing circumstancesin his life.4. His ijtih§ds were not infallible and can therefore, unlike revelations,be corrected.5. His ijtih§ds, prophetic or not, do not constitute Islamic legislation.Instead, they reflect his applications of civil law arising from thehistorical conditions of seventh century Arabia. In administratingthe state and society of his time, MuÈammad (ß) applied a specificcivil law (q§nån madanÊ) suitable for his time which, by reason of itshistorical contingency, has no transhistorical validity—even if thereports about it, the ÈadÊths, are totally accurate.The best example we can give to illustrate the specifity of MuÈammad’sijtih§d is his interdiction against visiting graves. We notice thatMuÈammad (ß) first ‘restricted the released’ and then, after muchdeliberation, reversed his decision and ‘released the restricted’.Whether one is allowed to visit graves or not was not explicitlydecided by divine injunction in the Book; it, therefore, fell into thecategory of the absolutely allowed ( al-Èal§l). MuÈammad (ß) was freeto allow such practices. But in order to combat superstitious practicesof j§hiliyya Arabia, MuÈammad (ß) exercised legitimate ‘restriction ofthe released’ and forbade the practice. This did not reflect divinelegislation, nor did it forbid such visits for all time. In fact, after theideas and moral principles of the new faith had been planted in thehearts of most Arabs, MuÈammad (ß) reversed his decision andallowed women to visit the graveyards again. This reversal has confusedgenerations of Muslim jurists since, in their understanding,MuÈammad (ß) had first created an ‘absolute’ taboo and then abandonedit. And since everything what MuÈammad (ß) did, carried—inthe eyes of the #ulam§"—legislative significance (a misconception that,fatefully, became the whole rationale of Islamic fiqh), it led to greatconfusion in deciding whether visiting graves was allowed in Islamor not.We know that the jurists’ solution to the dilemma was to inventa doctrine of abrogation—and God knows where they got that from!Instead of acknowledging that MuÈammad (ß) simply decided whatwas best for his society at a specific time of his life, they tried to