The system of what is permissible and what is forbidden departed from what was stipulated in the decisive book of God, which specified what is strictly prohibited. The Almighty said: “Why do you not eat of that over which God’s name has been mentioned, and He has detailed for you what He has forbidden you, except what you are compelled to do. And the Almighty said: “And do not say, when your tongues describe a lie, This is lawful and this is forbidden, in order to fabricate a lie against God. Indeed, those who invent a lie against God will not succeed.” In the beginning, codifying and writing jurisprudence, jurists and hadith scholars did not dare to prohibit, so they resorted to words such as makrooh and mustahabb, because they know that only God has the right to prohibit and permit. The Almighty said: “Say: Who has forbidden God’s adornment that He has produced for His servants, and the good things of provision? Say, “They are for those who believe in the life of this world exclusively on the Day of Resurrection.” Thus do We detail the verses for people who know. The principle is that the prohibition is in the hands of God, and the Messenger of God does not have the right to prohibit it. The Almighty said: “Oh Prophet, why do you forbid what God has made lawful for you, seeking the pleasure of your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Narrators, narrators, and narrators have always depicted social life in the Prophet’s era and the eras that followed it in a way that is not true. Some of the latecomers are trying to question what was mentioned in Taha Hussein’s book “Hadith Wednesday” about life in the Umayyad and Abbasid eras. Given that the hadiths, narrators, and preachers wanted to show the previous eras in a manner other than their human reality, and the book “Hadith Wednesday” consisted of articles that he sent to the magazines “Al-Siyasah” and “Al-Jihad” to become a book that people circulate and take as a reference for Arab literature in its pre-Islamic, Islamic and modern eras, and it is rightly considered one of the “ The truest extensive critical studies that dealt with this aspect of Arabic literature, discussing the artistic aspect of a number of the greatest poets, dealing with their poems with explanation and graphic and verbal analysis. I also devoted a large area of study to the issue of the ancients and the modernists.
Much of the lawful and forbidden system that was reached by the hadiths, narrators, and commentators is in fact personal jurisprudence that does not oblige anyone with it. In fact, the matter did not stop at this limit of confusion and concealment, but rather exceeded that until this system became a firm conviction in the minds of many. The Saudi thinker, Ibrahim Al-Bulayhi, says, “The principle is that most people are born once, and each of them is imprinted with the cultural system in which he was raised and normalized, and life goes on without them waking up from the automatic regularity in the cultural system in which they were normalized, and they remain unaware that they are products of the automatic naturalization that hijacked their capabilities in childhood.” ».
Society is in a serious and big problem because the topics of education are still consolidating this system that was launched by the early hadiths and narrators, and the later ones followed them by narrowing, concealing the difference, and showing the matter as if there is consensus on it, and the matter is otherwise. Dr. Muhammad Al-Shahrour says how did we reach religion today? That in the Umayyad era, they distorted the concept of the judiciary and formed the faith, and in the Abbasid era, the religion that we have reached today began to take shape. And he says that this jurisprudence was influenced by Christianity, as they imitated the Christians by showing the concept of the prophetic biography and the Sunnah, just as Christianity has a biography of the Prophet of God Jesus – peace be upon him – where in the Bible the Lord said or Jesus said (Jesus, peace be upon him).
The Qur’an, as the fundamentalists say, is a definite proof, i.e. a definitive proof, while the Sunnah is a presumptive evidence. Despite this, many hadith scholars and narrators have become more attached to it than the Qur’an. This appears clearly from their sayings and rulings, until Al-Awza’i said, “The book (meaning the Qur’an) is more in need of the Sunnah than the Sunnah of the Book.” Al-Dhahabi said: “As for Al-Bukhari’s authentic collection, he deferred the books of Islam, and the best of them after the book of God Almighty.” Al-Nawawi says: “The first compiled in Sahih Al-Majrid, Sahih Al-Bukhari, then Sahih Muslim. They are the most authentic books after the Qur’an.” In light of these human concepts and opinions, the system of permissible and forbidden was formulated, some of which came outside the Qur’anic text.
The society will not be able to overcome the closure that the members of society have been persecuting since their early childhood until they are programmed into it and it is difficult to break away from it except from the mercy of my Lord. Some contemporary scholars, such as Sheikh Salih al-Maghamisi, have argued that it is necessary for God to create a new Islamic doctrine through his hand, but in fact we need more than that, because we must have in our current era a contemporary fundamentalism just as the jurists of the second and third Hijri centuries had a fundamentalism that they created to be in line with with the concepts and requirements of their time. Sheikh Saleh Al Maghamsi did well when he said that Islamic jurisprudence is a human artefact.
So societies need institutional enlightenment and systematic education to initiate the intellectual reform movement and get out of the intellectual programming that society lives through, and the fear always remains of setback overlooking societies that are still saturated with outdated convictions and unfit for the mechanisms and nature of the age.
Osama Yamani