It is worth noting that after accepting the above content, a question arises: how can we restore the way of life from fourteen hundred years ago and impose those old principles on the twenty-first century, given that our needs are diverse and constantly changing? This problem often stems from a lack of familiarity with Islamic sciences, as Islam categorizes its rules into three parts:
1. The First Part: Rulings that have been established by definitive texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which remain fixed and unchanging until the Day of Judgment.
2. The Second Part: Rulings that allow for Ijtihad (independent reasoning) and inference, as there are no definitive texts governing them. These rulings can adapt to the conditions of their time and are thus flexible.
3. The Third Part: Rulings for which the Qur’an and the Sunnah did not provide specific instructions or guidance. The main reason for this is that their investigation is entrusted to human reason, which has a broad scope that enables progress to meet the needs of different eras.
The second part of rulings, which allow for Ijtihad and inference, can change according to circumstances and reasons. However, the first part of rulings will not change until the Day of Judgment because they are based on the understanding of human nature. While human conditions may change, human nature itself is immutable. Since these rules are grounded in the recognition of this nature, they remain unchanged.
In any scenario, as far as Sharia permits, we remain within the established limits and strive to fulfill our needs. The realm of Ijtihad begins where definitive texts are absent. Employing reason in cases where definitive texts exist and proposing ideas contrary to those texts constitutes a departure from one’s jurisdiction, which risks distorting the religion.
For example, the Holy Qur’an explicitly forbids pork, which is a revealed commandment. To question why pork is forbidden constitutes a misuse of reason. Some have argued that the reason for prohibiting pork was due to the uncleanliness of pigs at the time, raised in unsanitary conditions. They suggest that because pigs can now be raised in hygienic environments, the prohibition should be rescinded. This reflects an overreach of reason beyond its appropriate application.
Similarly, when the Holy Qur’an deems usury (Riba) to be forbidden, this ruling stands regardless of personal reasoning. The Qur’an references the Arab polytheists who claimed: « إِنَّمَا الْبَيْعُ مِثْلُ الرِّبَا » Translation: “Selling is like usury.”
They believed that one could similarly benefit from trade and usury. However, the Qur’an does not validate this comparison, responding instead with: « وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا » Translation: “Allah has made sale lawful and usury forbidden.”
This eliminates the possibility of further argumentation: whatever Allah has made lawful is lawful, and whatever He has declared forbidden is forbidden. Any subsequent arguments against this indicate a misuse of reason.
A well-known story illustrates this principle: an Indian musician went on Hajj and stayed overnight at a house on the road to Medina. An Arab singer, a Bedouin, began to play the reeds and recite poetry poorly, having no skill in drumming. Upon hearing this, the Indian singer remarked, “I now understand why the Prophet, peace be upon him, forbade music; if he had heard my music, he would never have done so.”
Such thoughts emerge in the guise of Ijtihad, often stemming from the desires of the soul, despite clear directives in the texts.
A famous thinker has interpreted the verse of the Holy Qur’an: « وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا » Translation: “Cut off the hands of the male and female thieves.”
This thinker argues that the verse targets the capitalist class, suggesting that the “hands” represent their industries and that the act of cutting off hands symbolizes the nationalization of these industries to prevent theft.
By 
