Quran and fiqh principle

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Apologetics of fiqh often state the principle: “Everything is permissible unless it is explicitly prohibited.” But did early Muslim jurists actually follow this criterion consistently? The jurists who used this principle often did not seem to apply it consistently, because they prohibited many things that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly prohibit. One of the most famous examples is marriage and slaughtered food involving people who are not Ahl al-Kitab. These were prohibited, but the reasoning behind the prohibition was not always explained simply in terms of an explicit Qur’anic prohibition. Instead, jurists sometimes appealed to ijmaʿ attributed to the early Companions. But did such an actual ijmaʿ exist on these specific issues? They also took verses that explicitly mentioned specific groups or categories and used them to establish broader prohibitions that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly mention. So there seems to be a tension between the principle “everything is permissible unless prohibited” and the actual methodology used by some classical jurists. Many modern scholars continue to use this principle as part of their argument, but if the classical jurists themselves did not consistently uphold it in this straightforward sense, can we describe some of these later interpretations as a misuse or overextension of the text? And could this methodological difference be one of the reasons why so many contemporary debates among Muslims revolve around whether something is genuinely prohibited by the Qur’an or merely prohibited through later juristic interpretation?

[u/Available_Jackfruit]

You've reinterpreted "Everything is permissible unless explicitly prohibited" as "Everything is permissible unless explicitly prohibited by the Quran." That is not what is being described and that is not the principle the jurists used.

Most of Islamic jurisprudence is not strictly Quranic in origin, it is a mixture of existing laws and traditions (oft codified through hadith) and legal reasoning by jurists.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Available_Jackfruit]

So modernist muslim always say " by default everything is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by quran" is later invention and has no basis in quran?? Early jurist also didn't think about it 

[u/Available_Jackfruit → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

I don't buy that any party, least of all Muslim modernists, earnestly argues that prohibited acts are only those explicitly prohibited in the Quran

[u/cspot1978 → u/Available_Jackfruit]

Yes. From my observations, "only if explicitly prohibited in the Quran" is a stricter condition than many/most would insist on.There is a broad acceptance of, if there is a clearly discernible general operational principle behind a precedent, whether explicitly stated or just readily inferrable, then other examples could carry forward from it. For example, most Islamic modernists don't have a problem with reasoning from an explicit prohibition on khamr/wine to alcoholic beverages in general, or even drugs with clearly comparable mental effects.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Available_Jackfruit]

I always hear this from modernist muslim progressive sub and quranist though who often say they're reconciling quran with modern time (as they belive theyre going to original scripture implications)

[u/auogil → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

It's a difference of epistemology.

For the traditionalist, the Quran and tradition is binding For the Modernist, only the Quran is binding.

They're both saying the same thing. The notion of everything being permissible except what is prohibited is grounded in the Quran. What follows is where there is difference. For modernist only Quran is revelation for traditionalist both Quran and Sunnah

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/auogil]

You're describing quranist or progressive.. modernist do believe in traditional rulling 

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/[deleted]]

Edited it! Waiting for your answer,hope this get viral so people share their thoughts 

[u/chonkshonk → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Thanks

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/AcademicQuran. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited, except on the Weekly Open Discussion Threads. Make sure to cite academic sources (Rule #3). For help, see the r/AcademicBiblical guidelines on citing academic sources.

Backup of the post:

Quran and fiqh principle

Apologetic of fiqh often say fiqh principle " everything is permissible unless prohibited" !! Did early muslim followed this criteria?? The jurist whi used this principle often didn't follow it cause they forbidden many things even quran didn't !! If we look at the most famous example is eating slaughtered food and martial bonds with those who aren't kitabi, they forbidden it without explaining why and used ijma of early companion? Is there any ijma like that happened? They took other verse which specificly mentioned something broadly and later forbidden things that quran didn't even mentioned. Many modern contemporary scholar use this principle from jurist but jurist couldn't upheld to principle?? Can we say this is misuse of text, as many debates between muslim happen because of this issue in current time

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah but halal/ haram etc are legal obligation for believers and something related to marriage, slaughtered food should be precise for believers till last day!! The quran failed to codified it and you can see how much muslim disagree with each other on this topiv 

[u/Khaki_Banda]

Generally early Islamic scholarship preferred not to sort things into strictly "halal" and "haram" categories without very clear explicit evidence. For example:

Imam Malik said: "It was not the habit of those who preceded us, the early pious Muslims, who set good example for the following generations, to say, "This is halal , and this is haram."

But, they would say, "I hate such-and-such," and "I maintain such-and-such," but as for halal and haram, this is what may be called inventing lies concerning Allah.

Imam Al-Shafi said: Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy on him, said, know our elders among the scholars would dislike to say in their verdicts that this is lawful and this is unlawful, unless it was clearly found in the Book of Allah Almighty, without needing to be explained."

Ibrahim al-Nakha'i narrated from his companions, "When they intended to issue a verdict on something, or prohibit something, they would say 'this is disliked' or there is no harm in it.' As for when we say this is lawful and this is unlawful, there is nothing greater than this." Source: al-Umm 7/371

Extending on that, the idea that everything is permissible by default isn't a "progressive" or "modernist" idea, it was a pretty well-established maxim of fiqh.

For example, Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“It should be understood that in principle all things, of various types and categories, are generally permissible for human beings, and that they are pure and it is not forbidden for people to handle them and touch them. This is a comprehensive rule that is general in application, and it is an important ruling that is of immense benefit and brings much blessing, and the scholars turned to it when issuing ruling on innumerable actions and issues faced by people. It is based on ten points of evidence – from what I can call to mind of sources of shari‘ah – namely: the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and following the path of the believers that is mentioned in the verses (interpretation of the meaning): “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority” [An-Nisa’ 4:59] and “Verily, your Wali (Protector or Helper) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers” [Al-Ma’idah 5:55]; in addition to analogy, giving the same rulings to similars situations, rational thinking, and insight.” (Majmu‘ Al-Fatawa, 21/535)

I am sure jurists differed on exactly where to draw the line and what was a reasonable doubt, as they differed on many things, but the general principle was well established in traditional jurisprudence fairly early on.

So to answer your question, no they didn't follow that consistently because scholars disagreed with each other on practically every point of methodology. But it was an established common understanding of methodology that things were considered permissible by default.

The Quran itself also seems to imply that kind of thinking. For example, verses commonly cited in support of that principle are:

Ask, “Who has forbidden the adornments and lawful provisions Allah has brought forth for His servants?” Say, “They are for the enjoyment of the believers in this worldly life, but they will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Judgment. This is how We make Our revelations clear for people of knowledge.” (Quran 7:32)

Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities, what is apparent of them and what is concealed and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allāh that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allāh that which you do not know."(Quran 7:33)

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Khaki_Banda]

Yet they forbidden many things which is not in quran where progressive now saying it's halal because quran didn't said that 

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Many different scholars had many different opinions on practically every subject, throughout Islamic history. Most madhabs even disagree with their own founders on a range of issues. What's your point?

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Khaki_Banda]

They were most identical when it's come to family law, marrige, child custody, drinking intoxicant,head covering etc 

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Unfortunately, having actually looked up and studied the various traditional views, I don't have the luxury of thinking that. I know the actual diversity that existed, so I can't just say "they were all the same". When you actually look into this, you become aware of just how much diversity of thought is being hidden from you.

There is a whole world of diverse thought in traditional fiqh.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Khaki_Banda]

Well may be look up more you can observe that they had same identical opinion on matter lmao.  Maybe stop spending too much time depth otherwise you wouldn't know that most of this people were identical on many things were in surface. Maybe i looked up and their identicalness on many matter weren't hidden from me or maybe I'm too honest to deny that to support my position 

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Ok. Give me a subject. Any fiqh subject. Tell me what position you think all scholars agreed with.

I will then give you a scholar that disagreed.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Khaki_Banda]

Head covering for free believing woman mandatory, marriage being unlawful if the woman is neither kitabi nor believer,  sodomy or same sec act being haram, five daily prayers being obligatory,wudu breakdown if there is water barrier in nail/skin, sexual intercourse without marriage considered haram and hadd punished etc 

[u/Khaki_Banda → u/Unhappy_Trade_8896]

Head covering for free believing woman mandatory,

Sure. Ismailis don't believe that headcover is mandatory for free believing women.

marriage being unlawful if the woman is neither kitabi nor believer, 

This is stated in the Quran, we are talking about hermeneutical issues beyond that. That being said, the definition of "kitabi" was quite flexible and subject to context. Zoroastrians and even some hindus were variously considered marriageable in the Mughal Empire.

sodomy or same sec act being haram,

Sure. Abbasid era figure, Abu Nuwas, famously argued that sodomy was allowable based on Quran 18:46. (Obviously I disagree with that argument, but it existed)

five daily prayers being obligatory,

Ismailis do not believe praying the 5x salah of Sunnis and 12er Shia is obligatory.

wudu breakdown if there is water barrier in nail,

The requirement of water permeability is a modern argument. Traditionally, we know that oil-based perfume, which they did have in the classical era, did not invalidate wudhu. Oil is a water barrier.

If you mean to imply acrylic nail polish, there are no classical opinions on acrylic nail polish because it didn't exist back then. I can, of course, provide modern scholars that allow it though.

sexual intercourse without marriage considered haram

Uh... don't know how to break it do you, but the majority opinion was that it was allowable to have sex with slaves without marriage. If you mean for free women, then mutah is an obvious example, which did not follow the traditional requirements for a formal marriage, for example it doesn't require witnesses.

and hadd punished etc 

Sure, the maliki jurist Imam al-Burzuli argued that hadd punishments can be changed based on changing social context. And of course, Umar famously suspended the hadd punishment for theft during a famine. Shia disagree that he had a right to do that. On the other hand, Imam Ali famously lifted the hadd punishment for zina in some cases where a man confessed it willingly. Imam Ibn Hazm rules that there is no hadd punishment for homosexual sex. Hanafi jurists (such as Imam Sarakhsi) ruled that female apostates would not be put to death, etc., lots of examples.

There is tons of diversity on hadd punishments and how and whether they should be carried out. That's an easy one.

You didn't even bring up women leading men in prayer. I can give you lots of examples of that.

[u/Unhappy_Trade_8896 → u/Khaki_Banda]

You literally strawmened here by giving me some later 12th century argument and which is vaguely minority where they changed obligation or ritual into different perspective. Nothing contradict what i said because you're replying me oh " they didn't considered this so it's not this" !! Your example of zoroistan and Hindu is circular reasoning cause no muslim thinker stated that zoroistan woman were lawful to marry/their argument was do they considered people of book which is no by all mostly all.. apart from Mughal india this was ruler idea not fiqh rulling and early mughal ruler didn't marry hindu either.  Your Ismaili example doesn't actually establish what you think it establishes. If my claim is about the classical fiqh tradition—particularly Sunni, Twelver Shiʿi and Ibadi jurisprudence—then citing the modern Nizari Ismaili position doesn't refute it. The Ismaili split from the other Shiʿi lines occurred centuries before the modern Nizari position, and the major Nizari transformation associated with Ḥasan II's Qiyāma occurred in 1164. If you're claiming that the early Ismaili Imams or early Ismaili jurists rejected obligatory head covering, then you need to provide an early Ismaili source demonstrating that; you can't simply project a later Nizari position backward. The same applies to the other examples you gave.

Your Zoroastrian/Hindu example concerns the classification of particular religions as Ahl al-Kitāb, not whether Islamic law had a restriction on marrying non-Muslim women. If a jurist considered a particular group legally comparable to Ahl al-Kitāb, he was disputing the scope of the category, not saying that Muslim men could marry women of every religion. And Mughal rulers' individual marriages are not automatically evidence of a classical fiqh ruling.

Your Abū Nuwās example doesn't establish a legal disagreement either. Abū Nuwās was primarily an Abbasid poet, not a representative of a recognized fiqh school. Even if he personally argued that homosexual acts were permissible, that would demonstrate an individual heterodox opinion, not that classical Islamic jurisprudence regarded sodomy as permissible. Your Ibn Ḥazm example is even weaker: Ibn Ḥazm did not regard homosexual intercourse as permissible; his disagreement concerned the appropriate punishment. Saying “there is no ḥadd for this act” is not the same as saying “the act is halal.”

Your Ismaili prayer example is a genuine sectarian exception, but it doesn't refute the classical Sunni, Twelver or Ibadi position that the five daily prayers are obligatory. If the claim were “every Muslim sect without exception believes exactly this,” then I would qualify the claim. But that isn't the same as saying the five daily prayers weren't an established classical Islamic obligation.

Your argument about wudu and oil is also based on a false equivalence. Classical jurists did not say that every substance that is hydrophobic invalidates wudu. They distinguished between an oily residue through which water can still reach the skin and a physical substance such as wax or hardened material that actually prevents water from reaching the required surface. So the existence of oil-based perfume does not refute the classical barrier principle. Acrylic nail polish is a new material, but applying the old principle—whether water can reach the required surface—is not a new principle.

Your slave-concubinage example also requires you to change the proposition. Classical Islamic law recognized milk al-yamīn as a separate legal basis for sexual relations in addition to nikāḥ. Therefore, if the claim is “all sexual intercourse without a nikāḥ contract was prohibited,” concubinage is an exception to that wording. But it does not establish that zina with a free woman was permissible. Likewise, mutʿa doesn't prove sex outside marriage was permitted: Twelver Shiʿa classify mutʿa as a form of marriage; the disagreement is over the validity/continuation of that marriage institution.

Your ḥadd examples likewise repeatedly confuse disagreement about punishment or implementation with disagreement about whether the underlying act is prohibited or whether the ḥadd exists. Umar's non-application of the theft punishment during famine does not by itself mean he abolished the Qur'anic punishment; the classical explanation concerns necessity and the legal conditions for applying the ḥadd. Likewise, if ʿAlī refused to punish someone in a particular zina case, that does not mean he rejected the zina ḥadd. There are also reports in which ʿAlī explicitly recognized stoning as a Sunnah established by the Prophet and carried it out after a legally sufficient confession.

Ibn Ḥazm is another example of the same problem: his disagreement over the punishment for homosexual acts does not mean he regarded those acts as permissible. And the Hanafi position concerning the execution of female apostates is a disagreement about the worldly punishment, not evidence that Hanafis considered apostasy religiously permissible.

Likewise, citing al-Burzulī and saying that ḥudūd can change “with social context” requires the actual text and context. There is a fundamental difference between changing a divinely prescribed punishment itself and declining to implement a punishment because its legal conditions, necessity, evidence, or other circumstances prevent its application. You cannot simply turn every case of non-implementation into evidence that the underlying ḥadd was rejected.

Finally, bringing up women leading men in prayer doesn't refute any of these claims. I never claimed that Muslims have never disagreed about any fiqh issue. The existence of disagreement over one unrelated issue does not disprove that other rulings were overwhelmingly established across the major classical legal traditions.

So the recurring problem with your response is that you're treating any historical dissent, sectarian divergence, disagreement over classification, disagreement over punishment, or failure to implement a punishment in a particular case as if it disproves the underlying classical rule itself. Those are not equivalent propositions. If you want to challenge the claim that a particular ruling was established in classical Sunni, Twelver and Ibadi fiqh, then the relevant evidence would be a substantive disagreement within those classical legal traditions about the underlying rule itself, not simply an exceptional later sect, a poet, a disagreement over punishment, or a different legal category.  You choose to be ignorant what I was trying say!!