The development of a Fiqh tailored towards the Muslims of a country where Muslims are a minority like North America, India or the European countries has been of recent discussion in some Muslim organisations. The justification for “Minority Fiqh” is two fold. First, the argument is that the old Fatwas are no longer applicable and reinterpretations are necessary in order for Islam to be applicable to Muslims in these countries. Secondly, that Muslims in these countries face problems that never existed before, and the solutions to these problems have to be applicable to those specific problems that are faced by them.

Dr Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a leading advocate of this innovative methodology, terms Fiqh al-Aqaliyaat or Fiqh of Minorities as: “…the idea that the Muslim Jurist must relate the general Islamic jurisprudence to the specific circumstances of a specific community, living in specific circumstances where what is suitable for them may not be suitable for others.”44 He continues to say that the: “...jurist must not only have a strong background in Islamic sciences, but must also be well versed in the sociology, economics, politics, and international relations relating to that community.” He claims that the purpose of Fiqh al-Aqaliyaat was not to: “…recreate Islam, rather it is a set of methodologies that govern how a jurist would work within the flexibility of the religion to best apply it to particular circumstances.” We can see from scrutinising this philosophy and its justifications, that this approach makes the particular situation that is faced, or the environment in general, the source of legislation. It is a wholly pragmatic approach. As a consequence, it has led to the neglect of certain shariah rules to the contradiction of what has been established with certainty from the Qur‟an and Sunnah.

The arguments used to justify “Minority Fiqh”, such as the need for Ulema “groomed” in the West or reinterpreting the Shari‟ah so as to make it applicable in non-Muslim majority countries are emanating from a defeated mentality and un-Islamic perspective.

From the Islamic perspective, the locality of the Mujtahid does not validate or invalidate his Fatwa. This has never been a prerequisite for issuing a Fatwa, by definition, the Mujtahid, whether living in America or in the Sahara Desert, has to be versed in the Shari‟ah as well as the problem before issuing any ruling. If a Mujtahid in Egypt were able to understand the problem correctly, his Ijtihad would be acceptable. Our discussion, therefore, should be limited to the ability of the Mujtahid rather than his location.

An issue such as an American woman accepting Islam while her husband remains a non-Muslim is not a new issue. This problem occurred at the time of the Prophet (saw) when his (saw) daughter Zaynab accepted Islam while her husband remained a non-Muslim. Therefore, in order to solve this problem today, we need to go back to the legal texts and study them in order to acquire the Islamic ruling. This applies to all other issues as well.

With regards to issues involving adoption, wills, inheritance, and burial, these have rules, which are discussed extensively in Islam and cannot be changed. As for the new problems, this requires a Mujtahid to extract rulings whether the problem happens in the East or the West.

The idea of an American, European or Indian Fiqh, is an alien concept that seeks to distort the nature of Islam. The Shari‟ah is being treated as a man made law rather than that of Allah, the Supreme. This is a result of a defeated mentality that seeks to change the Shari‟ah to fit the society rather than changing the society to conform to the Shari‟ah.

Does not the Seerah of Prophet Muhammad (saw) inspire in us the motivation to change the circumstance to apply what Allah (swt) ordered? If Muslims are allowed to reinterpret the Shari‟ah according to the environment, we will no longer need the Shari‟ah from Allah (swt) to organise our lives. This amounts to nothing short of assuming the role of the Shar‟i (legislator), Allah (swt).

Even though we have Hanafi, Shafi‟i, Maliki and other schools of Fiqh, none of the founders of these schools developed their Fiqh based on their environment. This is a new idea propagated as a stepping-stone towards a new Islam, one that is based on a “Western Fiqh”, and a Western „Aqeedah. The differences in Fiqh amongst the Mujtahideen were due to differential understanding of the text of the Qur‟an and Sunnah, not the reinterpretation of the Shari‟ah to conform to the environment.

The Muslim Ummah does not need an “American Fiqh”, “European Fiqh” or an “Indian Fiqh” because these terms themselves are wrong. There is no Egyptian, Pakistani, American, Indian or Palestinian Islam in order to have an Egyptian, Pakistani, American, Indian or Palestinian Fiqh. There is only one Islam and only one Fiqh! Some Muslims claim that since Muslims in the West are minorities, this constitutes grounds for establishing a Minority Fiqh. For instance, a preposterous claim is made that some of the rules of the “classical” Fiqh cannot be applied in an un-Islamic Society, including Riba.

First of all, to have a minority mindset is alien to Islam. If Prophet (saw) thought and acted as a minority to establish minority rights in Makkah we would probably not be Muslims today. The Prophet (saw) called for the comprehensive establishment of Islam. This was the attitude of the Prophet (saw) from the very beginning of the Da‟wah. Thus, Muslims should not think of themselves as minorities but rather as carriers of a Message from Allah (swt).

The Ahkam (rules) in Islam are of two types:

a) Rules related to individuals such as praying, fasting, etc. Every Muslim has to abide by these types of „Ibadah whether Islam is applied or not applied in a society and whether the person is living in Makkah, Delhi or Paris.

b) Rules, which cannot be applied except through the agency of the Khilafah State, such as applying the Hudud (punishment) collecting Jizya, etc.

It is not the responsibility of an individual to apply any punishment on behalf of the State. This principle applies to Makkah or Paris. Whether a person lives in the Islamic State or not, he has to abide by the rules related to individuals. However, living in a non-Islamic society does not signal a green light for Muslims to justify, patch, compromise, or alter Allah (swt)‟s rules. It should be clear to us that there is no justification for a Minority Fiqh. As Muslims, we must have a deep rational conviction that Islam is from Allah (swt)

and therefore we must accept it in its totality. This fact should motivate us to live according to Islam and to call the people to apply Islam in the society, because Islam is not just composed of rules related to individuals but is a comprehensive way of life, the Deen-ul-Haqq. The Prophet (saw) said:

“Islam is superior and its superiority can never be surpassed.”45