In an outspoken column for Arab News, Saudi journalist Samar Fatany calls for a revival of ijtihad – the practice of independent interpretation of Islamic scripture. This may sound like ordinary common sense but in the Saudi context it's highly controversial and goes to the heart of the kingdom's religious problems.

Centuries ago, the "doors of ijtihad" were gradually closed by scholars who didn't like the way scripture was being interpreted. Thereafter, new interpretations were regarded as "innovation" – and frowned upon.

In its place, taqlid ("imitation") came to the fore – which basically means accepting the decisions of earlier religious scholars without questioning the scriptural evidence on which they were based.

The result, in its most extreme form, can be seen in Saudi Arabia today where scholars are instinctively suspicious of anything new and invoke taqlid as a justification for opposing change. Inevitably, this insistence on taqlid leaves them ill-equipped to give intelligent opinions on a wide range of contemporary ethical questions.

In her article, Fatany contrasts this with the more flexible approach of some other scholars outside Saudi Arabia:

"The economic and social reality of contemporary life has created many complicated problems for Muslims living in the United States. They had financial and social difficulties and needed direction from a Muslim religious authority. 

"Ultimately the Councils of Muslim Scholars in Europe and the United States decreed that it was permissible for Muslims residing in the West to buy houses with mortgages and to pay interest on these loans. Although this was contrary to Shariah law that forbids charging and paying interest, the Muslim scholars gave their consent declaring that it was a necessary rule for Muslims to meet their financial and social needs in the West."

She explains:

"Conservative scholars need to be reminded that Shariah law is based on two basic principles, mainly that what is basically beneficial is permitted and what is basically harmful is prohibited. Shariah law is based on the principle that always adopts the easier alternative after comparing a few of the available relevant cases; therefore, the general rule for interpretation includes the removal of the rigid or the doubtful and applying a balance between the two. 

"It is time to eliminate the weak Hadith and derive rulings only from the authentic ones. We cannot continue to allow only one legal authority on the interpretation of Shariah laws or recognize only one absolute judgment on judicial issues. Moderate scholars maintain that there could be more than one answer resulting from 'ijtihad' on a particular issue – each ruling depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation."

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 7 November 2011.