The Shari’a - Applying law to new problems

Analogy and intoxicating drugs

Qiyas carries a ruling to a new case through a shared legally relevant reason, not through a superficial resemblance. Qur’an 5:90 condemns intoxicants in its wider account of avoiding corrupting practices. The following use of alcohol and drugs is a worked reconstruction of legal reasoning, not a claim that the verse names a modern drug.

The original case is an intoxicating alcoholic drink; the ruling is prohibition; the proposed effective cause, illa, is intoxication. An intoxicating recreational drug shares that cause even if it is a tablet rather than a liquid. On that account the ruling applies because of its effect, not its packaging or whether early Muslims had heard its modern name.

The inference requires scrutiny. A harmless tablet does not become forbidden merely because another tablet intoxicates. Medical treatment may raise different considerations of need and harm. Likewise, Qur’anic and hadith evidence must be considered together: Muslim 2003a records a general prohibition of intoxicants, so analogy is not the only possible scriptural route to the conclusion. The general report can already encompass new substances.

A strength of analogy is consistency: morally similar cases receive similar treatment despite technological change. A limitation is disagreement about the right cause. Is the relevant feature intoxication, addiction, harm or some combination? A jurist must justify the feature that explains the original ruling and demonstrate that the new case shares it. Otherwise analogy becomes a disguised personal preference.

Riba and the classification of banking

The ban on riba requires identifying which financial arrangements instantiate the prohibited increase. Qur’an 2:275 distinguishes permitted trade from prohibited riba. English translations differ between usury and interest; choosing an English word does not itself settle the legal classification of a modern institution.

The International Islamic Fiqh Academy's Resolution 10 (10/2), adopted in December 1985, treats a stipulated increase on a loan, including an increase for extending repayment, as prohibited riba. Under this approach, a guaranteed contractual increase cannot become lawful simply by giving it a new commercial name. Islamic banking seeks alternative arrangements, including genuine trade or investment, with their own obligations and risks. A label alone is not proof of compliance.

Egypt's Dar al-Ifta explains a different application in its July 2013 discussion of bank returns. It identifies disagreement over takyif, legal characterisation: is the relevant bank arrangement a loan attracting a prohibited increase or a modern investment contract? Its permissive approach to particular investment arrangements does not declare Qur’anic riba lawful. It disputes the relationship between the arrangement and the prohibited category.

An original case makes the reasoning visible. A customer gives an institution money and is promised a fixed extra amount. An Academy-style analysis asks whether the institution owes a guaranteed loan increase. A permissive investment analysis must defend why this legal and economic arrangement is investment rather than simply rename a loan. Information about guarantee, ownership, underlying activity and risk matters to that defence.

The dispute shows both continuity and change. The authority of the prohibition can remain agreed while the application is contested. Critics of flexible characterisation fear an empty distinction that allows forbidden lending under another name. Defenders argue that equating every modern arrangement with an old category can also misidentify its substance. Judgement needs reasons about the contract, not only a favourable or hostile attitude towards banks.