The truth is that family issues are not just texts we read, but rights, obligations, and facts that people live, and rulings applied to cases that differ from one family to another. Therefore, understanding any issue requires knowledge of the Sharia ruling, reading the full legal text, and understanding the circumstances of the case to which the ruling is to be applied.
Hence, the importance of distinguishing between three things: a jurisprudential opinion that one scholar may adopt while another disagrees, an effective legal text that regulates people's rights and obligations, and a judicial ruling issued in a specific case based on its facts and evidence. These are interrelated matters, but they are not one and the same.
Does a law's disagreement with a jurisprudential opinion mean that the law contradicts Sharia?
To answer this question, one must understand the nature of the issue itself. There are rulings established by definitive evidence, and there are issues in which scholars have exercised ijtihad (independent reasoning) and held diverse opinions. In matters of ijtihad, the legislator may adopt a specific jurisprudential opinion and regulate it in a clear legal text, taking into account what they deem to achieve the public interest within established Sharia and legal principles.
Therefore, it is not enough to say that a legal ruling differs from a jurisprudential opinion to judge it as contrary to Sharia, just as it is not enough to attribute a ruling to Sharia to consider that sufficient evidence of the correctness of all its details. Rather, one must know the evidence, understand the reasoning, determine the nature of the issue, and examine the legal text, its context, and its effects.
Let us take an example from family issues.
A parent might read a jurisprudential opinion about custody and then believe that this opinion alone determines the outcome in every case. However, the case that reaches the court may involve facts, evidence, and circumstances that require verification, and its resolution is subject to the effective legal texts and the rules governing their application. Thus, the jurisprudential opinion, the legal text, and the judicial ruling are not synonyms, even if they have important connections.
The same applies to alimony. A claim for a financial right cannot be understood simply by circulating a figure or a general opinion; it requires knowledge of the relevant legal provisions, the facts that affect the assessment of the right, and the procedures necessary to claim and enforce it. Here, the importance of combining Sharia knowledge, legal understanding, and practical awareness of family circumstances becomes apparent.
The law that regulates family affairs is not written in a vacuum, nor is it applied away from people's reality. It regulates relationships, rights, and obligations, and establishes rules needed by both the judge and the litigant. Consequently, understanding it requires reading the text within the entire legislative system, not extracting a single article and building a comprehensive judgment upon it.
This does not mean that legislation is above criticism or that every legislative choice is correct simply because it was issued. It is the right of the researcher, the specialist, and the citizen to discuss texts, ask about their foundations and effects, and suggest their development. However, responsible criticism differs from making sweeping judgments; it is based on knowledge of the text, understanding its Sharia and legal basis, and studying its impact on rights and duties, rather than settling for an impression or a circulating post.
From the reality of dealing with family issues, there is an urgent need to distinguish between the effective legal text, the Sharia fatwa, personal opinion, and information circulated on social media. Not everything published is a legal truth, not every jurisprudential opinion is a binding text, and not every case that appears similar is identical in its facts and evidence.
When a case reaches the court, its resolution is not based on slogans or preconceived impressions, but on the facts, evidence, and applicable legal texts, in accordance with established procedures and principles. This is the importance of the judiciary in transforming general rules into rulings that relate to specific facts, while safeguarding rights and observing legal guarantees.
Protecting the family is not the responsibility of the law alone, nor is it achieved by merely repeating Sharia rulings without understanding. It requires societal awareness, correct knowledge, calm dialogue, legislation discussed on a scientific basis, and judicial application that adheres to the provisions of the law.
In the end, the requirement is not for society to choose between Sharia and law, or for family issues to turn into a confrontation arena between their supporters. The requirement is to understand the relationship between them accurately, to distinguish between text and ijtihad, between opinion and ruling, and to make the rights of the family and its members the focus of the discussion.
When we discuss family issues with knowledge and justice, disagree about them with politeness and responsibility, and move away from hasty judgments, we are closer to protecting the family, safeguarding rights, and achieving justice. Knowledge opens the door to understanding, responsible dialogue brings viewpoints closer, and justice remains the goal that everyone should unite upon.
