A Juristic Framework Review

Qur'an Explorer
4 hours ago
6 min read

A Juristic Framework Review: Evaluating Traditional Legal Structures Against the 16:116 Criterion

The evolution of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) has resulted in a complex architecture of legal categories that often operate as an extra-textual layer of authority. However, an analytical review of the Quranic text—specifically through the "constitutional" lens of Verse 16:116—reveals a fundamental jurisdictional conflict. This review deconstructs the traditional scholarly constructions of law, evaluating them against the linguistic axioms and legislative boundaries defined by the revelation itself.

1. The 16:116 Criterion: Defining Legislative Sovereignty

Verse 16:116 serves as a strategic "constitutional" boundary that separates divine mandate from human fabrication. It is not merely a moral exhortation but a jurisdictional limiter that defines the exclusivity of the legislative act. Within the Quranic framework, any human attempt to declare what is Halal (permitted) or Haram (forbidden) without explicit textual authorization is characterized as an act of Iftira—the fabrication of a legal lie intended to usurp divine sovereignty.

Linguistic Analysis of the Prohibition

The Arabic terminology within 16:116 provides the structural basis for this boundary:

Alsinatukum (أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ): Literally "your tongues." The verse targets human speech and assertions as the source of unauthorized law. It highlights that Halal and Haram designations in tradition often originate from human reasoning and oral discourse rather than revelation.
Al-Kadhib (الْكَذِبَ): "The lie." The Quran uses this term for deliberate false assertions—claiming something is true or divinely mandated when the speaker lacks certain knowledge (Zann) or a divine textual basis.
Iftira (لِّتَفْتَرُوا): "Fabrication" or "invention." This is one of the gravest charges in the Quranic corpus, used specifically when humans attribute their own rules, traditions, or prohibitions to Allah (e.g., 3:94, 6:93).

The Architecture of Authority

The Quran establishes a binary hierarchy of legislation, contrasting the role of the Legislator with the limited role of the human observer.

Feature	Allah (The Legislator)	The Human (The Observer/Applier)
Sovereignty	Hukm (Judgment) belongs exclusively to Allah (12:40).	Prohibited from inventing prohibitions (16:116).
Documentation	Provides the Book "explained in detail" (Mufassalan) (6:114).	Restricted to the application of the detailed text.
Scope	Defines the narrow boundaries of Haram.	Takes "lords" besides Allah if they legislate (9:31).

This hierarchy clarifies that the act of human law-making—specifically the categorization of life into "forbidden" and "permitted" outside of the text—is not a scholarly refinement but a form of "lordship" (Arbab) that directly challenges divine authority.

2. Deconstructing the Five-Tier Obligation System

Classical jurisprudence utilizes a five-tier classification system (Fard, Mustahabb, Mubah, Makruh, Haram) to manage human behavior. While strategically useful for human-led legal enforcement, this system represents a significant shift from Quranic guidance toward a model of religious social control.

The Linguistic Shift of "Fard" (ف-ر-ض)

The technical Fiqh definition of Fard as a "mandatory ritual" (such as specific postures of prayer) diverges from its linguistic root in the Quran. The root F-R-D signifies making an incision, a notch, or a settlement—fixing something firmly into the social or contractual fabric so it cannot be ignored.

Social/Contractual Fixedness: In 2:236-237, faridatan refers to a "fixed portion" or a settled marriage payment. It is a concrete, agreed-upon settlement between parties, not a ritualized performance.
Inheritance Shares: In 4:11, the term denotes the "fixed shares" of an estate assigned by divine decree.

The scholarly transformation of "fixed social rights" into "mandatory rituals" allowed for the creation of a compliance-based legal apparatus. This system empowers human authorities to judge individual piety based on ritual adherence, a mechanism the Quranic framework actively resists.

The Quranic Alternative: "Kutiba" (كُتِبَ)

The Quran establishes its firm mandates through the term Kutiba ("It is written/decreed"), creating a direct link between the decree and the individual without a tiered legal category.

2:183: Kutiba 'alaykum al-siyam (Decreed upon you is the restraint/fasting).
4:77: Kutiba 'alayhim al-qital (Decreed upon them is fighting).

By using Kutiba (Decreed) or Mithaq (Covenant), the Quran maintains a direct accountability structure that bypasses the need for human-led enforcement tiers.

3. The Closed List: Evaluating the Boundaries of Halal and Haram

A central legal axiom of the Quran is "Default Permission." According to 2:29, everything on earth is created for human use. Within this framework, a "closed list" of prohibitions is strategically vital for the preservation of human liberty.

The Explicit Quranic Haram List

The Quran asserts that its prohibitions are detailed and exhaustive (6:119, 6:145). The following list constitutes the closed boundary:

Dietary Restrictions (6:145, 16:115, 5:3): Carrion (Maytah), flowing blood (Dam masfuh), swine flesh/rotten meat*, and offerings dedicated to other than Allah.
Social and Behavioral (7:33, 17:32, 6:151, 4:10, 22:30): Al-Fawahish (immoralities), Al-Ithm (encroachments on rights), Al-Baghya (oppression), Zina (illicit relations), the unjust consumption of orphan wealth, and false testimony/speech (Qawl al-Zur).
Economic and Spiritual (2:275, 4:48): Riba (usurious increase) and Shirk (association of partners with Allah).

The Expansionist Tradition

Traditional legal schools have added hundreds of secondary prohibitions—including musical instruments, silk, gold for men, and various animal species—none of which are found in the Quran. By the 16:116 criterion, these additions are classified as Iftira (fabrication). The "silence" of the Quran on these matters is not an oversight; it is an active Divine Pardon (5:101) that preserves human freedom.

4. Balagh vs. Legislation: The Scope of Apostolic Authority

The strategic distinction between a "Deliverer" (Rasul) and a "Legislator" is a fundamental "negative constraint" within the Quranic text. The Prophet’s authority is consistently limited to the conveyance of the revelation.

The Exclusivity of Conveyance

The Quranic mandate for the Messenger is relentless: "Nothing is upon the Messenger except the delivery" (Al-Balagh al-Mubin). This constraint is repeated across the text to prevent the rise of a secondary legislative authority:

5:92, 42:48, 24:54: These verses emphasize that the Messenger’s role is strictly limited to the clear conveyance of what was sent down.

The Divine Guardrail (66:1)

In Verse 66:1, Allah rebukes the Prophet for making something Haram for himself to please his wives. This "textual guardrail" proves that the Messenger did not possess the authority to alter the status of anything from Halal to Haram. If he could not legislate for himself, he could not legislate supplemental laws for the community. Furthermore, Hikmah (Wisdom) is defined as a general trait of sound judgment (as seen with Luqman in 31:12), not as a secondary corpus of legislative Hadith.

5. The "Gilded Speech" Protocol: Analysis of 6:112-115

Verses 6:112-115 provide a prophetic warning against the eventual rise of secondary traditions that compete with the revelation for authority.

Zukhruf al-Qawl: The Tool of Deception

Verse 6:112 warns that adversaries of the prophetic mission inspire one another with Zukhruf al-Qawl—Gilded or Ornamented speech. Just as an "ornamented house" or "gold ornament" (17:93, 43:35) provides an aesthetic of wealth, this speech provides an aesthetic of religious authority (Ghururan) to deceive the audience.

The Psychology of the Heart (6:113)

The text identifies the "Incline of the Heart" toward this gilded speech as a symptom of a deeper psychological state: the rejection of ultimate accountability (Akhirah). Those who prefer the immediate certainty and social compliance offered by secondary traditions over the direct, unmediated engagement with the Book are described as lacking Hereafter-consciousness.

The Counter-Assertions (6:114-115)

The Quran responds to the rise of fabricated sayings with three definitive axioms:

Hakam: Allah is the sole Judge/Lawgiver. Seeking another is a jurisdictional error.
Mufassal: The Book is "Fully Detailed." To claim the Quran is vague or needs external manuals is a direct denial of this attribute.
Tammat: The Word of the Lord is "Completed." There is no "gap" for secondary narrations to fill.

Verse 6:116 concludes that following the majority's guesswork (Zann) leads to straying from the path defined in the detailed Book.

6. Synthesis: Toward a Restored Juristic Framework

The return to the "Detailed Book" as the primary legal constitution requires a dismantling of mediated authority and a restoration of the boundaries defined in 16:116.

Critical Takeaways

The Exclusivity of Divine Legislation: Authority to declare Halal and Haram resides solely with Allah. Human-made prohibitions are classified as Iftira (fabrication).
The Intentional Silence of the Text: If the Quran does not explicitly forbid an act, it remains Halal by default. This silence is a "Divine Pardon" (5:101) and an active preservation of human liberty.
The Messenger as a Deliverer, Not a Legislator: Apostolic authority is a "negative constraint" limited to Balagh (clear conveyance). The Messenger’s legal legacy is the Quran alone.
The Sufficiency of the Detailed Book: The Quran is Mufassal (detailed) and Tammat (completed). The traditional claim that the text is vague or insufficient is a rejection of these divine attributes.

In the Quranic framework, there is "no compulsion in the deen" (2:256). This restoration removes the mediated clerical authority that has historically governed through extra-textual tiers of obligation. Each individual is directly accountable to the Creator, engaging with the detailed Book without the interference of human legislation.