|Number of words||356|
|Number of sources||0|
Legal traditions need to have authority and order so that everyone can follow the law but a way to change so that new situations can be addressed. It can be difficult to balance both sides. For example, among jurists in the US are those who call for “strict construction” of the constitution and those who call for “loose construction”. The strict constructionists believe that if jurists don’t stick to the letter of the constitution they would be making their own laws instead of following the constitution. Loose constructionists believe that if we only stick to the letter of the constitution we will not be able to keep using it for our changing social life. This kind of issue also is one that Islamic Law dealt with and had debates over, but in its own way. How did this issue come up for Islamic Law and how did Muslim jurists try to deal with this issue? Find one or more instances of this in the Coulson reading and the Lowry reading. Post one thread (your own independent statement) and one response to someone else’s thread, expressing your view on the flexibility (or lack of it) in Islamic Law. Cite one or both of those readings in your posts.