Returning to al-Shatibi After Thirty Years

A 16:9 promotional banner with a parchment-style academic background and Islamic geometric motifs. Two book covers of The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Volumes I and II, by Ibrahim ibn Musa Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, appear on the left and right. In the centre, large text reads “Returning to al-Shatibi After Thirty Years,” followed by the subtitle “Early reflections on al-Shatibi’s al-Muwafaqat, Maqasid al-Shariah, and building a framework for inclusive education from an Islamic worldview.” At the lower left is a portrait of Hasrizal Abdul Jamil wearing glasses, a brown cap, and a black shirt. The bottom centre displays “Hasrizal Abdul Jamil” and the website “www.hasrizal.com.” Decorative books and a lantern appear on the lower right, reinforcing the scholarly Islamic theme.

During my bachelor’s degree in Jordan decades ago, I studied al-Qawa’id al-Fiqhiyyah in the second semester of 1996/1997 under Dr Abd al-Rahman al-Kilani, an expert in the field, with particular reference to al-Imam al-Shatibi’s al-Muwafaqat. After studying Usul al-Fiqh and exploring the dimensions of fiqh in the Qur’an through Ayat al-Ahkam and in Hadith through Hadith II, I found al-Qawa’id al-Fiqhiyyah to be a breathtaking intellectual tool. It shaped the way I completed my study of Shariah, and proved especially fitting for my unexpected path: living as a Muslim in the West and serving as the Minister of Religion in Ireland required me, as a recent graduate, to uphold the application of fiqh beyond the traditional approach.

At that time, I read al-Muwafaqat in its original Arabic. Now, thirty years later, I am returning to it to explore how al-Shatibi’s work might support my research in developing a framework for Inclusive Education grounded in an Islamic worldview. Before the study begins in September 2026, Insya-Allah, I have spent time revisiting al-Muwafaqat, this time through the English translation, The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Volumes I and II, translated by Professor Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee.

These are my notes at this preliminary stage of the study. A great deal more, hopefully insya-Allah, will be added, and even changed, all along the way. I am already starting to feel that the four years are short, not nearly as long as they sounded when I accepted the offer from Trinity College Dublin’s School of Education.

JUNE 2026 NOTE

The clearest line of support I find is the doctrine of rukhsa and the hajiyyat.

In Volume I, al-Shatibi argues that the law systematically removes hardship and intends facility, grounding this in the principle that “the basis of rukhsa is leniency for the subject and the removal of hardship for him” (al-Shatibi, 2012a, p. 221), and in the Qur’anic warrant that “Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties” (al-Shatibi, 2012a, p. 222).

Volume II then formalises this as a structural feature of the law rather than a concession, defining the hajiyyat as those purposes “required so as to attain facility and removal of constraints that usually lead to difficulty and hardship” (al-Shatibi, 2012b, p. 10).

I take this to be significant for my thesis because it gives barrier removal an indigenous theological standing.

UDL locates the barrier in a rigid environment and removes it by designing flexibility in from the outset.

Al-Shatibi, as I read him, locates facility in the very architecture of the law, as one of its three graded purposes, and not as a grudging exception bolted on afterwards.

The conceptual move I most need, the shift from reactive accommodation to proactive universal design, is already present in the maqasid: facility is anticipated and built in, not granted under duress.

NON-DEFICIT FRAMING

The second line of support I want to develop is the non-deficit framing.

When al-Shatibi notes that in worship “these are like light exemptions with respect to the hardship accompanying illness and journey” (al-Shatibi, 2012b, p. 10), the burdened person is not pathologised.

The standard demand is eased because of circumstance, and the easing is itself an act of the law fulfilling its purpose.

I see this as parallel to the social-model logic underneath UDL, where the learner is not the problem to be fixed and the design is.

I intend to argue that the maqasid carries an analogous stance: the mukallaf who is ill or travelling is met by a more accessible route to the same end, and that route is fully legitimate, not a lesser form of obedience.

REMOVING BARRIERS

The third line of support is the one that sharpens my “Beyond Compliance” framing in particular, and it is where I think al-Shatibi becomes more than a parallel and begins to do real conceptual work.

Barrier removal in UDL is not only about access through the door; the engagement principle reaches toward sustained, self-regulated, intrinsically motivated learning.

Volume I’s eighth preliminary concept, culminating in “the third grade is for those for whom knowledge has become an established trait” (al-Shatibi, 2012a, p. 27), describes exactly that internalised, self-directing disposition.

Volume II names the telos directly: the primary objective of the law is to free the subject from his own whims “so that he may be the servant of Allah by choice, just as he is the servant of Allah by compulsion” (al-Shatibi, 2012b, p. 135).

This is what lets me say something stronger than “UDL is compatible with Islam.”

It lets me argue that a Muslim educator reasoning from the maqasid does not remove barriers merely to satisfy an inclusion mandate, but because the deep purpose of the law is to move the learner from outward compliance toward willed, internalised engagement.

That, in its own indigenous vocabulary, is my thesis.

METHODOLOGICAL WARRANT

Underwriting all of this, I find, is a methodological warrant. The governing rule that “it is, therefore, obligatory to consider the particulars in the light of the universals” (al-Shatibi, 2012a, p. xviii) models how I want to show the Muslim educator reasoning about any single accommodation.

A given UDL adjustment is not an ad hoc kindness but a particular instance of a universal purpose, the removal of hardship in service of the necessities.

And the inclusive reach of the law itself, which “carries the masses with it, whether infirm or strong, and guides all, whether intelligent or obtuse” (al-Shatibi, 2012a, p. xx), strikes me as close to a definition of the universal in Universal Design: one well-designed system navigable across the full range of human variability, rather than a system built for the average with exceptions appended.

CAUTION

I want to hold one caution close as I carry this into the chapter, so that any ‘devil’s advocate’ cannot turn it against me.

These are conceptual resonances, not claims that al-Shatibi was theorising pedagogy or disability.

Rukhsah concerns legal exemption from religious obligation; UDL concerns curricular and environmental design.

The bridge is the shared underlying logic, that is, anticipated human variability, designed-in facility, non-deficit accommodation, and an orientation to ease, and not an identity of domain.

Presented as a warrant informed by maqasid rather than as an anachronistic equivalence, I am confident that the parallel is valid and reinforces my central argument that the removal of barriers is, for the Muslim educator, a positive theological telos rather than a compliance burden.

The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law: Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Sharīʿa, Volume I

Citation (APA 7)

Key quotes

The Reconciliation of the Fundamentals of Islamic Law: Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Sharīʿa, Volume II — The Book of Maqāṣid

Citation (APA 7)

Key quotes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *