Historical Sharia vs Modern Sharia: Measuring the Islamic Public Law Paradigm

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the modern sharia paradigm offered by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im as an effort to reconstruct Islamic public law to be compatible with the modern constitutional state. This research is normative legal research with a philosophical approach that relies on the study of literature on the main works of An-Na'im and relevant literature. The data is analyzed qualitatively through content analysis and philosophical interpretation to uncover the conceptual constructions of historical and modern sharia. The results of the study show that An-Na'im deconstructed historical sharia by shifting the normative orientation from the specific legal formulation to the universal values of the Qur'an through the reinterpretation of the relationship between Makkiyah and Madaniyah verses. Sharia is no longer positioned as a positive state law, but rather as a source of public ethics that operates through public reason within the framework of constitutional democracy. The reconstruction gave birth to a paradigm of universal citizenship that rejected the differentiation of legal status based on religion, gender, and social identity, and placed justice, freedom, equality, and human dignity as the foundation of Islamic public law. Although there is still debate about the methodological legitimacy of the reinterpretation of the naskh concept, the An-Na'im paradigm offers a framework of renewal that expands the possibilities of dialogue between sharia and modern public law without relinquishing the normative dimension of Islam