On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, the Faculty of Islamic Studies (FIS) at Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII) hosted a faculty research colloquium under the PROMISE initiative (Progress Research on Muslim and Islamic Studies). The session featured a thought-provoking presentation by Dr. Muhammad Al-Marakeby, a lecturer at FIS, titled “The Unaddressed (Al-Maskūt ʿAnhu) by Sharia in the Classical Islamic Law Literature: Thinking Beyond the Secular-Religious Binary.”
Moderated by Dr. Aria Nakissa, the colloquium explored how classical Islamic scholars historically approached matters not directly regulated by scriptural sources. These “unaddressed” areas—whether considered mubāḥ (permissible), siyāsa (governance), or ʿurf (custom)—present rich terrain for rethinking the scope and nature of Sharia today.
Dr. Al-Marakeby argued against two dominant claims: first, that Sharia comprehensively legislates all aspects of life, and second, that domains outside textual rulings constitute a “secular” sphere. Drawing from classical sources, he proposed that such unregulated areas remain within the Sharia framework, albeit in a distinct mode—what he calls “negative Sharia”—which differs from the fixed, textually-based “positive Sharia.”
“Muslim scholars acknowledged that the Quran and Sunnah do not address every possible scenario,” Al-Marakeby noted. “But that does not imply these gaps are secular. Rather, they are governed by ethical reasoning, customary practices, or state authority, all of which are legitimized within the Islamic legal tradition.”
One of his key interventions is the critique of the term “secular” as used by scholars like Sherman Jackson. While Jackson asserts that Islam contains an indigenous secular space, Al-Marakeby argues that such domains—whether formed through community custom or state policy—are still morally and theologically accountable under Sharia. Violating a custom deemed binding, or disobeying lawful political authority, he stressed, can constitute a sin.
The presentation also touched on modern implications, such as how overreliance on maqāṣid (objectives of Sharia) or state codification risks collapsing the space for legal plurality and personal discretion. Referencing figures like Al-Qarāfī and contemporary critiques of state hegemony by scholars like Wael Hallaq, Dr. Al-Marakeby warned against totalizing interpretations that erase the diversity and flexibility embedded in classical jurisprudence.
By distinguishing between permanent rulings and those open to human reasoning, he offered a nuanced framework for navigating modernity without falling into either legal rigidity or unchecked relativism.
The session concluded with a vibrant Q&A, where faculty lectures and students debated the implications of these ideas for understanding ethics, cultural authority, and the limits of legal discretion.
As UIII positions itself at the forefront of global Islamic scholarship, discussions like these underscore the university’s commitment to intellectual depth and critical engagement. Dr. Al-Marakeby’s contribution adds an important voice to the ongoing effort to reinterpret Islamic legal thought in a changing world—where tradition and transformation must go hand in hand.
