In the Jurist’s Seat: Teaching Analogical Reasoning by Debating Intoxicants in Islamic Jurisprudence

In an recent contribution to Islamic studies pedagogy, Shahzad Bashir noted that “theological, nativist, and orientalist” modalities of teaching frequently persist, even in well-intentioned courses on Islam (A New Vision).  Carl Ernst likewise articulates the need to destabilize stereotypes of Muslims as automatons, rotely applying scriptural texts (Not Just Academic!).  In a recent course on “Islamic Law, Ethics, and Practice” these pedagogical interventions were pursued when students chose the roles of legal theorists (faqihs), oral advocates (wakils), and judges (qadis) and deployed the rational toolkit of Muslim legal thinkers.  In the august setting of law school courtroom, student-jurists debated whether, based on analogical reasoning (qiyas) a Qur’anic injunction against wine rationally entailed a prohibition of kombucha, cigarettes, psilocybin, or caffeine.  In reaching the divergent conclusions with the same sources and methods, students experienced firsthand the domain of Islamic law as an arena of spirited debate, rational disagreement, and nuanced analysis.