Resolving the conflict between traditional Islam and human rights: A comparative study of Mahmoud Mohammed Taha’s and Mohsen Kadivar’s views

Abstract

In the recent decades, many Muslim intellectuals have devoted their intellectual efforts to reconstructing the jurisprudence through a new interpretation of Islam in order to solve the problem of human rights. While they have mostly tried to find a solution based on Ijtihad in derivation of Shari’a, Mahmoud Mohammad Taha and Mohsen Kadivar have asked for structural Ijtihad, presenting reversed and rational abrogation theories. In the current article, the researcher aims to focus on three main questions: Why do they believe that traditional jurisprudence and Ijtihad in derivatives are not able to solve the conflict between Islam and human rights? What are the most important governing principles in the corrective theory of each thinker, and how can their proposed theories lead to the reconciliation of Islam and human rights? And finally, what are the most fundamental principles and common features that lie in the theory of the two thinkers?