Understanding and Framing Change in Islamic Law: Potentials and Possible Pitfalls of the Concepts of Canonization and Codification

Abstract Conservative and populist notions of Islamic law, or Sharīʿa, emphasize its immutability. While the textual nature of traditional Islamic jurisprudence supports this conception, academic research in recent decades demonstrates that Islamic law saw constant change and development. We also witness an increasing acknowledgement that several processes of change do not always follow the rich and advanced emic narratives and theories of how change allegedly did or should happen. The possibility of change is also intimately connected to theories of authority, where normative and descriptive models may give different pictures. Several historians and anthropologists of Islamic law have resorted to ‘canonization’ and ‘codification’ as concepts employed to understand and frame significant change, partly intending to create an analytical distance to the study object, unrestricted by the Islamic tradition. While the two concepts have hitherto been employed separately, they have one thing in common: their focus on selection and authorization. This article will first demonstrate how these concepts have been used in Islamic legal studies and then further argue that by juxtaposing and comparing these two concepts, new insights can be gained regarding their potentials and pitfalls.