Understanding Usul Al-Fiqh by Abu Tariq Hilal - Abu Ismael al-Beirawi

Ijtihad (ئؾطٙحد ) is derived from the root word Jahada. Linguistically, it means striving or self-exertion in any activity, which entails a measure of hardship. The great scholars of Usul such as Abu al-Husayn Ali otherwise known as Al-Amidi (d. 631 AH) and Mohammad bin Ali Al-Shawkani (d. 1255 AH) defined it as, „the total expenditure of effort made by a jurist in order to infer, with a degree of probability, the rules of Shariah from their detailed evidence in the sources.‟27

Others add, „in a manner the Mujtahid feels unable to exert any more effort‟ to this definition. Essentially as a juristic term, Ijtihad means exhausting all of one‟s efforts in studying a problem thoroughly and seeking a solution for it from the sources of Shari‟ah.

This Usuli definition of Ijtihad was derived from the evidences which discuss Ijtihad and establish its obligation such as the Ahadith mentioned earlier. Unfortunately some today believe that Ijtihad is a mere personal reasoning of an individual and have abandoned this definition of the Usuli scholars which had been established for centuries. The consequence of this is that people mistakenly think that Islam doesn‟t contain a process to derive rules for modern problems. Therefore, when talking about Ijtihad it is paramount that we refer to the established Usuli definition rather than how the term is misused today.

A person who performs Ijtihad is a Mujtahid; whereas, a person who knows the rules of Shari‟ah in detail, but is unable to extract the rules directly from their sources, is not a Mujtahid but rather a Faqih (jurist), Mufti or a Qadi (judge).

The text of the Qur‟an and Sunnah which are Qata‟i (conclusive) in meaning provide only one understanding. Any Ijtihad on these types of text will render only one meaning. The texts related to issues such as Riba or murder, are clear in their prohibition of these things. No Mujtahid can claim that Riba or murder is allowed, because the text only offers one meaning. To reject these Ahkam or any others established through Qata‟i Thuboot and Qata‟i Dalalah is Kufr (disbelief) as it would be a rejection of the definitive revealed rule from Allah (swt). Thus those who reject that the five times daily prayer (Salah) are Fara‟id (obligations) or that ruling by whatever Allah is revealed is obligatory undoubtedly become Kuffar (disbelievers) even if they were knowledgeable scholars (Ulema) who had committed the entire Qur‟an and all the Ahadith (narrations) to memory.

Ijtihad does not occur except in the Ahkam Shar‟iah whose daleel is speculative (Dhanni) and not when the rule is decisive (Qata‟i).28

When it comes to the area in which Ijtihad is permitted it is important to realise that it does not occur after a brief look at the Shar‟iah texts, rather it means that the Mujtahid struggles to his utmost in such a manner that the jurist feels an inability to exert himself further in order to derive the Hukm of Allah. If the jurist has failed to discover the evidence which he was capable of discovering, his opinion is void.29

Therefore if one claimed to have made Ijtihad upon an issue after only studying one text related to it and ignored all other relevant texts even though they were readily available, this would not be considered legitimate Ijtihad.

The issues related to the „Aqeedah are based on Adilla Qata‟iya (decisive evidences) and there is only one correct understanding for it, not several. Thus, no Mujtahid can deduce another „Aqeedah of Islam. There is only one correct view with regards to these matters and anyone who differs from it is a Kafir. As Shawkani explained, the Ulema are in agreement that in regard to the essentials of Aqeeda, such as the oneness of Allah (tawhid), His attributes, the truth of the Prophethood of Muhammad, the hereafter, and so on, there is only one truth and anyone, whether a mujtahid or otherwise, who takes a different view automatically renounces Islam.30

Therefore people such as the followers of Mirza Gulam Ahmad Qadian who believe he was a prophet and Salman Rushdie who defamed Muhammad (saw) are definitely Kuffar (disbelievers) and cannot be called Mujtahids at all.

From multiple verses of the Qur‟an we understand that Allah (swt) has addressed humanity directly. Therefore for the one who has heard the address of the Legislator, Allah (swt) - it becomes incumbent on him to believe in it and understand it. It also becomes incumbent on him to act upon it, because it is a Shar‟iah rule. So in principle a Muslim should understand the Hukm (rule) of Allah from the speech of the Legislator directly. This is because the speech has been directed at all people by the Legislator and not only at the Mujtahidin or the Ulema but all the Mukallafin (those who are legally responsible). Thus it became an obligation on the Mukallafin to understand this speech so as to be able to act upon it, since it is impossible to act upon the speech without comprehending it. Therefore, the inference (Istinbat) of Allah's Hukm became Fard on all the Mukallifin i.e. Ijtihad became Fard on all the Mukallafin (legally responsible). Consequently, the basis of a Mukallaf (legally responsible) should be that he adopts the Hukm of Allah himself from the speech of the Legislator because he has been addressed by this speech.

However, the reality of the Mukallifin (legally responsible) is that there is a disparity in their understanding and comprehension and in their aptitude for learning. They also differ in terms of knowledge and ignorance. Therefore, it is impossible for all of them to deduce Shar‟ai rules from the evidences i.e. it is impossible for all Mukallafin to be Mujtahidin. There is a similarity in this respect to other sciences, not everyone can become a doctor, physicist or chemist due to the disparity of people‟s aptitude for learning. Hence the obligation of Ijtihad becomes one of sufficiency ('ala al-Kifaya). If some undertake it the rest are absolved of the sin. Therefore, it became obligatory for Mujtahidin to exist in the Ummah who can derive the Shar‟iah rules for all situations. Futhermore there are various evidences that prove the permissibility of Taqleed (following the opinions of a Mujtahid), these are elaborated in the chapter entitled „Taqleed‟.

To say that the doors of Ijtihad are closed is completely incorrect, this was a serious error that some Ulema mistakenly called for in history and clearly contradicts the Shar‟iah. The Shar‟iah texts exist today as they existed in the past, therefore Ijtihad is not only possible, it is necessary and a Fard ul Kifaya (duty of sufficiency), as was proven earlier.

Shawkani articulated this brilliantly when he said: “It is utter nonsense to say that Allah Almighty bestowed the capacity for knowledge and Ijtihad on the bygone generations of Ulema but denied it to the later generations.” “What the proponents of Taqlid are saying to us is that we must know the Qur‟an and the Sunnah through the words of other men while we still have the guidance in our hands. Praise be to Allah, this is the greatest lie (Buhtanun 'azim) and there is no reason in the world to vindicate it.”31

The doors of Ijtihad are open but not for the ignorant, they are open until the day of judgement for the people of knowledge who have the capability to perform it as knowledge is the key to the door of Ijtihad.