Some orientalists who hate Islam and detest the Muslims claim that Islamic jurisprudence has been greatly influenced by Roman jurisprudence and law when in the early ages the Muslims had rushed forth with the conquests. They say that the Roman law was one of the sources of Islamic law and that some of its ahkām have been borrowed from this source. This means that in the time of the Tabi’in and after them the Muslims had adopted Roman laws from Roman jurisprudence. They educe evidence for their view by claiming that at the time of the Islamic conquest there were schools of Roman law present in the Sham (levant) region, in Qaysariyya and on the coasts of Palestine and Beirut. Also in the Sham region there were courts which in their systems and laws proceeded according to Roman law. These courts inside the Muslim lands continued for some time after the Islamic conquest which indicates that Muslims approved and adopted them and proceeded according to their laws and system. They supported this viewpoint with assumptions. They said it is natural for a people who did not adopt much of a sedentary life like the Muslims, when they conquered an urbanised land such as the Sham region which was under Roman rule that they should consider what they should do? What shall they rule them with? Thereafter, they borrowed their laws. Then they said that a comparison between certain sections of Islamic law and certain sections of Roman jurisprudence and law demonstrate the similarity between the two. They also show that certain laws have been copied exactly as they are in the Roman law, like:

And like the words fiqh and faqih. Rather those orientalists maintained that the Islamic law took rules from the Talmud which the Talmud took from Roman jurisprudence. According to their claim Islamic jurisprudence took Roman jurisprudence directly from schools and courts in Sham and through the Talmud.

This is what the Orientalists claim without furnishing any proof other than mere assumptions.

The statements of these orientalists are wrong for a number of reasons:

First: No one reported about the Muslims, whether orientalist or others, that any Muslim, whether he was a faqih or not, that he alluded to Roman jurisprudence or law, either by way of criticism, support or with intention to borrow. No one has mentioned anything whatsoever much or little which indicates that Roman law was even a subject of discussion let alone a subject of study. Some Muslims did translate works of Greek philosophy but they did not translate a single word or sentence from the Roman jurisprudence let alone translate a book which strengthens the judgement that they were abolished and effaced from the land after the were conquered.

Second: At the time when the orientalists allege that there were schools of Roman jurisprudence and courts which ruled according to Roman law in the Sham region, Sham was full of mujtahidin from the ‘Ulamā, judges and rulers. It is natural that if any influence took place then it would have happened among those fuqaha (jurists). However, the reality is that we do not find in the fiqh of these people which has been preserved for us free of any influence by Roman jurisprudence or any mention of it. Rather their jurisprudence and ahkām were based on the Qur’ān, Sunnah and the ijma’ of the Sahabah. One of the most famous from those mujtahidin is al Awza’i. He used to live in Beirut, where the Orientalists allege was the site of the largest Roman schools in the Sham. He spent his entire life there and died there. His opinions have been recorded in many of the recognised books of fiqh. Thus, in volume vii of al-Shafi’i’s al-Umm there are numerous ahkāms by al-Awza’i. It becomes clear to anybody who reads them the extent of al Awza’i’s remoteness from Roman jurisprudence, like the remoteness of the earth from the sky. Even, the mazhab of al-Awza’i, as it becomes clear from his fiqh itself and what has been reported about him, was that of the Ahl al-hadīth. He relied upon hadīth more than he relied upon ra’i. The example of al-Awza’i is the same as that of other fuqaha (jurists). If there were any influences they would have emerged amid those fuqaha.

Third: The Muslims believed that Allah  addressed the whole of mankind in the Islamic Sharī’ah and He  sent our master Muhammad  to all the people:

They considered anyone who did not believe in the Islamic Sharī’ah as a disbeliever and they believed that any hukm which is other than the hukm of Islam is a hukm of kufr (disbelief) whose adoption is forbidden. Whoever believes in such a belief and acts upon it he cannot take other than the hukm of Islam, especially in the early period, in the time of the conquests where the Muslims used to be the carriers of the Islamic Message, opening other lands to carry the Da’wah of Islam to them. They conquered other lands to save the people from the rule of kufr (disbelief). So how can they conquer a country only to accept the rule of kufr for they have come to destroy and put the rule of Islam in its place?

Fourth: It is not correct that the Muslims when they conquered countries were from a lower civilisation than the conquered land. If that was correct they would have abandoned their civilisation and adopted the civilisation of the conquered lands. The observable and perceptible reality is that the lands which the Romans used to rule carried thoughts about life which contradicted Islam. When the Muslims conquered them they did not force the inhabitants to profess Islam. Rather they were content just to take the jizya from the people. But it did not take long before the strength of the Islamic thought and the sublimity of the Islamic civilisation prevailed over the Roman thoughts and Roman civilisation and made it extinct. The inhabitants of the country became Muslims professing Islam and living according to it path with contentment and tranquillity which indicates that the thoughts of Islam had wiped out the Roman jurisprudence and Roman thoughts and had taken its place. This reality which speaks for itself refutes the assertion of the orientalists that the Roman civilisation was stronger than the Islamic civilisation. And it refutes their assertion that the Islamic jurisprudence was influenced by the Roman jurisprudence.

Fifth: the word ‘fiqh’ and ‘faqih’ have been mentioned in the Noble Qur’ān and in the sacred hadīth. The Muslims did not know of any relations regarding legislation with the Roman. He  said:

And he  said:

And the question of the Messenger  to Mu’az when he sent him to Yemen: With what will you judge? Mu’az replied: with the Book of Allah  then with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah , then I will exercise my own opinion; which is the fiqh. Similarly, sending the rest of the Wali’s to other regions and the legal judgements of the Sahabah account for more than a quarter of a century that constituted fiqh. So how can they assume that the word ‘fiqh’ and ‘faqih’ was taken from the Romans? As for the maxim:

It is a hadīth of the Messenger  which he stated before any legislative contact with the Romans. The maxim has been mentioned in the letter of ‘Umar to Abu Musa in Basra. It is well known that no legislative contact took place between ‘Umar and the Romans. So how can they allege that the Muslims took the term fiqh, faqih and the principle: ‘The burden of proof rests on the one makes the claim and on the one who rejects is the oath’ from the Romans when the Muslims themselves have said these things and they had them since the dawn of Islam.

From this it becomes clear that the myth of the influence of Roman law on Islamic jurisprudence has absolutely no basis whatsoever. It is a fabrication of the orientalists who are hostile to Islam, who fill their hearts with hatred for the Muslims...

As for the issue of Islamic jurisprudence taking from the Talmud, its fallacy is evident from the Qur’ān’s attack on the Jews for fabricating the Tawrah and Injeel which were revealed to sayyidna Musa  and sayidina ‘Isa  and that what they have with them has been written by their own hands, it is not from Allah . Moreover, the fact that the Jews used to be separate tribes from the Muslims, they did not live with the Muslims, they did not even mix with them not to speak of the constant animosity between them and the Muslims and the unremitting wars waged on them by the Muslims until they expelled them from their midst. This contradicts the idea of Muslims taking from them.

The truth, and the perceptible reality is that Islamic jurisprudence constitutes rules deduced from the Qur’ān and Sunnah or to what the Qur’ān and Sunnah alluded to in terms of evidence and that if the rule is not based, in its origins, on a Sharī’ah evidence, it is not considered as a part of the rules of Islam and nor is it considered part of Islamic jurisprudence