Ijtihād has been defined as the expenditure of effort, seeking the (preponderate) opinion about a thing from the Sharī’ah rules in a manner in which the mujtahid feels unable to exert any more i.e, it is the comprehension of the Sharī’ah text from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah after exerting ones outmost in arriving at this comprehension in order to gain cognizance of the Sharī’ah rule. This means three issues need to be fulfilled in the inference (istinbat) of the Sharī’ah rule until it can be said he has made the inference with a legitimate Ijtihād that is, three issues have to be met until the action can be called an Ijtihād: First, exerting effort in a manner he feels himself unable to exert any more. Second, this exertion should be in search for a preponderate opinion about an issue from the Sharī’ah rules. And third, this opinion about an issue should be from the Sharī’ah texts because seeking a thing from the Sharī’ah rules is not possible if it is not from the Sharī’ah texts and that is because the hukm Shar’i is the address of the Legislator regarding the actions of the servants. This means the one who does not exert effort he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever exerts effort seeking the (preponderate) opinion in other than the Sharī’ah rules from disciplines and views, he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever seeks an opinion from the Sharī’ah rules from other than the Sharī’ah texts he is not considered a mujtahid. So the mujtahid is restricted in what he exerts his utmost effort in understanding the Sharī’ah texts on order to know the hukm of Allah . Anything other than that in terms of the Ulama; who explain the sayings of the imam of their mazhab (school of thought), attempt to comprehend his sayings and deduce rulings from it, or outweigh the opinion of some Ulama over the opinion of others without the medium of the Sharī’ah evidences etc, None of them are considered mujtahids according to this definition. The order of Ijtihād is restricted to the comprehension of the Sharī’ah texts after exerting the utmost effort in the path of arriving at this comprehension in order to know the hukm of Allah . So the Sharī’ah texts are the object of comprehension and they are the object of seeking the opinion about a thing from the Sharī’ah rules.

What should be clear is that the Sharī’ah texts are the Quran and the Sunnah and none other. Any other text is not considered a Sharī’ah text whatever the status of the one who said it. So the sayings of Abu Bakr , ‘Umar , Ali  or any other from the Sahabah  are not considered as Sharī’ah texts in any way whatsoever. Likewise the statements of Mujtahidin such as Ja’far, al Shafi’i, Malik and other Mujtahidin are not considered Sharī’ah texts at all. So exerting effort in deducing a rule, from the statements of those people or any other human being whoever they may be is not considered Ijtihād. Rather it is considered as the opinion of the person himself who made the inference and it has no value in the Sharī’ah. Not to mention that the deduction of a hukm from the saying of any individual from the Sahabah, Tabi’een, Mujtahidin and others is not allowed by the Sharī’ah since it is an inference of a Sharī’ah rule from a source other than the Qur’ān and Sunnah. This is harām in the Sharī’ah because it is judging by other than what Allah  has revealed. And because what Allah  has revealed is restricted to the Kitab and Sunnah, any thing other than the Qur’ān and Sunnah is not from Allah’s  revelation. So adopting a hukm from it is nothing more than adopting something Allah  has not revealed. And a hukm which is not according to what Allah  has revealed is definitely harām.

The Qur’ān and Sunnah are in the Arabic tongue. The Kitab and Sunnah have come as revelation from Allah  either in expression and meaning, such as the Qur’ān or in meaning only. The Messenger  expressed this meaning in his own words which is the hadīth. In any case they (i.e, the Qur’ān and Sunnah) are in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allah  spoke. It (i.e the speech) either has a linguistic meaning only such as ‘mutrafin’(affluent ones), or it has a Sharī’ah meaning only then the linguistic meaning is forgotten as with the word ‘gha’it’, or it has a linguistic and Sharī’ah meaning like the word ‘tahara’ in examples of ‘tahhara’ (to purify) and ‘mutahhirun’ (the purified ones). So, to understand it one has to depend on the linguistic and Sharī’ah disciplines until it is possible to understand the text and arrive at an understanding of the hukm of Allah . Consequently, all conditions of Ijtihād revolve around those two things and they are: the availability of the linguistic and Sharī’ah disciplines. Since the dawn of Islam until the end of the second century Hijri the Muslims did not need specific principles to understand the Sharī’ah texts, nor from the linguistic or the Sharī’ah perspective and that is because of the closeness of their time to the Messenger of Allah  and because their only concern in life was the deen. This was also owing to the soundness of their linguistic disposition and the purity of their language. Therefore, there were no known conditions for Ijtihād. But Ijtihād as an issue was well known. And mujtahidin could be counted by the thousands. All of the Sahabah were mujtahidin and nearly most of the rulers, walis and judges were from the mujtahidin. However, as the Arabic language became corrupted specific principles were laid down to rectify it. And when the people became occupied by the dunya and the number of people devoted to (the study) of the deen decreased and mendacity in attributing ahadīth to the tongue of the Messenger  became widespread, principles were set down for abrogation (nasikh and mansukh), for the acceptance or rejection of ahadīth, to understand the manner of deducing the rule from the ayah and hadīth. When all of this happened the number of mujtahids decreased and the mujtahid began to proceed in his Ijtihād according to specific principles through which he arrived at specific inferences which differed with the principles of others. And these principles came to be established either through a lot of practise in deducing rules from the texts, as if they were set down for him to proceed only according to one path. Or he used to follow certain principles and then he began to deduce (rules) according to them. This resulted in the mujtahid exercising Ijtihād according to a specific methodology in understanding the Sharī’ah texts and in adopting the Sharī’ah rule from the Sharī’ah texts. And some mujtahids came to imitate a person in his method of Ijtihād but they did not imitate him in rules but they deduced the rules themselves according to that person’s methodology. And some Muslims became well versed about a certain thing from the Sharī’ah disciplines and they exerted effort in seeking an opinion from the Sharī’ah rules in specific issues that were presented to them and not in all the issues. In reality due to this we find three types of mujtahiddin amongst Muslims: mujtahid mutlaq (one who performed absolute Ijtihād), mujtahid mazhab (mujtahid in a certain school of thought) and mujtahid mas’ala (mujtahid in a single issue).

As for the mujtahid mazhab he is someone who follows other Mujtahiddin in their methodology of Ijtihād, however he exercises Ijtihād in ahkām but does not imitate the imam of his school. There are no conditions for the mujtahid mazhab except having knowledge of the rules and evidences of the mazhab and he is allowed to follow the rules of the mazhab or disagree with them with his own opinion within the same mazhab. Due to this, it is allowed for the one who follows a mazhab to exercise Ijtihād within this mazhab and disagree with the imam of the mazhab in some rules and issues if an evidence appears to him to be stronger. It has been reported about the imams that they used to say

One of the clearest examples for this is that of imam Ghazali who was a follower of the Shafi’i mazhab, but he had Ijtihāds in the mazhab of Shafi’i which contradicted the Ijtihāds of al-Shafi’i himself. The second is the mujtahid mas’ala. He has no specific conditions or method. However, it is allowed for whoever has knowledge of some of the Sharī’ah and linguistic disciples which enables him to understand the Sharī’ah texts, to exercise Ijtihād in a single issue. So it is allowed for him, in a single issue, to study the views and evidences of mujtahiddin, and their line of reasoning and from that he can reach a specific understanding of the hukm Shar’i which he presumes with the least amount of doubt to be the hukm Shar’i whether it agrees with the opinion of the Mujtahiddin or disagrees with it. In a single issue it is allowed for him to study the Sharī’ah evidences and understand from it what he deems with least amount of doubt to be the hukm Shar’i whether this issue has been previously studied by the Mujtahiddin or not. It suffices for the mujtahid in a single issue to be knowledgable about whatever relates to that issue, and it is essential that he is cognizant of that, but there is no harm if he is unaware of issues not related to it, from matters related to Usul and fiqh (jurispudence).

And besides the state of affairs that took place in the days of the Sahabah  and Tabi’een and what happened after the mazhabs and imams there were people who used to understand the Sharī’ah texts and deduce rules from them directly without any conditions as was the case in the time of the Sahabah. There were people who continued as followers of a specific mazhab but they had Ijtihāds that went against the opinion of their imam. So the reality of what happened meant that the mujtahid mazhab and mujtahid mas’ala did have a presence. This is in terms of the reality of what happened. As for the Ijtihād itself, it can be divided into parts. It is possible, therefore, for someone to be a mujtahid in some texts and not in others. As for the opinion of some people who say that the capacity for Ijtihād is obtained when the person is cognizant of all the recognised disciplines there is no basis for this definition and it does not accord with the reality, since a person may acquire the capacity but not be a mujtahid because he has not set himself the hardship of studying the issue because aptitude (malaka) denotes the strength of understanding and linkage. This can be obtained by someone who is exceptionally intelligent with some knowledge of the linguistic and Sharī’ah disciplines and does not need to encompass the linguistic and Sharī’ah disciplines. A grasp of the Sharī’ah and linguistic disciplines may be present as knowledge due to study and instruction but the aptitude (malaka) may not be present in this scholar because of the absence of thinking. However, Ijtihād is a tangible process with tangible results, which is, exerting effort practically in arriving at a hukm. As for the presence of aptitude it is not designated as Ijtihād. Thus, a person is able to perform Ijtihād in some issues and not in others. He may be able to make Ijtihād in the branches (furu’) but not in other areas. Therefore, it is clear that Ijtihād is divided into parts but sectioning of Ijtihād does not mean the divisibility if Ijtihād in that a mujtahid is able to perform Ijtihād in some subject areas of Islamic jurisprudence but not able in others. Rather the meaning of dividing Ijtihād is the possibility of comprehending some evidences due to their clarity and absence of vagueness. And the inability of understanding evidences is due to their depth and complexity and the presence of various evidences which seem contradictory. They may happen in the foundational principles (qawa’id usuliyya) or in the Sharī’ah rules. So the division of Ijtihād is with respect to the ability to deduce and not with regards to the subject areas of jurisprudence (fiqh).

And He  said:

Both ayāt are about giving testimony. The first states that the witnesses should be from the Muslims. The second states that they should be from Muslims and from non-muslims. i.e, the first ayah stipulates that the witness be a Muslim while the latter permits the witness to be a non muslim. It is essential to know the way in which they are reconciled that is, it is essential to know that the first ayah is unrestricted (mutlaq) with regards to testimony and the second restricts (muqayyad) the testimony of bequests (wasiyya) on journeys. It must be known that the second ayah permits the testimony of non-muslims at the time of the bequest and the like in terms of commercial transactions. It is by greater reason that this should be the case in other things. As well, those two verses indicate that the evidence should be (from) two just witnesses. It is supported by another ayah which is the saying of Allah :

How does that fit in with what has been established in the Sahih (of Bukhari) about the Prophet  that he accepted the testimony of one woman in regard to fosterage (rada’a)? And that he accepted the testimony of a single witness with an oath of the plaintiff? Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas:

In another Hadith which is narrated by Jabir

It is narrated by Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib:

It seems that there is a contradiction between the evidences. However the mujtahid who scrutinises the issue finds that what the ayah and the ahadith mention is the most complete number in testimony. If the complete number is not met it does not mean any other number is not accepted, since the nisab (number) concerns taking up the responsibility of testimony. As for the judge’s discharging of his duty and ruling, the number of witnesses has not been stipulated but what is stipulated is the proof, which is whatever will demonstrate the truth even by the testimony of a single woman or single man along with the oath of the plaintiff (sahib al-haqq). However, if the Sharī’ah text has come specifying the number of witnesses as in the testimony for fornication, then it is restricted by the text. Also, the Prophet  rejected the Mushrikin at the battle of Uhud. He did not accept them to participate with the Muslims in the battle. He  said:

But he accepted the help of the Mushrikin at Hunayn. How are those two evidences to be reconciled? The mujtahid should know that the Messenger  did not accept the Mushrikin at Uhud and refused to seek their help because they wished to fight under their own banner since they came distinguishing themselves with it. So his refusal has an ‘illah (reason), which is that they were fighting under their own banner and state. He  accepted and sought their help in Hunayn because they fought under the banner of the Messenger . The ‘illah of refusing to seek help from them is absent so seeking help is allowed. And with this clarification and other such examples the conflict of evidences cease.

So the ability to comprehend the textual evidences and to compare them is a basic condition. Consequently, the mujtahid mutlaq must be conversant with discernment of the Sharī’ah rules and their divisions, ways of establishing them, aspects of their textual implications from their meanings (wujuh dalālatiha ala madlulatiha,) difference of levels and recognised conditions. And he must know the angles of outweighing them when they contradict. This obliges him to be acquainted with transmitters (ruwwa), methods of invalidation and attestation (jarh wa ta’dīl), and he should be familiar with the causes of revelation (asbab nuzul) and abrogation (nasikh wa mansukh) in the texts.

As for knowing the aspects of textual implications (dalāla al-lafz), this requires knowledge of the Arabic language. Through the knowledge of Arabic, one is able know the meaning of expressions, and aspects of their eloquence and implications, and knowledge of the current disagreement over the same word until it is referred to trustworthy narrators and to what the lexicographers/philologists say about it. It is not sufficient to know from the dictionary that qur’ indicates a state of purity and menstruation and that nikah denotes intercourse and contract of marriage. He should have knowledge of the Arabic language in a general manner in terms of the grammar, inflection, rhetoric and idioms etc. This will enable him to study the connotation of a single expression and sentence according to the language of the Arabs and usage of the people of eloquence, which will enable him to check the books about the Arabic language and understand from it what he needs to understand. However this does not mean he should be a mujtahid in the branches of the language. It is not stipulated that he be proficient in language like al-Asma’i and proficient in grammar as Sibawayh. Rather it is sufficient for him to be knowledgeable about linguistic style so that he can distinguish between indications of expressions (dalāla al-alfaz), sentences and style such as mutabiqa (conformity/harmony), tadmin (implication) haqiqa (literal), majaz (metaphorical), kinaya (metonymy), mushtarak (homonym, mutaradif (synonym) etc. In short, the level of absolute Ijtihād (Ijtihād mutlaq) cannot be attained except by someone who is characterised by two attributes: Firstly, the comprehension of the objectives (maqasid) of the Sharī’ah by understanding the textual evidences. Secondly, the comprehension of the Arabic language and the connotation of its expressions and sentences and styles. Through this it is possible to deduce rulings based on its understanding. Being a mujtahid does not mean he should encompass every text and be able to deduce any hukm, since the mujtahid mutalq may be a mujtahid in many issues reaching the level of absolute Ijtihād. And even if he does not know some issues external to it, it is not a condition of the mujtahid mutlaq that he should be cognizant of all issues, all rules of issues and their discernment. Consequently, so the presence of a mujtahid mutlaq is not a difficult matter rather it is possible and feasible if one is truly determined. The level of mujtahid mas’ala is possible for all to attain after learning what is essential from the linguistic and Sharī’ah disciplines.