Baadhi ya wanaoriental (wanachuoni wa Mashariki) wanaochukia Uislamu na kuwadharau Waislamu wanadai kwamba fiqhi ya Kiislamu iliathiriwa sana na fiqhi na sheria za Kiroma, wakati wa mwanzo ambapo Waislamu walikuwa wakifanya ushindi kwa kasi. Wanasema kwamba sheria ya Kiroma ilikuwa mojawapo ya vyanzo vya sheria ya Kiislamu na kwamba baadhi ya hukmu zake zimekopwa kutoka chanzo hicho. Maana yake ni kwamba wakati wa Tabi'in na baada yao Waislamu walichukua sheria za Kiroma kutoka katika fiqhi ya Kiroma. Kwa ajili ya kuthibitisha mtazamo wao, wanadai kwamba wakati wa ushindi wa Kiislamu kulikuwa na shule za sheria ya Kiroma katika eneo la Sham (Levant), huko Qaysariyya na kwenye pwani ya Palestina na Beirut. Pia katika eneo la Sham kulikuwa na mahakama ambazo mifumo na sheria zake zilifuata sheria ya Kiroma. Mahakama hizi ndani ya ardhi za Waislamu ziliendelea kwa muda baada ya ushindi wa Kiislamu, jambo linaloonyesha kwamba Waislamu waliviidhinisha na kuvipitisha, na kwamba walifuata sheria na mfumo wake. Pia wameunga mkono mtazamo huu kwa dhana. Wanasema ni jambo la kawaida kwa watu ambao hawakukubali sana maisha ya kukaa mahali pamoja, kama Waislamu, wanapoushinda ardhi iliyostaarabika kama eneo la Sham lililokuwa chini ya utawala wa Kiroma, kufikiria wafanye nini? Watawatawalaje? Kisha wakakopa sheria zao. Kisha wakasema kwamba kulinganisha baadhi ya vipengele vya sheria ya Kiislamu na baadhi ya vipengele vya fiqhi na sheria ya Kiroma kunaonyesha ufanano kati ya hizo mbili. Pia wanaonyesha kwamba baadhi ya sheria zimenakiliwa kabisa kama zilivyo katika sheria ya Kiroma, kama vile:

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:

Na kadhalika maneno fiqh na faqih. Bali wanachuoni hao wa Kimagharibi walishikilia kwamba sheria ya Kiislamu ilichukua kanuni kutoka Talmud, ambayo nayo ilizichukua kutoka sheria ya Kiroma. Kwa madai yao, fiqh ya Kiislamu ilichukua sheria ya Kiroma moja kwa moja kutoka shule na mahakama zilizokuwepo Sham, na kupitia Talmud.

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.

Hivi ndivyo wanavyodai Waorientalisti bila kutoa ushahidi wowote isipokuwa dhana tu.

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

Kauli za wanaoriental hawa si sahihi kwa sababu kadhaa:

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

Kwanza: Hakuna aliyeripoti kuhusu Waislamu, iwe ni wanaoriental au wengineo, kwamba Muislamu yeyote, awe ni faqihi au si faqihi, alitaja sheria au hukumu za Kirumi, iwe kwa njia ya kukosoa, kuunga mkono au kwa nia ya kukopa. Hakuna aliyetaja chochote, kidogo au kingi, kinachoonyesha kwamba sheria ya Kirumi ilikuwa hata mada ya majadiliano, achilia mbali kuwa somo la utafiti. Baadhi ya Waislamu walitafsiri kazi za falsafa ya Kigiriki, lakini hawakutafsiri hata neno moja au sentensi moja kutoka katika elimu ya sheria ya Kirumi, achilia mbali kutafsiri kitabu chenye kuimarisha hukumu kwamba sheria hiyo ilifutwa na kuondolewa katika ardhi baada ya kushindwa kwake.

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.

Wakati ambapo wanaorientalist wanadai kwamba kulikuwepo shule za sheria ya Kirumi na mahakama zilizohukumu kwa sheria ya Kirumi katika eneo la Sham, Sham ilijaa mujtahidina miongoni mwa Ulamaa, makadhi na watawala. Ni jambo la kawaida kwamba ikiwa ushawishi wowote ulitokea, basi ungetokea miongoni mwa wale mafakihi (wanasheria wa fiqh). Lakini ukweli ni kwamba hatupati katika fiqh ya watu hawa, ambayo imehifadhiwa kwetu, athari yoyote ya sheria ya Kirumi wala kutajwa kwake. Badala yake, fiqh yao na hukumu zao zilijengwa juu ya Qur’ani, Sunnah na ijma’ ya Maswahaba. Mmoja wa mujtahidina maarufu zaidi miongoni mwao ni al-Awza‘i. Aliishi Beirut, ambako wanaorientalist wanadai ndiko palikuwa na shule kubwa zaidi za Kirumi katika Sham. Alitumia maisha yake yote huko na alifia huko. Maoni yake yamehifadhiwa katika vitabu vingi vinavyotambulika vya fiqh. Hivyo, katika juzuu ya saba ya al-Umm ya al-Shafi‘i, kuna hukumu nyingi za al-Awza‘i. Yeyote anayezisoma hukumu hizo atabaini wazi jinsi al-Awza‘i alivyokuwa mbali na sheria ya Kirumi, kama mbali ya ardhi na mbingu. Hata madhehebu ya al-Awza‘i, kama inavyodhihirika kutoka katika fiqh yake yenyewe na yale yaliyoripotiwa kumhusu, yalikuwa ya Ahl al-hadīth. Alitegemea hadīth zaidi kuliko alivyotegemea ra’y. Mfano wa al-Awza‘i ni sawa na wa mafakihi wengine. Ikiwa kungekuwepo ushawishi wowote, ungejitokeza miongoni mwa mafakihi hao.

Waliona kwamba yeyote asiyeamini Sharia ya Kiislamu ni kafiri, na waliamini kwamba hukmu yoyote isiyokuwa hukmu ya Uislamu ni hukmu ya kufr (ukafiri), ambayo kuikubali ni haramu. Yeyote anayeamini imani kama hiyo na kutenda kwa mujibu wake hawezi kuchukua hukmu nyingine isipokuwa hukmu ya Uislamu. Hilo lilikuwa hasa katika kipindi cha mwanzo, wakati wa fتuhaat (ushindi wa kivita), ambapo Waislamu walikuwa wabebaji wa Ujumbe wa Kiislamu, wakifungua nchi nyingine ili kuwafikishia watu Da‘wah ya Uislamu. Walishinda nchi nyingine ili kuwaokoa watu kutoka utawala wa kufr (ukafiri). Je, inawezekanaje wao kuishinda nchi kisha kukubali utawala wa kufr, ilhali wamekuja kuuondoa na kuweka mahali pake utawala wa Uislamu?

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?

Nne: Sio sahihi kwamba Waislamu walipoyashinda nchi walikuwa wa ustaarabu wa chini kuliko ardhi zilizoshindwa. Kama hilo lingekuwa sahihi, wangeacha ustaarabu wao na kuukubali ustaarabu wa nchi zilizoshindwa. Ukweli unaoonekana na unaoweza kutambulika ni kwamba nchi ambazo Warumi walikuwa wakizitawala zilibeba mawazo kuhusu maisha yaliyopingana na Uislamu. Waislamu walipozishinda, hawakuwalazimisha wakazi kuukubali Uislamu, bali waliridhika tu kuchukua jizya kutoka kwa watu. Lakini halikupita muda mrefu kabla nguvu ya fikra za Kiislamu na utukufu wa ustaarabu wa Kiislamu havijashinda mawazo ya Kiroma na ustaarabu wa Kiroma na kuufanya kutoweka. Wakazi wa nchi hiyo wakawa Waislamu wanaoukiri Uislamu na kuishi kulingana nao kwa kuridhika na utulivu, jambo linaloonyesha kwamba fikra za Uislamu zilikuwa zimeifuta sheria za Kiroma na fikra za Kiroma na kuchukua nafasi yake. Ukweli huu unaojieleza wenyewe unakanusha dai la wanaorientali kwamba ustaarabu wa Kiroma ulikuwa na nguvu kuliko ustaarabu wa Kiislamu. Pia unakanusha dai lao kwamba fiqhi ya Kiislamu iliathiriwa na fiqhi ya Kiroma.

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.

Na akasema:

And he  said:

Na swali la Mtume ﷺ kwa Mu'adh alipomtuma Yemen: Utahukumu kwa kitu gani? Mu'adh akajibu: kwa Kitabu cha Allah, kisha kwa Sunnah ya Mtume ﷺ, kisha nitatumia rai yangu; nayo ni fiqh. Vilevile, kutumwa kwa Wali wengine kwenda maeneo mengine, na hukumu za kisheria za Maswahaba, vinachukua zaidi ya robo karne, na hivyo ndivyo vilivyounda fiqh. Basi wanawezaje kudhani kwamba neno 'fiqh' na 'faqih' lilichukuliwa kutoka kwa Warumi? Kuhusu msemo huo:

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:

Ni hadithi ya Mtume ambayo alisema kabla ya mawasiliano yoyote ya kisheria na Warumi. Kanuni hii pia imetajwa katika barua ya ‘Umar kwa Abu Musa huko Basra. Inajulikana vizuri kwamba hakukuwa na mawasiliano yoyote ya kisheria kati ya ‘Umar na Warumi. Basi wanawezaje kudai kwamba Waislamu walichukua neno fiqh, faqih, na kanuni: “Mzigo wa kuthibitisha unamwangukia anayedai, na kiapo ni cha anayekataa” kutoka kwa Warumi, wakati Waislamu wenyewe wamesema mambo haya na wamekuwa nayo tangu alfajiri ya Uislamu?

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.

Kutokana na hili inadhihirika wazi kwamba hadithi ya ushawishi wa sheria ya Kirumi juu ya fiqhi ya Kiislamu haina msingi wowote kabisa. Ni uzushi wa wanaoitwa wanaoriental wenye chuki dhidi ya Uislamu, ambao nyoyo zao zimejaa chuki dhidi ya Waislamu...

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...

Kuhusu madai kwamba fiqh ya Kiislamu ilichukua kutoka kwenye Talmud, udanganyifu wake uko wazi kutokana na shambulio la Qur'ani dhidi ya Wayahudi kwa kutunga Taurati na Injili ambazo ziliteremshwa kwa Sayyidna Musa na Sayyidna 'Isa, na kwamba walichonacho kimeandikwa kwa mikono yao wenyewe, si kutoka kwa Allah. Zaidi ya hayo, ukweli kwamba Wayahudi walikuwa makabila yaliyojitenga na Waislamu, hawakuishi pamoja nao, wala hawakuchanganyika nao hata kidogo, achilia mbali uadui wa mara kwa mara kati yao na Waislamu na vita visivyokoma vilivyopiganwa dhidi yao na Waislamu hadi walipowafukuza kutoka miongoni mwao, unapingana na wazo la Waislamu kuchukua kutoka kwao.

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.