Mfano mmojaulio wazi kabisa ni wa Imamu Ghazali, ambaye alikuwa mfuasi wa madhehebu ya Shafi'i, lakini alikuwa na Ijtihadi katika madhehebu ya Shafi'i zilizopingana na Ijtihadi za al-Shafi'i mwenyewe.
Mfano wa pili ni suala la mujtahid. Hana masharti maalum wala mbinu maalum. Hata hivyo, inaruhusiwa kwa yeyote mwenye elimu ya baadhi ya Shari'ah na taaluma za lugha zinazomwezesha kuelewa matini za Shari'ah, kufanya Ijtihadi katika suala moja. Hivyo inaruhusiwa kwake, katika suala moja, kuchunguza maoni na dalili za mujtahidina, pamoja na mtiririko wao wa hoja, na kutokana na hayo akafikia ufahamu mahsusi wa hukmu ya Shar'i ambayo anaidhania, kwa kiwango cha chini kabisa cha shaka, kuwa ndiyo hukmu ya Shar'i, iwe inaafikiana na maoni ya Mujtahidina au inapingana nayo. Katika suala moja, inaruhusiwa kwake kuchunguza dalili za Shari'ah na kuelewa kutokana nazo kile anachoona, kwa kiwango cha chini kabisa cha shaka, kuwa ndicho hukmu ya Shar'i, iwe suala hili lilishachunguzwa hapo awali na Mujtahidina au la. Inatosha kwa mujtahid katika suala moja kuwa na ujuzi wa chochote kinachohusiana na suala hilo, na ni lazima awe na ufahamu wa hilo, lakini hakuna ubaya ikiwa hana habari za mambo yasiyohusiana nalo, katika mambo yanayohusu Usul na fiqh (sheria).
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).
Na mbali ya hali iliyokuwepo katika zama za Maswahaba na Tabi'in, na kilichotokea baada ya madhehebu na maimamu, palikuwepo watu waliokuwa wakiyaelewa matini za Sharia na kutoa hukumu kutoka kwake moja kwa moja bila masharti yoyote, kama ilivyokuwa katika zama za Maswahaba. Walikuwepo pia watu waliobaki kuwa wafuasi wa madhehebu maalum, lakini walikuwa na Ijtihadi zilizopingana na msimamo wa imamu wao. Kwa hiyo, kwa mujibu wa uhalisia wa yaliyotokea, madhehebu yenye mujtahid na suala lenye mujtahid yalikuwepo. Hili ni kwa mujibu wa uhalisia wa yaliyotokea.
Kuhusu Ijtihadi yenyewe, inaweza kugawanywa katika sehemu. Hivyo, inawezekana mtu kuwa mujtahid katika baadhi ya matini na asiwe mujtahid katika nyingine. Kuhusu maoni ya baadhi ya watu wanaosema kwamba uwezo wa kufanya Ijtihadi unapatikana pale mtu anapojua taaluma zote zinazotambulika, hakuna msingi wa ufafanuzi huu, wala hauendani na uhalisia, kwani mtu anaweza kupata uwezo huo lakini asiwe mujtahid kwa sababu hajajitwika taabu ya kusoma suala hilo. Kwa kuwa malaka (uwezo wa kiakili) inamaanisha nguvu ya kuelewa na kuunganisha mambo. Uwezo huu unaweza kupatikana na mtu aliye na akili ya kipekee na ujuzi fulani wa taaluma za lugha na Sharia, na hahitaji kuzimiliki taaluma zote za lugha na Sharia. Ufahamu wa taaluma za Sharia na lugha unaweza kuwepo kama maarifa kutokana na masomo na mafunzo, lakini malaka isiwepo kwa mwanazuoni huyo kwa sababu ya kukosekana kwa kufikiri. Hata hivyo, Ijtihadi ni mchakato unaoonekana wenye matokeo yanayoonekana, nao ni kutumia juhudi kivitendo katika kufikia hukmu. Kuwepo kwa malaka hakuitwi Ijtihadi. Hivyo, mtu anaweza kufanya Ijtihadi katika baadhi ya masuala na asiweze katika mengine. Anaweza kufanya Ijtihadi katika matawi (furu') lakini asiweze katika maeneo mengine. Kwa hiyo, ni wazi kwamba Ijtihadi imegawanyika katika sehemu, lakini kugawanywa kwa Ijtihadi hakumaanishi kwamba Ijtihadi inaweza kugawanyika kwa maana kwamba mujtahid anaweza kufanya Ijtihadi katika baadhi ya maeneo ya fiqhi ya Kiislamu lakini asiweze katika maeneo mengine. Badala yake, maana ya kugawanya Ijtihadi ni uwezekano wa kuelewa baadhi ya dalili kutokana na uwazi wake na kutokuwepo kwa utata. Na kutoweza kuelewa dalili kunatokana na kina chake na ugumu wake, pamoja na uwepo wa dalili mbalimbali zinazoonekana kupingana. Hali hizo zinaweza kutokea katika kanuni za msingi (qawa'id usuliyya) au katika hukumu za Shari'ah. Kwa hiyo, mgawanyiko wa Ijtihadi unahusiana na uwezo wa kuchambua na kupata hukumu, si na maeneo ya fiqhi yenyewe.
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).
Haya yote yanahusu mujtahid wa madhehebu na mujtahid wa masala. Kuhusu mujtahid mutlaq, yeye ni kila mtu anayefanya Ijtihadi katika hukumu za Shari'ah na katika mbinu yake ya kuhitimisha hukumu za Shari'ah, awe na mbinu maalum, kama ilivyo kwa baadhi ya madhehebu, au asiwe nayo. Anaendelea kwa kawaida katika namna maalum ya ufahamu wa kupata hukumu, kama ilivyokuwa kwa wanamijtihadi wa zama za Maswahaba. Tangu lugha ya Kiarabu ilipoharibika na watu kuacha kujitolea kuelewa dini, ikawa lazima kwa mujtahid mutlaq kutimiza masharti ili awe mujtahid mutlaq. Kwa hiyo, wakachukua kauli kwamba mujtahid mutlaq ana masharti, na muhimu zaidi kati yake ni masharti haya mawili:
All of this is with regards to the mujtahid mazhab and mujtahid mas’ala. As for the mujtahid mutlaq, he is anyone who performs Ijtihād in the Sharī’ah rules and in the method of his inference of the Sharī’ah rules whether he had a specific method, as it is the case in some schools, or not. But he proceeds naturally in a specific manner of comprehension to deduce rules as was the case of the mujtahiddin in the time of the Sahabah . Ever since the Arabic language became corrupted and people ceased to devote themselves to understanding the deen, it became inevitable that the mujtahid mutlaq fulfil conditions in order to become a mujtahid mutlaq. Consequently, they took the opinion that the mujtahid mutlaq does have conditions and the most important of which are the following two conditions:
Kwanza: ujuzi wa dalili za kinakili (adilla sam'iyya) ambazo kanuni na hukumu zimetolewa kutoka kwake.
First: knowledge of textual evidences (adilla sam’iyya) from which principles and rules have been extracted.
Pili: elimu ya vipengele vya maana inayodokezwa na maneno (dalālat al-lafẓ) ambavyo vinategemewa katika lugha ya Kiarabu na na watu wa ufasaha (balāgha).
Second: knowledge of aspects of textual implication (dalāla al-lafz) which are relied upon in the Arabic tongue and by the people of eloquence (balaghaa).
Kuhusu dalili za maandishi, uzingatiaji wake unarejea kwenye Qur’ani, Sunnah na Ijma’, pamoja na uwezo wa kulinganisha dalili, kuzipatanisha, na kuipa uzito dalili yenye nguvu zaidi juu ya nyingine pale zinapopingana. Hii ni kwa sababu dalili zinaweza kuonekana kushindana kwa mujtahid, na anaziona zote zikitajwa kuhusu jambo lilelile, huku kila moja ikihitaji hukumu tofauti na ile inayohitajiwa na dalili nyingine. Hivyo anapaswa kuchunguza vipengele vinavyoifanya sehemu moja ya dalili kuzidiwa uzito, ili aitegemee katika kuamua hukumu. Kwa mfano, alisema:
As for textual evidences, their consideration are referable to the Qur’ān and Sunnah and Ijma’, and the ability to compare and reconcile evidences and outweigh the stronger evidence over other evidences when they contradict. This is because the evidences may seem competing to the mujtahid and he sees them all mentioned as regarding the same issue, and each of them demands a hukm other than what the other evidence demands. So he is required to examine the aspects by which a facet of one of the evidences is outweighed in order to rely upon it in deciding the hukm. For example He said: