Ba'zi sharqshunoslar, ular Islomdan nafratlanadi va musulmonlarni yomon ko'radi, Islom huquqshunosligi islomiy futuhot paytida Rim huquqshunosligi va qonunchiligi bilan katta darajada ta'sirlangan, deb da'vo qilishadi. Ularning aytishicha, Rim qonuni islom qonunining manbalaridan biri bo'lgan va uning ba'zi ahkomlari shu manbadan o'zlashtirilgan. Bu shuni anglatadiki, tobi'inlar davrida va ulardan keyin musulmonlar Rim huquqshunosligidan Rim qonunlarini qabul qilishgan. Ular o'z qarashlarini isbotlash uchun, Islom futuhoti paytida Shom (Levant) mintaqasida, Qaysariyada, Falastin va Beyrut sohillarida Rim qonuni maktablari mavjud bo'lganini dalil sifatida keltiradilar. Shuningdek, Shom mintaqasida tizimi va qonunlari Rim qonuniga muvofiq ish yuritgan sudlar ham bo'lgan. Bu sudlar islomiy futuhotdan keyin ham musulmonlar yerlarida bir muncha vaqt faoliyat yuritgan, bu esa musulmonlarning ularni ma'qullaganini va ularning qonun hamda tizimiga amal qilganini ko'rsatadi, deydilar. Ular bu qarashni taxminlar bilan ham asoslaydilar. Ularning fikricha, musulmonlar kabi ko'p o'troq hayotni qabul qilmagan xalq, Rim hukmronligi ostidagi Shom kabi shaharlashgan yerni zabt etganda, ularni qanday boshqarish kerakligi, qanday qonun bilan hukm qilish kerakligi haqida o'ylashi tabiiy, deydilar. Shundan so'ng ular qonunlarini o'zlashtirgan, deb hisoblaydilar. Keyin ular islom huquqining ayrim bo'limlari bilan Rim huquqshunosligi va qonunchiligining ayrim bo'limlarini solishtirish ikki tizim o'rtasidagi o'xshashlikni namoyon etadi, deyishadi. Shuningdek, ular ayrim qonunlar Rim qonunidagidek aynan ko'chirilgan ekanini ko'rsatadilar, masalan:

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:

Va xuddi shunday "fiqh" va "faqih" so'zlari ham. Balki o'sha sharqshunoslar Islom huquqi qoidalarini Talmuddan olgan, Talmud esa ularni Rim huquqshunosligidan olgan, deb da'vo qilishgan. Ularning da'vosiga ko'ra, Islom huquqshunosligi Rim huquqshunosligini bevosita Shomdagi maktablar va sudlardan hamda Talmud orqali olgan.

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.

Orientalistlar buni hech qanday dalilsiz, faqat taxminlarga tayanib da'vo qilmoqda.

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

Ushbu orientalistlarning bayonotlari bir qator sabablarga ko'ra noto'g'ri:

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

Birinchidan: Musulmonlar haqida, orientalistlar yoki boshqalar, hech kim xabar bermagan, na faqih bo'lsin, na bo'lmasin, hech bir musulmon Rim huquqshunosligi yoki qonuniga, na tanqid, na qo'llab-quvvatlash yo'li bilan, na undan qarz olish niyatida ishora qilgan. Rim qonuni hatto muhokama mavzusi bo'lgani, u hatto o'rganish mavzusi bo'lgani haqida ham, oz yoki ko'p, hech qanday dalolat beradigan narsa aytilmagan. Ba'zi musulmonlar yunon falsafasi asarlarini tarjima qilishgan, lekin Rim huquqshunosligidan birorta so'z yoki jumlani ham tarjima qilishmagan, hatto ular bosib olingandan keyin yerdan yo'q qilib tashlangani haqidagi hukmni mustahkamlaydigan kitobni tarjima qilish haqida gap ham bo'lishi mumkin emas.

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.

Ikkinchidan: orientalistlar Shom mintaqasida Rim huquqi maktablari va Rim qonuniga ko'ra hukm qiladigan sudlar mavjud bo'lgan, deb da'vo qilgan davrda, Shom ulamolar, qozilar va hukmdorlar orasidan kelib chiqqan mujtahidlar bilan to'la edi. Agar biron ta'sir bo'lgan bo'lsa, tabiiyki, bu o'sha fuqaholar orasida yuz bergan bo'lardi. Biroq haqiqat shundaki, bu kishilarning bizga saqlanib qolgan fiqhida Rim huquqining ta'siri yoki unga biron ishora bo'lganini topmaymiz. Aksincha, ularning huquqshunosligi va ahkomlari Qur'on, Sunnat va sahobalarning ijmo'iga asoslangan edi. O'sha mujtahidlarning eng mashhurlaridan biri al-Avzoiy edi. U Bayrutda yashagan, orientalistlarning da'vosicha, Shomdagi eng yirik Rim maktablari shu yerda bo'lgan. U butun umrini o'sha yerda o'tkazgan va o'sha yerda vafot etgan. Uning fikrlari fiqhning tan olingan ko'plab kitoblarida qayd etilgan. Masalan, Shofe'iyning "al-Umm" kitobining yettinchi jildida al-Avzoiyning ko'plab ahkomlari bor. Uni o'qigan har bir kishiga ayon bo'ladiki, al-Avzoiy Rim huquqidan naqadar uzoq bo'lgan, xuddi yer osmondan uzoq bo'lganidek. Hatto al-Avzoiyning mazhabi, uning o'z fiqhidan va u haqda rivoyat qilinganlardan ko'rinib turganidek, Ahl al-hadis mazhabi edi. U ra'yga emas, hadisga ko'proq tayangan. Al-Avzoiyning holati boshqa fuqahoning holati bilan bir xil. Agar biron ta'sir bo'lganida, u aynan o'sha fuqaholar orasida namoyon bo'lardi.

Ular Islom shariatiga ishonmaydigan har bir kishini kofir deb hisoblashgan va Islom hukmidan boshqa har qanday hukm kufr hukmi ekanligiga, uni qabul qilish esa taqiqlanganligiga ishonishgan. Kim shunday e’tiqodga ega bo‘lib, unga amal qilsa, u Islom hukmidan boshqasini qabul qila olmaydi, ayniqsa dastlabki davrda, Musulmonlar Islom xabarining tashuvchilari bo‘lib, uni boshqa yurtlarga yetkazish uchun yangi yerlarni egallagan futuhot davrida. Ular odamlarni kufr hukmidan qutqarish uchun yurtlarni zabt etishgan. Xo‘sh, ular faqat kufr hukmini qabul qilish uchun bir mamlakatni qanday zabt etishlari mumkin edi? Axir ular kufr hukmini yo‘q qilib, uning o‘rniga Islom hukmini o‘rnatish uchun kelgan edilar.

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?

To'rtinchi: Musulmonlar mamlakatlarni fath qilganda, bosib olingan yerning aholisidan past darajadagi tamaddunga mansub bo'lgan, degan gap to'g'ri emas. Agar bu to'g'ri bo'lganda, ular o'z tamaddunlarini tark etib, bosib olingan yerlarning tamaddunini qabul qilgan bo'lardi. Ko'z bilan ko'rilib, sezilib turgan haqiqat shuki, Rimliklar hukmronlik qilgan yerlarda hayot haqidagi, Islomga zid bo'lgan fikrlar mavjud edi. Musulmonlar ularni fath qilganda, aholini Islomni qabul qilishga majburlamadilar. Aksincha, ular faqat odamlardan jizya olish bilan kifoyalandilar. Ammo ko'p o'tmay, Islom fikrining kuchi va Islom tamaddunining yuksakligi Rim fikrlari va Rim tamaddunidan ustun keldi hamda uni yo'qqa chiqardi. Mamlakat aholisi Islomni qabul qilib, unga muvofiq yashay boshladi, xotirjamlik va osoyishtalik bilan. Bu esa Islom fikrlari Rim huquqshunosligi va Rim fikrlarini butunlay yo'q qilib, ularning o'rnini egallaganidan dalolat beradi. O'zi gapirib turgan bu haqiqat orientalistlarning Rim tamaddunining Islom tamaddunidan kuchliroq ekanligi haqidagi da'vosini rad etadi. Shuningdek, u Islom huquqshunosligi Rim huquqshunosligi ta'siri ostida bo'lgan, degan da'voni ham rad etadi.

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.

U aytdi:

And he  said:

Rasulullohning Muoz ibn Jabalni Yamanga yuborganidagi savoli: "Sen bilan qanday hukm qilasan?" Muoz javob berdi: "Allohning Kitobi bilan, so'ngra Rasulullohning ﷺ sunnati bilan, so'ngra o'zim ijtihod qilaman; bu esa fiqhdir." Xuddi shunday, boshqa valiylarni boshqa hududlarga yuborish va sahobalarning huquqiy hukmlari to'rt yarim asrdan ortiq davomida fiqhni tashkil etgan. Shunday ekan, "fiqh" va "faqih" so'zlari rimliklardan olingan, deb qanday taxmin qilishlari mumkin? Qoidaga kelsak:

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:

Bu Rasulullohning ﷺ hadisi bo'lib, u Rimliklar bilan har qanday qonunchilik aloqasi bo'lishidan oldin aytilgan. Bu qoida ‘Umarning Basradagi Abu Musoga yozgan maktubida ham zikr qilingan. Ma'lumki, ‘Umar bilan Rimliklar o'rtasida hech qanday qonunchilik aloqasi bo'lmagan. Shunday ekan, ular qanday qilib musulmonlar fiqh, faqih atamalarini hamda “Da'vo qiluvchining zimmasida isbot bor, inkor qiluvchining zimmasida esa qasam bor” qoidasini Rimliklardan olgan deb da'vo qiladilar, holbuki musulmonlarning o'zlari bu so'zlarni aytgan va ular Islomning ilk davridan beri mavjud bo'lgan?

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.

Shundan ma'lum bo'ladiki, Islom huquqshunosligiga Rim huquqi ta'siri haqidagi afsona umuman hech qanday asosga ega emas. U islomga dushman bo'lgan sharqshunoslarning to'qimasi bo'lib, ularning qalblarini musulmonlarga nisbatan nafrat to'ldiradi...

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...

Islomiy huquqshunoslikning Talmuddan olingani haqidagi da'voning noto'g'riligi Qur'ondan ravshan ko'rinadi. Qur'on yahudiylarni Tavrot va Injilni o'zlari to'qib chiqarganliklari uchun ayblaydi. Bu kitoblar Muso {alayhissalom} va Iso {alayhissalom}ga nozil qilingan edi, ammo ular o'z qo'llari bilan yozgan narsalarini "Allohdan" deb ko'rsatganlar. Bundan tashqari, yahudiylar musulmonlardan alohida qabilalar bo'lib yashagan, ular musulmonlar bilan birga yashamagan, hatto aralashmagan ham. Ular bilan musulmonlar o'rtasida doimiy adovat bo'lgan va musulmonlar ularga qarshi to'xtovsiz urushlar olib borib, nihoyat ularni o'z orasidan haydab chiqarganlar. Bu esa musulmonlar ulardan olgan, degan fikrga zid keladi.

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.