Fiqh mazhablarini solishtirganingizda, ularning ba'zilari bir sohada amal qilish qiyinroq, boshqa sohada esa osonroq ekanini ko'rasiz. Masalan, A mazhabida vudu'ning shartlari va sharoitlarini bajarish B mazhabidagiga qaraganda qiyinroq bo'lishi mumkin, lekin B mazhabi safar va boshqa masalalarda yanada yengil yoki osonroq bo'ladi.

When you compare the traditional schools of fiqh, you will find some of them to be more difficult to follow in some areas and easier to follow in other areas. For example, the requirements and conditions of wudu in School A might be more difficult to satisfy than School B but School B is easier or more lenient in terms of travel, etc.

Lekin zamonaviy islohotchilarning fiqhiy masalalardagi fikrlariga nazar tashlasak, ularning barchasi bir yo'nalishda harakat qilayotganini ko'ramiz. Ularning barchasi juda oldindan taxmin qilsa bo'ladigan pozitsiyalarni egallaydi, ularni bog'lab turuvchi yagona umumiy jihat esa ularning zamonaviy g'arbiy burjua odamlarining his-tuyg'ulari, qarashlari va intilishlariga mos kelishi va ularni qo'llab-quvvatlashidir. Har qanday oqilona odam buning tasodif emasligini ko'ra oladi. Bu ushbu islohotchilarda izchil usul, ya'ni tamoyillar yo'qligining aniq belgisidir, ular o'z fikrlarini shu tamoyillar asosida chiqarayotgan bo'lishadi. Aksincha, ular o'z fikrlariga, ya'ni ba'zan "aql" deb ataydigan, hukmron ijtimoiy odatlarga eng mos keladigan narsaga qarorga kelishadi, so'ngra esa Qur'on va hadisni tanlab o'qish, shuningdek, haqiqiy ulamolardan topilgan kam uchraydigan ozchilik fikrlari asosida oqlov to'qishga harakat qilishadi.

But when you look at the opinions of modern reformers on matters of fiqh, they all trend in one direction. They all take very predictable positions with the only apparent common thread tying them together is that they accord with and accommodate the sensibilities, biases, and aspirations of modern Western bourgeois people. Any rational person can see that this is not a coincidence. This is the glaring red flag that signals to us that these reformers have no consistent usul, i.e., principles, by which they are deriving their opinions. Rather, they settle on their opinion, whatever is most concordant with the dominant social conventions, i.e., what they sometimes call “reason,” and then, after the fact, try to cobble together a justification from a highly selective reading of the Quran and hadith, and perhaps other rare minority opinions they may find from legit ulama.

Shunga qaramay, bu islohotchilar boshqalar tomonidan jiddiy qabul qilinishni talab qilishda davom etmoqdalar.

Despite all this, these reformers insist on being taken seriously by the rest of us.