一些憎恨伊斯兰教、厌恶穆斯林的东方学家声称，伊斯兰法学深受罗马法学和法律的影响，而这发生在穆斯林在早期急速展开征服的时代。他们说，罗马法是伊斯兰法的渊源之一，其中一些教法（ahkām）是从这一来源借鉴而来的。这意味着在塔比仪（Tabi'in）时代及其之后，穆斯林已经从罗马法学中采纳了罗马法律。他们为自己的观点寻找证据，声称在伊斯兰征服时期，叙利亚（Sham）地区、凯撒里亚（Qaysariyya）以及巴勒斯坦和贝鲁特的沿海地区都存在罗马法学校。同样，在叙利亚地区也有依照罗马法在制度和法律上运作的法院。这些法院在伊斯兰征服之后在穆斯林领土内又持续存在了一段时间，这表明穆斯林认可并采纳了它们，并依照其法律和制度行事。他们还以一些推测来支持这一观点，说一个像穆斯林那样较少过定居生活的民族，在征服了像在罗马统治下的叙利亚地区这样的城市化土地时，自然会考虑自己该怎么办：用什么来统治他们？此后，他们便借用了其法律。接着他们又说，将伊斯兰法的某些部分与罗马法学和法律的某些部分加以比较，便可证明两者之间的相似性。他们还指出，某些法律被原封不动地照搬自罗马法，例如：

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:

而且像"fiqh"（فقه，教法学）和"faqih"（فقيه，教法学家）这样的词也是如此。更确切地说，那些东方学家坚持认为伊斯兰法从《塔木德》中吸取了规则，而《塔木德》又取自罗马法学。按照他们的说法，伊斯兰法学是直接从叙利亚（Sham）的学校和法院，并通过《塔木德》，吸收了罗马法学的。

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.

这就是东方学家所宣称的，他们除了一些纯粹的臆测之外，没有提供任何证据。

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

这些东方学家的说法在多方面都是错误的，原因有以下几点：

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

首先:无论是东方学家还是其他人,都没有任何报道提到穆斯林中,不论是否为法学家,有人曾提及罗马法学或罗马法律,无论是批评、支持,还是有意借鉴。没有任何或多或少的记载表明罗马法曾是讨论的话题,更不用说是研究的对象。一些穆斯林确实翻译过希腊哲学著作,但他们没有翻译罗马法学中的一个字或一句话,更不用说翻译一部能够佐证其已在被征服后从土地上被废除和抹去这一判断的书籍。

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.

其次:在东方学家声称叙利亚地区曾有罗马法学派、并有依照罗马法裁判的法庭的时候,沙姆地区却充满了来自学者(ʿUlamā)、法官和统治者中的穆扎欣德(mujtahidin)。如果确有任何影响,理应出现在那些法学家(fuqaha)之中。然而事实是,我们在这些人所留存下来的伊斯兰教法学(fiqh)中,找不到任何受罗马法学影响的痕迹,也找不到对它的任何提及。相反,他们的法学和律例(ahkām)都是以《古兰经》、圣训(Sunnah)以及圣门弟子的公议(ijma')为根据的。 这些穆扎欣德中最著名的一位是奥扎伊(al-Awza'i)。他曾居住在贝鲁特,而东方学家声称那里是叙利亚最大的罗马学校所在地。他一生都在那里度过,并在那里去世。他的观点被记载在许多公认的法学典籍中。因此,在沙斐仪的《乌姆》(al-Umm)第七卷中,就有大量奥扎伊的律例。任何阅读这些内容的人都会清楚地看到,奥扎伊与罗马法学相距何等遥远,犹如大地与天空之间的距离。甚至,从他的法学本身以及关于他的记载中可以明显看出,奥扎伊的学派属于圣训派(Ahl al-hadīth)。他更多地依赖圣训,而不是依赖个人意见(ra'y)。奥扎伊的情况与其他法学家并无二致。如果真有什么影响,也应当在那些法学家中显现出来。

Second: At the time when the orientalists allege that there were schools of Roman jurisprudence and courts which ruled according to Roman law in the Sham region, Sham was full of mujtahidin from the ‘Ulamā, judges and rulers. It is natural that if any influence took place then it would have happened among those fuqaha (jurists). However, the reality is that we do not find in the fiqh of these people which has been preserved for us free of any influence by Roman jurisprudence or any mention of it. Rather their jurisprudence and ahkām were based on the Qur’ān, Sunnah and the ijma’ of the Sahabah. One of the most famous from those mujtahidin is al Awza’i. He used to live in Beirut, where the Orientalists allege was the site of the largest Roman schools in the Sham. He spent his entire life there and died there. His opinions have been recorded in many of the recognised books of fiqh. Thus, in volume vii of al-Shafi’i’s al-Umm there are numerous ahkāms by al-Awza’i. It becomes clear to anybody who reads them the extent of al Awza’i’s remoteness from Roman jurisprudence, like the remoteness of the earth from the sky. Even, the mazhab of al-Awza’i, as it becomes clear from his fiqh itself and what has been reported about him, was that of the Ahl al-hadīth. He relied upon hadīth more than he relied upon ra’i. The example of al-Awza’i is the same as that of other fuqaha (jurists). If there were any influences they would have emerged amid those fuqaha.

他们认为，凡不信奉伊斯兰教法（Sharī’ah）的人都是不信道者；他们还认为，任何不同于伊斯兰教法裁决（hukm）的裁决都是kufr（不信）之裁决，采纳它是被禁止的。持有这种信念并依此行事的人，不能采纳伊斯兰教法之外的任何裁决。这在早期尤为如此，即征服时期。那时穆斯林是伊斯兰讯息的承载者，开拓其他土地，将伊斯兰的Da’wah（宣教）带给那里的人民。他们征服其他土地，是为了把人民从kufr（不信）的统治中解救出来。那么，他们怎能征服一个国家，却又接受kufr的统治呢？他们来是为了摧毁它，并以伊斯兰的统治取而代之。

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?

第四：认为穆斯林在征服各国时，其文明水平低于被征服之地，这种说法是不正确的。如果果真如此，他们就会抛弃自己的文明，转而采纳被征服之地的文明。可以观察到、可以感知到的事实是：罗马人曾经统治的那些土地，其中流行着与伊斯兰相悖的生活思想。穆斯林征服这些地区后，并没有强迫居民信奉伊斯兰，而是满足于向他们征收人头税（jizya）。然而不久之后，伊斯兰思想的力量和伊斯兰文明的崇高便占了上风，压倒并消灭了罗马的思想和罗马的文明。该地居民皈依伊斯兰，并依其道路而生活，身心安适、怡然自得。这表明，伊斯兰的思想已经荡除了罗马的法学与思想，并取而代之。这一不言自明的事实，驳斥了东方学家所谓罗马文明强于伊斯兰文明的论断，也驳斥了他们所谓伊斯兰法学受罗马法学影响的论断。

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.

第五：“fiqh”（فقه）与“faqīh”（فقيه）这两个词在《古兰经》和圣训中都曾出现。穆斯林并不知道在立法方面与罗马人有任何关联。他说：

Fifth: the word ‘fiqh’ and ‘faqih’ have been mentioned in the Noble Qur’ān and in the sacred hadīth. The Muslims did not know of any relations regarding legislation with the Roman. He  said:

他说：

And he  said:

And the question of the Messenger ﷺ to Mu'adh when he sent him to Yemen: "By what will you judge?" Mu'adh replied: "By the Book of Allah," then "By the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ," then "I will exercise my own opinion," which is fiqh. Similarly, the sending of the rest of the walis to other regions, and the legal judgments of the Sahabah, span more than a quarter of a century, and these constituted fiqh. So how can they assume that the word "fiqh" and "faqih" were taken from the Romans? As for the maxim:

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:

这是先知穆罕默德ﷺ的一段圣训，他在与罗马人发生任何立法方面的接触之前就已说过。这条准则也出现在欧麦尔致巴士拉的艾卜·穆萨的信中。众所周知，欧麦尔与罗马人之间并未发生任何立法方面的接触。那么，他们怎能断言穆斯林是从罗马人那里获得“fiqh”一词、“faqih”一词以及“举证责任在于主张者，否认者则需宣誓”这一原则的呢？穆斯林自己已经说过这些话，而且从伊斯兰教初期起就已拥有它们。

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.

由此可见,罗马法影响伊斯兰教法学的说法根本毫无依据。这是敌视伊斯兰教的东方学家的捏造,他们心中充满了对穆斯林的仇恨……

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...

关于伊斯兰教法学取自《塔木德》的说法，其谬误从以下几点即可看出。首先，《古兰经》斥责犹太人篡改《讨拉特》和《引支勒》，这两部经典是启示给穆萨和尔撒的，而他们却说这是出自他们自己的手笔，并非来自真主。其次，犹太人过去与穆斯林是不同的部族，他们不与穆斯林同住，甚至不与穆斯林相交往，更不用说双方之间长期存在的敌意，以及穆斯林对他们持续不断的战争，直到将他们逐出境内。这与穆斯林从他们那里汲取知识的说法是相矛盾的。

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.

事实与显而易见的现实是：伊斯兰教法学（fiqh）由从《古兰经》和《逊奈》中推导出的规定构成，或者说是《古兰经》和《逊奈》在证据层面所暗示的规定；如果某项规定在其根源上不以沙里亚（Sharī'ah）的证据为依据，那么它既不被视为伊斯兰教法规的组成部分，也不被视为伊斯兰教法学的一部分。

The truth, and the perceptible reality is that Islamic jurisprudence constitutes rules deduced from the Qur’ān and Sunnah or to what the Qur’ān and Sunnah alluded to in terms of evidence and that if the rule is not based, in its origins, on a Sharī’ah evidence, it is not considered as a part of the rules of Islam and nor is it considered part of Islamic jurisprudence