Editing Ijtihad (section)

=== Classical era ===

==== Origins of the controversy ====
The controversy over the existence of ''Mujtahids'' began in its nascent form during the sixth/12th century. The fifth-century Hanbali jurist [[Ibn Aqil|Ibn 'Aqil]] (1040–1119) responding to a Hanafi jurist's statement, advocated for the necessity of existence of ''Mujtahids'' using scripture and reasoning. A century later, Shafi'i jurist [[Sayf al-Din al-Amidi|Al-Amidi]] would counter the premise of Hanbalis and prominent Shafīʿis arguing that extinction of ''Mujtahids'' is possible. Over the centuries, the controversy would garner more attention with the scholars gathering around 3 camps: 1) [[Hanbali]]s and majority of [[Shafiʽi school|Shafīʿis]] who denied the theoretical possibility of ''Mujtahid''<nowiki/>'s extinction 2) a group of jurists who asserted that extinction of ''Mujtahids'' is possible but not proven 3) a group who advocated the extinction of ''Mujtahids.''<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=21–26|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>

To validate their points, the scholars of ''Taqlid'' camp cited Prophetic ''hadiths'' that report the disappearance of knowledge when ignorant leaders "will give judgements" and misguide others. ''Muqallids'' also argued that ''Ijtihad'' isn't a communal obligation (''fard kifaya'') when it is possible to blindly imitate the laws of ancestors received through transmitted chains of narrations. Hanbalis, the staunch advocates of permanent existence of ''Mujtahids,'' countered by citing Prophetic reports which validated their view that knowledge and sound judgement would accompany the Muslim ''[[Ummah]]'' led by ''Mujtahid'' scholars until the [[Day of Resurrection|Day of Judgment]], thus giving theological implications to the controversy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=22–25|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|date=1986|title=On the Origins of the Controversy about the Existence of Mujtahids and the Gate of Ijtihad|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595569|journal=Studia Islamica|publisher=Maisonneuve & Larose|number=63|pages=139–140|doi=10.2307/1595569|jstor=1595569}}</ref> They also raised the question of leadership and interpretive religious authority to vigorously deny the possibility of an age without ''Mujtahids'', a doctrine which they defended using both Scripultural and rational arguments. Citing Prophetic traditions such as "scholars are the heirs of the prophets", Hanbalis settled on the belief that God would not leave any age without a proper guide, i.e., Islamic ''[[Fuqaha]]'' (jurists) who solve novel issues through ''Ijtihad''.<ref>{{Cite book |editor-last1=Cook |editor-last2=Haider |editor-last3=Rabb |editor-last4=Sayeed |editor-first1=Michael |editor-first2=Najam |editor-first3=Intisar |editor-first4=Asma |title=Law and Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought|last=Rabb|first=Intisar A.|publisher=Palgrave Mcmillan|year=2013|isbn=978-0-230-11329-9|editor-first=|location=New York, NY |page=151|chapter=8: Islamic Legal Minimalism: Legal Maxims and Lawmaking When Jurists Disappear}}</ref>

The majority of Shafīʿi scholars were also leading advocates of ''Ijtihad'' as a ''fard kifaya'' (communal obligation). The prominent 16th century Shafi'i legal treatise ''[[Fat'h Ul Mueen|Fath-ul-Mueen]]'' affirmed the existence of ''Mujtahids'' and obligated them to take the post of [[Qadi]] as ''fard kifaya''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Makhdoom bin Sheikh Muhammad Al Gazzali |first=Ahmad Zainuddin |title=Fath-ul-Mu'een |publisher=Punkavanam Bookstall, Al Maktabatul Ghazzaliyya |year=2008 |location=Mangalore, Karnataka |pages=626–631 |chapter=Chapter 19: Judgements}}</ref> Leading Shafīʿi jurist [[Al-Suyuti]] (1445-1505) also stipulated ''Ijtihad'' as a communal obligation, the abandonment of which would be sinful upon the whole ''Ummah''. Shafīʿis also upheld the popular Muslim tradition of appearance of ''[[Mujaddid]]s'' who would renew the religion every century. As promoters of the idea of ''Mujaddids;'' (who were assumed as ''Mujtahids'') majority of jurists who claimed ''[[Tajdid]]'' or honoured as ''Mujaddids'' were Shafīʿis. On the other hand, some prominent Shafīʿi jurists like Al-Rafi'i (d. 623) had made statements speculating an "agreement" on the absence of ''Mujtahid Mutlaqs'' (highest-ranking ''Mujtahid'') during his era while few others affirmed theoretical possibility of absence of ''Mujtahids''. However, such statements had ambiguities in legal terminology and didn't stipulate an established consensus on the issue. In addition, Rafi'i himself was considered as a ''Mujtahid'' and a ''Mujaddid''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hallaq|first=Wael B.|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=25–28|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>

[[Al-Nawawi|Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi]] (d. 676/1277), a prominent Shafī'i [[Muhaddith]] and Jurist, who is a primary reference even for Shafiites of Taqleed camp; advocated that it isn't obligatory for laymen to adhere to a ''mad'hab'', reinforcing the orthodox Shafī'ite pro-Ijtihad position.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Aaliyah|first=Abu|date=17 October 2012|title=Practical Steps for Learning Fiqh|url=https://thehumblei.com/2012/10/17/practical-steps-for-learning-fiqh/amp/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200503064340/https://thehumblei.com/2012/10/17/practical-steps-for-learning-fiqh/amp/|archive-date=3 May 2020|website=Thehumblei}}</ref> Other prominent classical Shafī'i jurists who advocated the pro-Ijtihad position included [[Taj al-Din al-Subki|Taj ud Din al Subki]], [[Al-Dhahabi|Dhahabi]], [[Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam|Izz ud Deen Ibn Abdussalam]], [[Ibn al-Salah|Ibn al Salah]], [[Siraj al-Din al-Bulqini|Al Bulqini]], etc.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ansari|first=Abu Khuzaimah|date=2 April 2017|title=Answering the Book - Refutation of Those Who Do Not Follow The Four Schools PART 4 Was it The Norm to Only Follow the Four Madhabs in the seventh and eighth Century & The Existence of Other Madhabs|url=https://forum.salafiri.com/viewtopic.php?t=1386#p1518|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128163326/https://forum.salafiri.com/viewtopic.php?t=1386|archive-date=28 November 2020|website=Salafi Research Institute}}</ref> Taj ud Din al Subki (d. 1370) summed up the classical-era Shafi'i position in his ''Kitāb Mu'īd an-Ni'am wa-Mubīd an-Niqām'':{{blockquote|"It is unacceptable to Allah, the forcing of people to accept one madhab and the associated partisanship (tahazzub) in the subsidiary issues of the Din and nothing pushes this fervour and zealously except partisanship and jealousy. If Abu Haneefah, Shafi, Malik and Ahmad were alive they would severely censure these people and they would dissassociate themselves from them."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ansari|first=Abu Khuzaimah|date=2 April 2017|title=Answering the Book - Refutation of Those Who Do Not Follow The Four Schools and that Taqlid of them is Guidance|url=https://forum.salafiri.com/viewtopic.php?t=1386#p1518|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128163326/https://forum.salafiri.com/viewtopic.php?t=1386|archive-date=28 November 2020|website=Salafi Research Institute|quote=(Mu'eed an-Na'am Wa Mubeed an-Naqam pg.76)}}</ref>}}

==== Emergence of the "closure of the gates" notion ====
In contrast to the view of these Shafiites, classical Shafi'ite theologian [[Al-Juwayni|'Abd al-Malik al-Juwayni]] (d. 1085 C.E/ 478 A.H) postulated a new doctrine on the controversy of the existence of ''Mujtahids''. Juwaynī and his Shāfiʿī colleagues insisted that not only the disappearance of Mujtahids was possible, but that it had already happened. Juwayni's doctrine was taken by his student [[Al-Ghazali|Ghazālī]] (d.&nbsp;1111 C.E/ 505 A.H), al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī (d. 1113 C.E/507 A.H) and promoted in the next century by the Shafi'i scholars [[Fakhr al-Din al-Razi|Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī]] (d. 606/1209), Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233), and Rāfiʿī (d. 623/1226). These scholars asserted the belief that ''Mujtahids'' had already disappeared, and some would claim a consensus on this point. Thereafter, the theory of legal minimalism elucidated by Juwayni in his book ''Ghiyāth al-umam fī iltiyāth al zulam'', penned for his [[Seljuk Empire|Seljuk]] patron Nizam ul-Mulk, would be popularised. This system listed a set of core principles that implemented legal and procedural minimalism; and attempted the standardisation of Islamic courts and legal framework in the [[Medieval Islam|medieval]] [[Muslim world|Muslim World]].<ref>{{Cite book |editor-last1=Cook |editor-last2=Haider |editor-last3=Rabb |editor-last4=Sayeed |editor-first1=Michael |editor-first2=Najam |editor-first3=Intisar |editor-first4=Asma |title=Law and Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought |last=A. Rabb |first=Instisar|publisher=Palgrave Mcmillan|year=2013|isbn=978-0-230-11329-9 |place=New York, NY |pages=150–151, 153–157|chapter=8: Islamic Legal Minimalism: Legal Maxims and Lawmaking When Jurists Disappear}}</ref>

Most significantly, the influential Islamic theologian Al Ghazzali introduced the notion of closure of ''Ijtihad'' since he viewed numerous people with inadequate knowledge of ''Qur'an'' as claiming to be ''Mujtahids''. Ghazzali's emphasis on rigorous asceticism and imitation of traditions practised by Sufi mystics led him to attack rational enquiry and sciences like physics for contradicting religion. Owing to his status as a great scholar, numerous ''[[Ulama|ulema]]'' followed his call; even though many continued to dispute it.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ariani Arimbi|first=Diah|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rrhGD6ztEgoC&dq=Ghazali+gates+of+Ijtihad&pg=PA195|title=Reading Contemporary Indonesian Muslim Women Writers: Representation, Identity and Religion of Muslim Women in Indonesian Fiction|publisher=Amsterdam University Press|year=2009|isbn=9789089640895|location=Amsterdam|pages=195}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Murphy|first=Caryle|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rjj48T4zrb8C&dq=Ghazali+gates+of+Ijtihad&pg=PA317|title=Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: The Egyptian Experience|publisher=Scribner|year=2007|isbn=978-1416569572|pages=317}}</ref> Intellectuals like [[Hassan Hanafi|Hasan Hanafi]] argue that Ghazali had tried to preclude the endeavour of ''Ijtihad'' during his era in order to establish a rigid, stable orthodoxy that could effectively challenge external enemies of Islam like the [[Crusades|Crusaders]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hardy|first=Roger|title=The Muslim Revolt: A Journey Through Political Islam |publisher=Hurst & Company |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-84904-031-0 |location=London |page=18 |chapter=1: Dream of Revolt}}</ref> According to [[C. A. Qadir|C.A Qadir]], Ghazzali's efforts had tremendous impact in limiting the scope of ''Ijtihad'' in medieval Islamic orthodxy.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Naseem Rafiabadi|first=Hamid|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F3rEjofhC2oC&dq=Ghazali+gates+of+Ijtihad&pg=PA293|title=Emerging From Darkness: Ghazzali's Impact on the Western Philosophers|publisher=Sarup & Sons|year=2002|isbn=81-7625-310-3|location=New Delhi |pages=293}}</ref>

However, there is still a vigorous scholarly debate regarding whether Al-Ghazali had himself "closed the gates" or whether he merely continued an established policy of his scholarly predecessors or whether the gate was ever closed. According to James P. Piscatori, the provision for ''Ijtihad'' in Sunni ''[[Fiqh]]'' was never "tightly shut" and remained open to some extent.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Janin |last2=Kahlmeyer|first1=Hunt |first2=Andre |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VtEdBgAAQBAJ&dq=Ghazali+gates+of+Ijtihad&pg=PA67 |title=Islamic Law: The Sharia from Muhammad's Time to the Present |publisher=McFarland & Company |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-7864-2921-9 |location=Jefferson, North Carolina |page=67 |chapter=3: The Sharia and its Jurists}}</ref> During the 16th century, majority of the clerical classes would claim Ghazzali's doctrine as sacrosanct and inviolable by ''[[Consensus in Islamic law|Ijma]]'' (consensus).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Goldziher |first=Ignaz |title=Introduction to Islamic theology and Law |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1981 |isbn=0-691-07257-4 |location=Princeton, New Jersey, USA |pages=244–245 |translator-last=Hamori |translator-last2=Hamori |translator-first=Andras |translator-first2=Ruth |chapter=VI. Later Developments}}</ref> Post-classical era, a large part of Shafīʿi scholarship would also shift to a pro-''Taqleed'' position owing to external influence from [[Hanafi]]te-[[Maliki]]te ''Muqallid'' camps. Most noteworthy amongst them were [[Ibn Hajar al-Haytami]] (d. 1566). However many still defended ''Ijtihad'' while others who theoretically affirmed the disappearance of ''Mujtahids'' rejected the claim that they did in reality.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=B. Hallaq|first=Wael|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=3–41|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>

==== Late classical period ====
Until the end of the 14th century, no voice had before actively risen to condemn the claims of ''mujtahids'' to practice ''ijtihad'' within their schools. However, the doctrine of ''Taqlid'' was steadily amassing support amongst the masses. The first incident in which ''muqallids'' openly attacked the claims of ''mujtahids'' occurred in Egypt, during the lifetime of [[Al-Suyuti|Suyuti]]. Suyuti had claimed to practice the highest degree of ''Ijtihad'' within the Shafi'i school. He advocated that Ijtihad is a backbone of [[Sharia]] and believed in the continuous existence of ''Mujtahids''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=B. Hallaq|first=Wael|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=27|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>

Around the 15th century, most Sunni jurists argued that all major matters of religious law had been settled, allowing for ''[[taqlid]]'' (تقليد), "the established legal precedents and traditions," to take priority over ''ijtihād'' (اجتهاد).<ref name="Oxford Islamic Studies" />{{request quotation|date=April 2016}} This move away from the practice of ''ijtihād'' was primarily made by the scholars of [[Hanafi|Hanafī]] and [[Maliki|Malikī]] schools, and a number of [[Shafii|Shafīʿi]]s, but not by [[Hanbali|Hanbalī]]s and majority of Shafīʿi jurists who believed that "true consensus" (''[[ijma|ijmāʿ]]'' اجماع), apart from that of Muhammad's Companions, did not exist" and that "the constant continuous existence of ''mujtahids'' (مجتهد) was a theological requirement."<ref name=WahhabiIslam>{{cite book|last=DeLong-Bas|first=Natana J.|author-link=Natana J. DeLong-Bas|title=Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad|url=https://archive.org/details/wahhabiislamfrom0000delo|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]], USA|year=2004|page=[https://archive.org/details/wahhabiislamfrom0000delo/page/106 106]|edition=First|isbn=0-19-516991-3}}</ref> Although the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] clergy denied ''Ijtihad'' in theory'','' throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Hanafite ''ulema'' had practiced ''Ijtihad'' to solve a number of new legal issues. Various legal rulings were formulated on a number of issues, such as the [[Waqf]] of movables, on drugs, coffee, music, tobacco, etc. However to support the official doctrine of "extinction of ''Mujtahids''", the Ottoman ''ulema'' denied ''Ijtihad'' even when it was practised.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=B. Hallaq|first=Wael|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=30–32|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>

The increasing prominence of ''taqlid'' had at one point led most Western scholars to believe that the "gate of ''ijtihad''" was in fact effectively closed around tenth century.<ref name=rabb/> In a 1964 monograph, which exercised considerable influence on later scholars, [[Joseph Schacht]] wrote that "a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all."{{#tag:ref| The  mid-twentieth century European authority on Islamic law Joseph Schacht, said that [...] Since the 1990s, a large and growing body of research has demonstrated the continuing creativity and dynamism of Islamic legal thinking in the post-formative period, as well as probed the lively dialectic between legal rulings and social practice. While it is no longer possible to assert that "the door of ijtihad was closed" after the tenth (or, indeed, any other) century, however, there is still lively debate over the extent of legal change and the mechanisms by which it occurred.<ref name=katz>{{cite encyclopedia |title=The Age of Development and Continuity, 12th–15th Centuries CE|author=Marion Katz|editor1-first=Anver M|editor1-last=Emon|editor2-first=Rumee|editor2-last=Ahmed|encyclopedia=The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law|year=2015 |pages=436–458|publisher= Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199679010.013.14|isbn=978-0-19-967901-0|url-access=subscription |url=http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199679010.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199679010-e-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Schacht|first=Joseph|title=An Introduction to Islamic Law|publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1964|url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontois0000scha |url-access=registration|pages=[https://archive.org/details/introductiontois0000scha/page/70 70]–71}}</ref>|group=Note}}

While more recent research is said to have disproven the notion that the practice of ''ijtihad'' was abandoned in the tenth century — or even later in the 15th century — the extent of legal change during this period and its mechanisms remain a subject of scholarly debate.<ref name=katz/><ref>Wael B. Hallaq, "On the origin of the Controversy about the Existence of Mutahids and the Gate of Ijtihad," ''Studia Islamica'', 63 (1986): 129</ref> The ''Ijtihad'' camp primarily consisted of Hanbalis and Shafiites, while the Taqlid camp were primarily Hanafites who were supported to a greater or lesser extent by Malikis as well as some Shafi'is.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=B. Hallaq|first=Wael|date=March 1984|title=Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/162939|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=16|issue=1|pages=29|doi=10.1017/S0020743800027598|jstor=162939|s2cid=159897995 }}</ref>