PreambleThere are Two main Classical Approaches of Muslim Usulists regarding the mode of writing of Usul al-Fiqh among them: The Theoretical or inductive (theoretical) Approach & The Deductive

(traditional) Approach . Theoretical or inductive Approach refers to Tariqah Al-Mutakallimiin,

Tariqah Al-Jumhur and Tariiqah al-Shafieyyah followed by majority of Muslim Usulists from different mazahib including Shafie, Maliki, Hambali and Mutakalimuun.

Deductive approach on the other hand refers to Tariqah Al-Hanafiyyah or also known as tariqah al- Fuqahaa’ followed by jurists from Hanafi school of law.

In Inductive approach: The theory is formulated in Main theoretical doctrine prior to its application on various issues (furu’) of Fiqh. Application to various furu’ of fiqh later on provide them answer to what extent these principles are relevant and could be applied in those furu’ of Fiqh. Therefore, these principles of Usul al-Fiqh are independent without expounded in conjunction with necessarily attempting to relate to Fiqh itself.

Deductive method means:

Refers to : Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. It differs from inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning links hypotheses with conclusions. If all hypotheses are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from something.

Inductive method/reasoning

Inductive method/reasoning

Inductive method/reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," there is a constant relation between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is caring. Therefore, all grandfathers are caring." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Inductive reasoning for instance, has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

The Deductive or traditional approach was used by the scholars of Iraq (Hanafi jurists) who were exposed to different cultures and surroundings, which emphasized much on rational reasoning in their deductions. It is called traditional because the principles of Usul were derived based on Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinions and their previous scholars of their mazhab on various fiqh issues. If one of his opinions contradicted to principle of Usul, the principle itself had to be modified.

Continue…According to contemporary writer Prof Hashim Kamali in his book [Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence]: Following the establishment of the madhahib, the ulama’ of the various schools followed two different approaches to the study of usul al-fiqh, one of which is theoretical or inductive and the other deductive. The main difference between these approaches according to him, is one of orientation rather than substance, whereas the former is primarily concerned with the exposition of theoretical doctrines, the latter is realistic in the sense that theory is formulated in light of its application to relevant issues. According to him again: The difference between the two approaches resembles the work of a legal draftsman when it is compared to the work of a judge. The former is mainly concerned with the exposition of principles whereas the latter tends to develop a synthesis (logical thinking) between the principle and the requirements of a particular case. Kamali further explains that : The theoretical approach to the study of usul al-fiqh is followed by the Shafi’i school (also jurists from Maliki and Hambali school of law) and the Mutakallimun, that is the ulama’ of kalam and the Mu'tazilah. The deductive approach is, on the other hand, mainly attributed to the Hanafis. The former is known as usul al-Shafi'iyyah or tariqah al-Mutakallimin, whereas the latter is known as usul al-Hanafiyyah, or tariqah al-fuqaha'.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

Al-Shafi’i according to him, was mainly concerned with articulating the theoretical principles of usul al-fiqh without necessarily attempting to relate these principles to the fiqh itself. According to Kamali, Shafie As a methodologist par excellence, he enacted a set of standard criteria which he expected to be followed in the detailed formulation of the rules of fiqh. His theoretical exposition of usul al-fiqh, in other words, did not take into consideration their practical application in the area of the furu'.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

In addition according to Kamali, the Shafi'is and the Mutakallimun are inclined to engage in complex issues of a philosophical character which may or may not contribute to the development of the practical rules of fiqh. In this way subjects such as the 'ismah of the prophets prior to their prophetic mission, and matters pertaining to the status of the individual or his duties prior to the revelation of the Shari’ah, and also logical and linguistic matters of remote relevance to the practical rules of fiqh tend to feature more prominently in the works of the Shafi’is and Mutakallimun than those of the Hanafis.

The Definition of ‘Ismah

The word 'ismah literally means “protection”. In Islamic terminology, it means “infallibility”. Infallibility is defined as “a spiritual grace (lutf) of Allah to a person (Prophet) which enables him to abstain from sins.”A person (Prophet) who has been given that grace of God is called a ma'sum , infallible, sinless. This is because, the purpose of al-nubuwwah (the prophet-hood) could be defeated if the people to whom they were sent thought that it is permissible for the prophets themselves to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions and messages that they brought.

The Definition of ‘Ismah

However, This privilage of 'ismah does not make the ma'sum person (Prophet) incapable of committing sins. However, a ma'sum is able to refrain from sins because of : (1) highest level of righteousness between him and Allah, and (2) extensive consciousness and love for God, and (3) certain knowledge about the consequences of committing sins.We come across some ordinary people who are very upright in their character and would not even dream of committing certain sins or crimes. The strength of their character makes them relatively as if they are similar to infallible person, by the help and the grace of the God.

The Definition of ‘Ismah

For example, it is within the ability of any person to go naked on the streets. But would a person who was brought up as a good Muslim, ever think of doing so? No, because it is far below his dignity to behave in this manner. It is not impossible for him to do so, but he will never ever imagine of doing so. Why? Because he has been taught and brought up with the idea that such behavior will tarnish his honor and is beneath the dignity of a civilized human being in the view of Islam.Similarly, though a ma'sum has the ability to commit sin, he never ever imagine of committing a sin because :(a) the love for God in his heart leaves no room for displeasing Him by committing sins, and (b) he is full aware of the consequences of committing sins.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

The Hanafis according to Kamali again, have on the other hand attempted to expound the principles of usul al-fiqh in conjunction with the fiqh itself and tend to be more pragmatic in their approach to the subject. In short, the theoretical approach tends to anticipate usul al-fiqh as an independent discipline to which the fiqh must conform, whereas the deductive approach attempts to relate the usul al-fiqh more closely to the detailed issues of the furu’ al-fiqh. Kamali further mentions : When, for example, the Hanafis find a principle of usul to be in conflict with an established principle of fiqh, they are inclined to adjust the theory to the extent that the conflict in question is removed.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

According to kamali again : Three of the most important works which follow the theoretical or inductive approach to usul al-fiqh are Al- Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Fiqh by the Mu'tazili scholar, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri (d. 436), Kitab al-Burhan of the Shafi’i scholar, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (d. 487) and Al-Mustasfa of Imam Abu Hamid al- Ghazali (d. 505). These three works were later summarized by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606) in his work entitled Al-Mahsul. Sayf A-Din al-Amidi's larger work, Al-Ihkam fi usul al-Ahkam is a glossed summary of the three pioneering works referred to above.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

Kamali next mentions that The earliest Hanafi work on usul al-fiqh is Kitab fi al-Usul by Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi (d. 340) which was followed by Usul al-Jassas of Abu Bakr al-Razi al-Jassas (d. 370). Fakhr al-Islam al-Bazdawi's (d. 483) well-known work, Usul al-Bazdawi, is also written in conformity with the Hanafi approach to the study of this discipline. This was followed by an equally outstanding contribution by Shams al-Din al- Sarakhsi (d. 490) bearing the title, Usul al-Sarakhsi. A number of other ulama’ have contributed to the literature in both camps. But a difference of format which marked a new stage of development was the writing of handbooks in the form of mukhtasars with a view to summarize the existing works for educational purposes.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

The next phase according to Kamali, in the development of literature on usul al-fiqh is marked by the attempt to combine the Inductive and deductive approaches into an integrated whole which is reflected in the works of both Shafi’i and Hanafi ulama’ of later periods. One such work which attempted to combine al-Bazdawi's Usul and al-Amidi's Al-Ihkam was completed by Muzaffar al-Din al-Sa'ati (d. 694) whose title Badi' al- Nizam al-Jami 'Bayn Usul al-Bazdawi wa al-Ihkam is self-explanatory as to the approach the author has taken to the writing of this work. Another equally significant work which combined the two approaches was completed by Sadr al-Shari'ah, 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud al-Bukhari (d. 747) bearing the title Al- Tawdih, which is, in turn, a summary of Usul al-Bazdawi, Al-Mahsul, and the Mukhtasar al-Muntaha of the Maliki jurist. Abu Umar Uthman b. al-Hajib (d. 646).

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

Three other well-known works which have combined the two approaches to usul al-fiqh are Jam' al-Jawami of the Shafi'i jurist Taj al-Din al-Subki(d. 771), Al-Tahrir of Kamil al-Din b. al-Humam al-Hanafi (d. 860), and Musallam al-Thubut of the Hanafi jurist Muhibb al-Din b. 'Abd al-Shakur (d. 1119). And finally, this list would be deficient without mentioning Abu Ishaq Ibrahim al-Shatibi's Al-Muwafaqat, which is comprehensive and perhaps unique in its attention to the philosophy (hikmah) of tashri' and the objectives that are followed by the detailed rulings of the Shari’ah.

Method in writing Usul al-fiqh

Sheikh Taha Jabir al-alwani another famous modern scholar of Usul al-Fiqh in his book [Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami] highlights more or less similar view with others such as kamali when he says: Writings on the subject of Usul al-Fiqh generally followed one of two essential methods. The first was al-Shafi'i's method, or the method of the al-Jumhur (majority) or the method of the al-Mutakallimun. This was the method followed by the Shafi'iyah, the Malikiyah, Hanabilah and the Mutallimun from al-Mu'tazilah, and it was known as the "method of the Mutakallimun" because the authors of the books written their books according to this method used to introduce them with various discussions of theological and philosophical issues, such as al Hasan and al Qabih "The Good and the Reprehensible', Hukm al Ashya' Qabl al Shar' "The Legal Status of Matters Prior to the Revelation of Shari'ah", Shukr al Mun'im "The Necessity of Gratitude to the Bestower", and al Hakim "The Possessor of Sovereignty".

A further reason for its being labeled "the method of the Mutakallimun" was the use of the deductive method in defining the principles of source methodology, in ascertaining the validity of those principles, and in refuting those whose opinions differed without paying much attention to the issues and details which stem from the application of these principles.

Therefore, In this method, they came out with principles of usul al-fiqh and they empowering and authorizing them with all evidences from both aqal (divine) and aqal (reason). Later on these principles becoming the principles in solving various fiqh issues happened within the society. However, they did not include various branches of fiqh issues their writing, instead, leaving them scatted in their books. Hence, If some of these principles cannot be applied, then they considered them as exceptional cases from the original principles.

THE METHOD OF THE HANAFI SCHOLARS OF AL USUL

The Hanafi method of writing on Usul al-Fiqh involved defining the principles of Usul from the details of legal issues with which their earliest predecessors had already dealt. Thus, the basis for their studies of al-Usul was derived from the details of previously settled legal issues, and not the other way round. Therefore, one who studies Usul al Fiqh according to this method will gather the details of issues concerning which the Hanafi Imams have already given Fatwas or rulings, and then analyze them. Through his analysis he will decide the basis on which these Fatawa were given.

Method of Hanafi or Fuqaha’

Based on this method, principles on Usul al-fiqh were prepared based on various views and decisions made by their previous Imams and prominent jurists in their mazhab. Later on, These various Usul’s principles would be confirmed to be in line with various decisions made by their previous Imam and jurists in their mazhab. However, If some of these principles were different, they would modify them. As a result, there are many issues from different branches of fiqh attached in this method.

Sheikh Taha also quoted the saying of Shah Wali Allah, when he commented in this regard:"I found that some of them claimed the differences between Abu Hanifah and al Shafi'i were founded on the Usul mentioned in al Bazdawi's book and elsewhere. But the truth is that most of these Usul were themselves derived from the differing legal pronouncement of the Imams. My opinion of the matter is that such principles of al Usul as the rules which say that the specific "al Khass" is obvious "Mubayyan", and does not need to be followed by a declaration "Bayan"; that the addition of details to a text constitutes abrogation "Naskh"; that the comprehensive "al 'Amm" is definitive "Qat'i" like the specific "al Khass"; that mere numbers of narrations may not be taken as a factor in according preference (Tarjih) to one opinion or another;

that the Hadith of one who is not a Faqih need not necessarily be used in cases where there can be no resort to reason; that there is no legitimacy to the notion of progressing from a precondition "Shart" or description "Wasf" to a legal deduction; that the imperative "al Amr" in a text always indicates legal obligation "Wujub"; and so on, all of these are examples of principles inferred from the judgements of the Imams. Indeed, there are no sound narrations to suggest that Abu Hanifah or his two companions, Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, adhered to any of these principles of source methodology. As such, then, these principles deserve no more to be preserved and defended, as al Bazdawi and the others did.

Conclusion

The scholars took to writing in the discipline of usul al-fiqh in various ways.

The way of the mutakallimun: This approach depends on establishing usuli principles supported by rational proofs , without regard to their accordance with substantive rulings as transmitted from their early mujtahid and Imams. As such, this is a theoretical approach, whose purpose is the setting out the principles of the discipline based on proofs, and making those principles the standards of proof within the discipline and an arbitrator between different interpretations.

Continue….

This method is known as the way of the mutakallimin. It was adopted by the Mu’tazilah, Shafi’i, Maliki and the Hanbali. It is distinguished by its inclination towards rational proofs, its lack of inclination between the different madhahib, and the relative scarcity with which matters of substantive law are mentioned – indeed, when they are brought up, it is usually only to provide examples.

The way of the Hanafis:

This approach seeks to establish juristic principles based on the substantive law transmitted from their mujtahid Imams. That is to say, these scholars sought to set down the principles they believed that their Imams used when they undertook ijtihad to arrive at their respective legal positions.Hanafis became popular for adopting this approach, and so it came to be known as “the way of the Hanafis.” It is distinguished by its focus on practice and application. As such, it may be thought of as a study of the legal rulings adopted by the Imams of the madhahib, and an attempt to extract the usuli principles they followed and took into account in the process of arriving at those rulings. This approach makes the usuli principles attached to the legal opinions of the madhhab, and defends the ijtihads of the Imams of the madhhab.

Third method

A hybrid of the two approaches: This method seeks to reconcile the methods of the two approaches, adopting the distinguishing characteristics of both. It sets out pure usuli principles supported by first principles, so that they may become the standards of derivation and the arbitrator of every opinion and ijtihad-process. At the same time, however, it takes account of the fiqhi opinions transmitted from the Imams, and explains the usuli principles based on these opinions, linking the two together, and subjecting the substantive laws to the theoretical principles.

FINISH