Islamic Jurisprudential Ijtihad and Its Contemporary Methodologies

Abstract

The difference in the methodology of issuing fatwas and religious rulings (ijtihad) has a long history that extends to beyond current eras. It takes on various forms and shapes that vary from one period to another. In principle, it stems from the depth of Islamic legislation and the flexibility of its rulings, which accommodate different perspectives and allow for multiple interpretations within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, the existence of differences does not inherently represent a negative aspect. In fact, the problem arises from the lack of discipline in handling these differences, such as when differences occur in matters that are universally agreed upon, neglecting proofs, disregarding the etiquette of disagreement, and accompanying it with bias towards one's own opinion and hostility towards those who differ. When examining the contemporary landscape of ijtihad, one finds multiple schools of thought and diverse approaches addressing contemporary issues. Due to the weak adherence to the rules of disagreement, the field of Islamic jurisprudence has been affected, leading to confusion in issuing fatwas and creating a wide gap between followers of different methodologies on one hand, and the desired reality that should be achieved in the lives of contemporary Muslims on the other. In this paper, the most important aspects of ijtihad will be covered along with its scope, types, and also an overview of some of the prominent contemporary scholarly methodologies in the field of legal reasoning and ijtihad.