Many historians view Islamic law as an organic and methodologically coherent system in which there is a systematic link between legal methodology ( uṣūl ) and substantive law ( furūʿ ). In this essay, I will argue against the conventional view, drawing support from the evolutionary trajectories of four genres of juridical writing: abridged legal compendia ( mukhtaṣar s); juristic disagreement ( ikhtilāf) ; the commentary/supercommentary ( sharḥ/ḥāshiya ); and legal responsa ( fatāwā ) genres. The post-thirteenth century evolution of these genres reveals a pronounced tendency to marginalize the relationship between legal methodology and substantive law, privileging a codification ethos. Judges and low-ranking jurisconsults were expected to “apply” legal rules and frequently abandoned legal methodology as an avenue for legal change in favor of pragmatic school boundary-crossing. In doing so, they were less concerned with intra-school methodological coherence than with pursuing juristic flexibility by focusing on the content of the law rather than its process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim (2015) studied this question.