Slides from Dr Mohd. Afandi Bin Awang Hamat, IIUM,UIAM

1. Preamble
There 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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'.

6. 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'.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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".

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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;

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. FINISH