The Four Eponyms of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence

8/12/2019 The Four Eponyms of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-four-eponyms-of-sunni-islamic-jurisprudence 1/13

The International Journal of

Civic, Political, andCommunity Studies

TH EH UM AN ITIES.COM

VOLUME 10 ISSUE 4

_________________________________________________________________________

The Four Eponyms of Sunni IslamicJurisprudence

An Examination of the Historical Development of theDominant Madh hib and the Polemic of Ijtih d versus Taql dKASIM RANDEREE



THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIC, POLITICAL, AND COMMUNITY STUDIESwww.thehumanities.com

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLCwww.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN 2327-0047

© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)© 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposesof study, research, criticism or review as permitted under theapplicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may bereproduced by any process without written permission from the

publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please [email protected].

The International Journal of Civic, Political, and Community Studiesis peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary,ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance

and highest significance is published.



The International Journal of Civic, Political, and Community StudiesVolume 10, 2013, www.thehumanities.com, ISSN 2327-0047© Common Ground, Kasim Randeree, All Rights ReservedPermissions: [email protected]

The Four Eponyms of Sunni IslamicJurisprudence: An Examination of the HistoricalDevelopment of the Dominant Madh hib and the

Polemic of Ijtih d versus Taql d

Kasim Randeree, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract: The framing of Islamic law in the first four centuries of Islam is of great significance to scholars. During this period, the Islamic diaspora was in the earliest part of its development, establishing its identity and developing the foundations of its knowledge principles. These times were tumultuous; yet, at the same time, what occurred during theseearly centuries formed the bedrock upon which a further millennium of growth has taken place in this global religion.

Many forces were interplaying during these early years in the context of Islamic law. “ Independents, ” who formed amajority of Islamic theorists, gradually disappeared and gave way to “M uqallid n” and there was discourse andallegiance amongst “ Rationalists ” and “ Traditionalists. ” There was a shift away from early regional schools (ofthought) to personal schools and tremendous debate raged about Ijtih d and Taql d. In more recent times, ove r the pastcentury, orientalist commentators on the period, who have painted a picture of these early centuries of the Islamic legal

system and jurisprudence as being somewhat cut and dry, have begun to be challenged. Schacht for example, who wrotein the early to mid-twentieth century, later had his views nuanced by scholars such as Hallaq and others. This paper thusexamines the early formation of the four schools of Islamic law, recounts brief biographical accounts of their founders,and discusses the challenges faced during those early years of Islamic legal history, which are a source of disagreementamong contemporary scholars.

Keywords: Religion, Islam, Islamic Law, Sunni, Eponyms, Ijtih d , Taql d

Introduction

n general terms, it is commonly understood that the development of the four schools of lawfollowed an evolutionary process (Randeree, 2012). In his book, T r kh al-M adh hib al -

Fiqhiyya 1 - The Evolution of Fiqh : Islamic Law and the Madhhabs , Bilal Philips (1990, pp.5-62) outlines four phases for the background and formation of the four schools of law( Madh hib ), namely, foundation, establishment, building and flowering. These four stages, BilalPhilips argues, were followed by three further phases, consolidation, stagnation and decline (pp.102-116).

In essence, the foundation phase relates to the era of the prophetic mission of the ProphetMuhammad (609- 632 CE), dominated by Qur’ nic rev elation (Randeree, 2010) and prophetic

Ḥad th providing legislation and rulings to the followers of the early Muslim population.The second phase, establishment, deals with the period of the four Sunni Caliphs, namely,

Ab Bakr as-Șiddīq (Abdullah ibn Uthm n Abi Quhaf ), Umar ibn Al- Khatt b, Uthm n ibn‘Aff n and Ali ibn Abi Ț lib. This period extended from the death of the Prophet Muhammad in632 CE until the assassination of Ali in 661 CE. The principles of deductive reasoning, or

Ijtih d , were laid down in this time, in part out of the necessity to cope with the rapid and vastexpansion of Muslim territories which brought with it new challenges requiring legal rulingsdistinctive from earlier times. Islamic jurisprudence and law thus remained linked to the statelegislation governed by the Caliph and thus prevented the emergence of a plurality in Madh hib during this phase.

The third phase, building, covers the period of the Umayyad dynasty from 661 CE until themiddle of the eighth century. This was a period of tremendous upheaval and change, a shift fromthe centrality of the unifying Caliphs gradually to kingships, the dispersal of scholars across vast

1 Transliteration is based upon Library of Congress guidelines (ALA-LC Romanisation Tables).

I



THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIC, POLITICAL, AND COMMUNITY STUDIES

territories and countless cultures, the emergence of sects such as Shi’i and the Kha w rij , thefabrication of Ḥad th in support of sectarian views and the division of scholars along the lines ofrationalist ( A șḥ b al-R a’y ) and traditionalist ( A șḥ b al- Ḥad th ). The emergence of the earlyschools of law occurred during this time, though the emphasis appeared to be on geographicschools rather than personal schools in this phase. Most prominently, Ab Ḥan fah 2 and Sufy nal-Thawri were active in Kufah, M lik ibn Anas 3 in Medina, al- Awz ’y in Beirut and al -Laythibn Șa’ d in Egypt.

The final formative stage, flowering, covered the Abb sid dynasty and occurred from themiddle of the eighth century and extended until around 950 CE. During this period,

jurisprudence took on a formative shape, the four Madh hib became firmly rooted, Islamic jurisprudence became well-defined into U ș l and Furu’ , the sources of Islamic law established adefinitive hierarchy, centres of learning became more established and recognised, particularly inIraq and Medina, compilations well-known by contemporary scholars were written, including thetexts by the founders of the Madh hib and books of Ḥad th were completed in their entirety,including the six Mashhur books of Ḥad th .4 Towards the latter part of this phase, however, theestablished Madh hib witnessed the emergence of rigidity amongst the scholars and Taql d amongst their followers.

The Dominant Madh hib

The four schools of Islamic jurisprudence that became dominant display a number of nuancesreflecting differences of opinion amongst their four eponyms. This is significant given the factthat, at some level or another, the founders were known to each other and in some cases, studentsor teachers of one another. Doi (1984, p. 85) states,

“If one closely examines the Fiqh of the four schools, one will never come across anydifference of opinions as far as the basic principles of Islam are concerned. The

differences mainly centre around Furu ’ t (tiny branches) of theology rather than theUș l (the fundamental principles) of belief.”

This view is supported by Bilal Philips (1990) who demonstrated that all the eponyms hadthe Qur’ n and the Prophet’s authority in common as their primary sources of Islamic law.Islamic law and the Prophetic injunction in relation to it are of further interest when discussingareas of contention and commonality amongst the eponyms. Jackson (1993) expounds that al-Sh fi’ 5 , in his book al- Ris la , elaborates about the issue of the Prophetic legislation being

2 Ab Ḥan fah Ab Ḥan fah (Nu cman bin Thâbit, 703-767 CE), born in Kufah, Iraq, regarded amongst the T abi’ n due to his receivingknowledge from several of the companions of Muhammad, including Anas ibn M lik (Ab Zahra, 2001), is best knownfor belonging to Așḥ b al- Ra’y , basing his teaching method on that of group discourse, or S huru’ , and the concept of

Istiḥs n (precedence of situation) and ‘Urf (local customs). His students most famously include Ab Y suf, wh o wasappointed chief judge by H r n al -Rash d amongst others, and Muhammad ibn al -Ḥasan al- Shayb n , also chief judgeunder the same ruler as well as a student of both Ab Ḥan fah and later M lik ibn Anas in Medina. Ab Ḥan fah’srefusal to take up the post of chief judge when offered by Caliph Mansûr is reported to have angered the latter to such anextent that he had Ab Ḥan fah imprisoned and later poisoned, leading to the eventual demise of Ab Ḥan fah (Doi,1984, p. 92) in 767 CE (Hussain, 1998).3 M lik ibn AnasM lik was born in Medina in 717 CE, where he remained for almost the entirety of his life until his death within the cityat the age of 83, in 801 CE. He and his followers are commonly known as Așḥ b al- Ḥad th , due to his strict avoidance ofspeculative theology or hypothetical Fiqh , as was well-known amongst the Ḥanaf s. His sources of Islamic law included

the practices of the people of Medina as well as I stișl , and his major and famous work, al-Muwa ṭṭa’ , remains a centraldocument in M lik jurisprudence. Even though the political capital of the Muslim empire had already relocated toDamascus, Medina remained important to Muslims due to its strong ties to the Prophet Muhammad, and thus it thrived asa centre of spiritual enlightenment, e ducation and learning during and beyond the lifetime of M lik. 4 Most authentic Ḥad th scriptures (Sahih al- Bukh r , Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Al- Nisa’i, Ibn Majah) .5 Muhammad ibn Idr s al -Sh fi’

20



RANDEREE: THE FOUR EPONYMS OF SUNNI ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

binding, even on matters about which the Qur’ n did not comment; an example of the view held by all the Madh hib consistently. However, when the Prophet’s activities or more specifically,those that have a bearing on the derivation of Islamic law are analysed, nuances begin to emerge.To clarify the point, examine the roles of the Prophet Muhammad as Messenger, Muft , Judge(Q di) and Head of State ( Im m ) (Randeree, 2009). These four roles all have a direct relevanceto derivation of law, namely and respectively, verbatim communications from All h (messengerrole); issuance of fatwa ( Muft role); judicial rulings (role as Q di); and discretionary rulings (theright of veto as Head of State). In terms of the Madh hib , the view of M lik and al -Sh fi’ inthis context was that the majority of the Prophet’s actions constituted Fatwa in his role as Muft ,whereas the view of Ab Ḥan fah was that his (the Prophet Muhammad’s) actions w ere decreesin his role as the Head of State. This difference appears immaterial, but upon closer examination,the resultant effect can yield very divergent outcomes in terms of the ruling that is passed(Jackson, 1993). The eponyms differed on aspects such as Ijtih d , Qiy s , ‘ Urf and so on, but,even these differences seem largely based on emphasis rather than substance, though anextensive number of published works have deconstructed the differentiations over the pastcentury.

Melchert (2001) outlines the most important transformations of mainstream jurisprudence inthe first three centuries of Islam. At the outset, rational speculation was overshadowed by theuse of textual sources, namely, the Qur’ n and Ḥad th . Furthermore, Ḥad th reports from theProphet took precedence over reports from Companions and the later authorities particularlywithin Sunni Islam, with Shi’i jurisprudence relying more evidently on reports from I m ms. Thereliance on Ḥad th texts quickly brought into light the issue of chains of narration ( Isnad ) and the

personal qualities of Ḥad th transmitters ( Rij l ). Thus, information was filtered based on thereliability of transmitters as well as their frequency of narration, and other tools at the disposal ofscholars for the discernment of Ḥad th .

The next stage was highly significant given the context of this paper, that is, personalschools, such as the four schools of Islamic law, winning superiority over regional schools, suchas the Kufan or Medinese schools. Thus jurisprudents were no longer identified as being from ageographical region or centre of learning, but rather by their allegiance to a founder or teacher ofIslamic law. Hallaq (2001) expounds this topic to claim that, in fact, neither did geographicschools exist, nor did they transform to personal schools, but rather, the transformation was“from individual juristic doctrines to doctrinal schools .” This, again, is a challenge to Schacht’swork, whose major argument on the subject, in his book, An Introduction to Islamic Law, wasthat legal scholarship came together around geographical centres. Schacht, as cited by Hallaq(2001: p. 2) says,

“The bulk of the ancient school of Kufa transformed itself into the school of theḤanaf s, and the ancient school of Medina into the school of the M lik s, and the ancientschools of Basra and of Mecca, respectively, became merged into them... Thistransformation of the ancient schools into personal schools ... was completed about themiddle of the third century of the Hijra .”

Al-Sh fi’ was the best travelled of the four eponyms in his lifetime, a fact that has moulded and impacted the formationas well as the followers of his Madhhab . Al- Sh fi’ , was from Quraish, and a direct descendant of the ProphetMuhammad. He was born in 769 CE on the Mediterranean coast, he moved to Medina in his early life to study underM lik, whose text, al-Muwa ṭṭa’ , Al- Sh fi’ memorised (Al -Baghdâdi, 1931, p. 59). After the death of the latter in 801CE, he taught in Yemen for four years, was taken as a prisoner to Iraq (accused of Shi’i views), where he proved hisinnocence to H r n al -Rash d. He therefore remained in Iraq, where he studied under the Ḥanif scholar, Muhammad ibnal-Ḥasan al- Shayb n , before travelling to Egypt to study the Madhhab of al-Lay th ibn Sa’d. He remained in Egypt untilhis death in 820 CE.

As a consequence of his travel and related studies, he effectively combined Ḥanaf and M lik jurisprudence. His threeworks, al-Hujjah , written in Iraq, articulating his early view, has become referred to as Madhhab al-Qadîm . His laterwork, al-Umm , written in Egypt and known as Madhhab al- Jad d , was, in contrast, the formation of his thoughts afterabsorbing the Madhhab of al-Layth, in which he reversed many of his earlier opinions. His most famous work, al- Ris la ,is well regarded, and is central to the establishment of Uș l al -Fiqh . His sources of Islamic law rejected both Istiḥs n and

I stișl , in favour of I stișḥ b.

21




This was followed by the establishment of core texts, which formed the foundation ofliterary knowledge for a few personal schools. Examples would include al-Muwa ṭṭa’ of M lik,al- Ris la of al- Sh fi’ and the Musnad of A ḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. 6 With this, the stage was set for

Ḥad th studies and scholarship in jurisprudence becoming independent and distinctspecialisations, with Muḥaddith n and F uqah ’ becoming established prior to the development ofUș l al-Fiqh , as well as guild schools (which certified jurisprudents) appearing in the fifth andsixth centuries of Islam.

Another aspect to the founders of the four schools of thought is the pivotal role they playedin the development of Islamic thought and jurisprudence. Al- Sh fi’ , for example, has long beencredited with being the ‘Master Architect’ of Islamic jurisprudence. Contemporary scholars,however, are challenging this notion of prominence. Hallaq (1993), in his paper, “Was Al -Sh fi’ the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?” states that the leader of this view, inrecent years, was Joseph Schach t, the author of “The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence”

published in 1975. Hallaq says,

“Schacht’s portentous findings, coupled with the high esteem in which Sh fi’ is held inmedieval and modern Islam, have led Islamicists to believe that Sh fi’ was the “fatherof Muslim jurisprudence” and the founder of the science of legal theory, properly calledUș l al -Fiqh .” (p.587)

He continues,

“Sh fi’ ’s synthesis was, and remained for a long time, a minority view. Thetraditionalists rejected his Qiy s , and the rationalists were reluctant to accept his thesisthat revelation is the first and last judge of human affairs. It was only towards the endof the ninth century that the two camps drew closer to each other, and a synthesis oftraditionalism and ration alism was accomplished.” (p. 601)

Independents to Eponyms

It is of value to understand, in the context of prominence and strict adherence to Sunni Madh hib , how these Madh hib were followed in the early centuries during their formation.One measure is to have an appreciation for Muslim jurists ( F uqah ’ ) during that period, as this

provides insights as to the extent of followership commanded by the eponyms of the four main Madh hib . In their paper about the geographical distribution of 406 Fuqah ’ in the first fourcenturies of Islam, Bernards and Nawas (2003) found that 13% were Ḥanaf s, 29% were M lik s,13% were Sh fi’ s, 14% were Ḥanbal s, 5% were Switchers and 27% were Independents.Switchers are defined as Fuqah ’ who, during the course of their lives, switched from adherence

to one Madhhab to adherence to another. Independents were those F uqah ’ who did not adhereto any Madhhab . There sample size was based on biographical accounts collected for the UlamaProject, which was completed in 2000. The database thus consisted of 1,049 biographicalaccounts of Islamic scholars of the early centuries of Islam, within the five main disciplines ofIslamic sciences. The 406 Fuqah ’ cited by Bernards and Nawas (2003) were those specialised

6 Aḥmad ibn Ḥ anbal al- Shayb n Born in 778 CE in Baghdad, Ibn Ḥanbal st udied, in his formative years, under Ab Y suf (the famous Ḥan f ) and Al -Sh fi’ . Although he was persecuted and imprisoned at various points in his lifetime for some of his views, as were allhis predecessor eponyms, Ibn Ḥanbal remained in Baghdad and taught until his death there in 855 CE. His extensive

work, al-Musnad, which contains over 30,000 Ḥad th , remains a central manuscript underpinning the works of many ofhis followers, including Ibn Taym yyah and Ibn al -Qayyim. He is also reported to have taught both Bukh r and Muslim,the authors of the two Ș aḥ ḥ s. In terms of his sources of Islamic law, he differed from the others by including weak

Ḥad th in preference to Qiy s in his judgement and rulings, in circumstances where transmitters are known not to have been either degenerate ( F siq ) or liars ( Kadhdh b ). Today, the basis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s legal system is based primarily on Ibn Ḥanbal’s Madhhab (Bilal Philips, 1990, pp. 63-87: Doi, 1984, pp. 85-111).

22




in Islamic law, thus establishing their relevance to the study of the background of the fourschools of Islamic law. Consequently, Bernards and Nawas (2003) found that,

“For the entire 400 -year period studied, the M lik Madhhab was the largest, followed by the “Independents”, those Fuqah ’ who were not claimed by any of the four Sunni

Madhahib . The share of the other three Sunni Madhahib , the Ḥanaf s, the Sh fi’ s andthe Ḥanbal s, was more or less equal. The phenomenon of switch ing from one Sunni

Madhhab to another was marginal.”

Furthermore, the last eponym (A ḥmad ibn Ḥanbal) died in 241 AH; thus to focusexamination on the first two and a half centuries, is of greater value. This, Bernards and Nawas(2003) reveal, demonstrates that 13% were Ḥanaf s, 18% were M lik s, 2% were Sh fi’ s, 9%were Ḥanbal s, 5% were Switchers and 54% were Independents. In contrast, the following 150years beyond the demise of the last eponym show that the figures changed dramatically, with13% being Ḥanaf s, 37% being M lik s, 21% being Sh fi’ s, 17% being Ḥanbal s, 5% beingSwitchers and 7% being Independents. Thus, as would be expected, proportionately most

Independents disappeared in the duration of the first four centuries, with their proportionsdeclining from 54% (0 - 250 AH) to 7% (250 - 400 AH). Consequently, large proportions of

Fuqah ’ , in the most part, migrated from being Independents to being M lik s (18%; 0 - 250 AHto 37%; 250 - 400 AH), and Sh fi’ s (2%; 0 - 250 AH to 21%; 250 - 400 AH).

The evaluation of the emergence and formation of the schools of Islamic law is furtherconfounded by the classification of jurisprudence along rationalist ( A șḥ b al-R a’y ) ortraditionalist (A șḥ b al- Ḥad th ) lines. Melchert (2001) states that as late as the fourth century,Ibn al- Nad m classified jurisprudents in eight distinct categories based on their allegiance toopinion or prophetic sayings. These were: 1) M lik y n; 2) Ab Ḥan fah and his followers, theIraqis or Așḥ b al- Ra’y ; 3) al- Sh fi c and his followers; 4) D w d al -Zah r and his followe rs; 5)Shi’i jurisprudents; 6) Traditionalists ( Așḥ b al- Ḥad th ) and traditionalist-jurisprudents ( al-

Muḥaddith n ); 7) al- Ṭabar and his followers; and 8) Kh rij jurisprudents ( Shurat ). Only thefirst three of these classifications clearly demarcate one of the four Sunni schools of thought.

Ijtih d and Taql d

During the seventh century CE, efforts were made to formalise the doctrine of the legal schoolsand, consequently, the aspect of Ijtih d and Taql d began to emerge as one of the central themeswithin a discourse on the development of the Madh hib . In the beginning, the Q di hadcomplete freedom as a Mujtahid , to rule on issues that had no governance under revelation. Asthe Muslim nation expanded, this freedom began to be eroded and challenged in favour of moreuniform regulations aimed at unifying the legal authorities and producing documents which

could form the basis of a codification of laws. Fadel (1996) explores this issue with regard to theschool of M lik jurisprudence, stating that the school underwent a transformation from a case -law system to one approaching civil law, with the only immunity being for upper-level juristswho retained the right to mitigate these canonical laws in special circumstances. The M likSchool also effected abrogation to overcome contradiction when establishing these canons. Thusemerged the genre of the M ukhtașar , with two works in M lik law, the J mi c al-U mmah t byIbn al- Ḥ jib and the Mukhtașar Khal l in the seventh and eighth centuries respectively (Fadel,1996). Two corresponding works were also important in Sh fi’ law, al-Ghaya al- Quswa f

Dir y t al -F atw , by Q di al -Bayd w and the Minhaj of al- Nawaw , bot h of which were writtenin the seventh century.

Most references on the subject tend to indicate that Ijtih d had a higher intellectual standing

than Taql d . However, others challenge this view as it implies relegating Taql d into being lessdesirable than Ijtih d . Fadel (1996), for example, cites Schacht, as being of the view that, overtime, jurists had achieved near perfection of the law that Taql d was a natural and inevitable

23






is a relationship between the schools ’ enduring prominence and the personal sacrifice ofthe eponym.

5. Finally, the shift from being independent to following an eponym, amongst the Fuqah ’ of the first four centuries as well as the migration from regional schools to personalschools is of great interest, particularly when examining the stabilisation of Islamic law.

25




GLOSSARY OF ARABIC TERMS

Așḥ b al- Ḥad th Traditionalist thinkers, favour Ḥad th analysis overrationalism

Așḥ b al- Ra’y Rationalist thinkersF siq One whose character violates Islamic lawFatw (pl. Fat wa) Islamic edictFiqh Science of Islamic jurisprudenceFaqih (pl. Fuqah ’) One who specialises in the science of Islamic jurisprudenceFuru ’ (pl. Furu ’ t) Branch, applied to “ branches ” of Islamic science, knowledgeḤad th Narration of sayings and actions of the Prophet MuhammadHijra Emigration of Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to MedinaIjtih d Specialism of deducing Islamic law from primary sourcesIm m Leader, contemporarily applied to Muslim prayer leaderIsnad Science evaluating the transmission of Ḥad th narrativeIstiḥs n Juristic equityIstișḥ b Presumption of continuityIstișl Consideration of public interestK dhib (pl. Kadhdh b) A liarKh rij A person from the Khaw rij Muslim sectKhaw rij Muslim sectMadhhab (pl. Madh hib) School of juristic thoughtMuft An individual qualified in issuing an Islamic edictMuḥaddith (pl. Mu ḥaddith n) Scholar of Ḥad th Mujtahid (pl. Mujtahid n) A scholar specialising in deducing Islamic lawMukhtașar Concise handbooks of Islamic treatisesMuqallid One who accepts and adheres to Taql d Q di JudgeQiy s Deduction of Islamic law by analogyQur’ n Islam’s Holy Scripture Rij l Character of Ḥad th transmitters to determine Isnad accuracyShi’i Muslim sectSunni Most dominant Muslim sectTabi’ n Generation of Muslims after Prophet MuhammadTaql d Followership of singular orthodox Islamic leader or eponym‘Urf Customs or cultural practicesUș l Fundamental principlesUș l al -Fiqh Foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence

26




REFERENCES

Ab Zahr , M. (2001). The Four Im ms: Their Lives, Works and their Schools of Thought , Trans.Bewley, A., London: Dar al-Taqwa.

Al-Baghdadi, K. (1931). T r kh Baghdad , Cairo, Vol. 2, p 59.Bernards, M. and Nawas, J. (2003). The Geographic Distribution of Muslim Jurists during the

First Four Centuries AH, Islamic Law and Society , 10(2), pp 168-181.Bilal Philips, A. (1990). T r kh al - Madh hib al -F iqh yya - The Evolution of Fiqh: Islamic Law

and the Madhhabs , 2 nd ed. Riyadh: Tawheed Publications.Doi, A.R.I. (1984). Shari’ah: The Islamic Law , London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.Fadel, M. (1996). The Social Logic of Taql d and the Rise of the Mukhata ṣar , Islamic Law and

Society , 3(2), pp 193-233.Hallaq, W. B. (1984). Was the Gate of Ijtih d Closed? International Journal of Middle East

Studies , 16(1), pp 3-41.Hallaq, W. B. (1986). On the Origins of the Controversy about the Existence of Mujtahids and

the Gate of Ijtih d , Studia Islamica , (63), pp 129-141.Hallaq, W. B. (1993). Was al- Shafi’ the Master Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?

International Journal of Middle East Studies , 25(4), pp 587-605.Hallaq, W. B. (2001). From Regional to Personal Schools of Law? A Re-evaluation. Islamic Law

and Society , 8(1), pp 1-26.Hussain, M. H. (1998). Im m Ab Ḥan fah, Life and Work , 4 th ed. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan.Jackson, S. A. (1993). From Prophetic Actions to Constitutional Theory: A Novel Chapter in

Medieval Muslim Jurisprudence. International Journal of Middle East Studies , 25(1), pp 71-90.

Melchert, C. (2001). Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framing of Islamic Law. Islamic Lawand Society , 8(3), pp 383-406.

Randeree, K. (2008). Ethical Leadership from Islamic Perspectives: A Model for Social andOrganisational Justice, The International Journal of the Humanities , 6(4), pp 49-53.

Randeree, K. (2009). An Islamic Perspective on Leadership: Qur'anic World View on theQualities of Leaders, Global Studies Journal , 2(2), pp 197-210.

Randeree, K. (2010). Oral and Written Traditions in the Preservation of the Authenticity of theQur’ n, The International Journal of the Book , 7(4), pp 9-20.

Randeree, K. (2012). The Origins, Formation and Development of the Four Schools of Islamic Law , Tenth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, 14-16 June2012, Montréal, Canada.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr . Kasim Ran der ee: Research Fellow, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford and KelloggCollege, Oxford; Senior Policy Advisor, Islamic Relief Worldwide; University Chaplain andLecturer in Islamic Law, Coventry University. Dr Randeree is widely published and has a broadinterdisciplinary research portfolio, specialising in contemporary Islamic studies, international

business in Islamic contexts and faith literacy in international development contexts.

27

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=intejmiddeaststu






http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=islalawsoci













The International Journal of Civic, Political, andCommunity Studies is one of five thematically focused

journals in the collection of journals that support theNew Directions in the Humanities knowledgecommunity—its journals, book series, conference, andonline community.

Studies in the humanities frequently analyze theprocesses and dynamics of civil society, politicalorientations and community engagements. This

journal explores the interdisciplinary space where thepractices of the humanities intersect with the methodsand concerns of the social sciences

In addition to papers of a traditional scholarly type,this journal invites case studies that take the form ofpresentations of practice—including documentationof socially-engaged civic, political, and communitypractices, together with exegeses analyzing the effectsof those practices.

The International Journal of Civic, Political, andCommunity Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2327-0047

Documents

The Four Eponyms of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence