Utilizing the Jurisprudential Interconnectedness Among the Four Schools of Thought to Counter Orientalist and Modernist Criticisms

توظيف الترابط الفقهي بين المذاهب الأربعة

Abstract

This research aims to demonstrate the role of "juridical interconnectedness" in refuting the misconceptions raised by Orientalists and Modernists regarding Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), its schools, and its Imams. The problem of the study lies in the attempts of these movements to strip Islamic jurisprudence of its authenticity and divine origin, claiming it was influenced by foreign laws or calling for an "epistemological rupture" with the understanding of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) under the pretext of modernity. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, the study reached several key results, most notably: that Modernist critiques are a methodological extension of Orientalist thought, which seeks to deconstruct the foundations of legal inference (The Quran, Sunnah, and Consensus). Furthermore, the study proved that the "juridical interconnectedness" between the four schools of thought is based on the unity of the sources of reception and the recognition of the Imams' merits; this interconnectedness refutes the allegations brought by Orientalists and Modernists concerning Fiqh and its authenticity. The research recommended the necessity of activating "Collective Ijtihad," governed by the rules of the jurists, as a practical mechanism to respond to claims that Fiqh is unsuitable for the modern age, emphasizing that the understanding of the Salaf is the methodological safeguard that protects sacred texts from arbitrary interpretations.