Ijtihaad means analysis. It's an Arabic word that means exerting an effort. That is, doing what is necessary regarding an issue for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that hopefully pleases God.
What is necessary? It's all of the following:
- Collecting all of the relevant verses and authentic hadeeths that address the issue directly or indirectly. Many fatwas, unfortunately, pick evidence.
- Learning what the scholars said about the issue and what conclusions they reached.
Most fatwas, unfortunately, stop here. Stopping here is not Ijtihaad but Taqleed.
- Determining if those conclusions are appropriate. If they are based on relevant, authentic evidence, followed proper reasoning based on Usool-ul-Fiqh (Foundations of Deduction), and have not neglected other relevant evidence, then those conclusions may be adopted.
- Otherwise, further analysis is necessary. All evidence is examined and rules of deduction are applied to it to reach a conclusion.
The conclusion reached may or may not be enforceable. It depends on the certainty of evidence and robustness of reasoning. If the evidence is certain in its occurrence (قطعي الورود), such as a verse or a ubiquitous hadeeth (Mutawaatir), and the meaning of it is certain (قطعي الدلالة), then the conclusion is certain and therefore enforceable. An example is the prohibition of eating pork.
If the evidence is certain in its occurrence but its meaning is not certain (ظني الدلالة), then the conclusion, after robust reasoning, will remain a probability. An example of that is what part of a woman's face is to be covered.
If the evidence is uncertain in its occurrence (ظني الورود), such as hadeeths narrated by a few (Aahaad), then the conclusion will remain a probability, even if the meaning is certain. An example of that is stoning.
If you read the classic literature, you'd find so much of the conclusions made do not follow the above recipe. Many fatwas have set the bar much lower than the above. Many conclusions are based on weak or even fabricated hadeeths. Many conclusions are based on a wrong understanding which lead to wrong assumptions, e.g., abrogation. Many fatwas declare their conclusions mandating or forbidding even when the evidence is uncertain or the reasoning is flawed. In fact, much of what was written was no more than opinion.
It is good that all the venerable scholars have warned their followers from following them blindly! Abu-Haneefa said, "If you learn of a hadeeth that says differently from what I said, the hadeeth is my ruling!" Maalik said, "Everyone's talk may be taken or left, except the dweller of this grave", pointing to the tomb of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Ash-Shaafi`i yelled at a man who was about to write down his fatwa, "Don't. I may change my opinion by tonight!" Ibn Hanbal said, "Never say there is consensus about a matter; say instead, 'I do not know of dissenting opinions.'" Some scholars said on their death beds that they wished their books be burned!
Indeed, classic literature is filled with conflicting reports in many rulings from the same scholar. It is also chock full of dissenting opinions. Ibn Hazm wrote a book hoping to show all issues in which there was consensus, but ended up showing that not one of nearly a thousand issues he listed, not one escaped a dissenting opinion.
Attitude toward such phenomenon has typically been one of two extremes. One extreme was to blindly follow one school of thought (Mazhhab) and stick with it. Another extreme chose to discard all scholarship of the past. Both approaches are wrong. We have a huge database of conclusions, methodologies, reasonings and evidence. We should take advantage of it and use it instead of reinventing the wheel, but we also should not take a shortcut and choose the lazy approach of mindless following.
