The development of the term madhhab
in the history of islamic law
Rusli, S.Ag., M.Soc.Sc
STAIN Datokarama Palu,
Introduction
The life of a Muslim is traditionally governed by the twin science of Theology and Law. Theology provides a framework for religious belief, while law provides framework for actions. These sciences are highly necessary since they become the pillars of Muslims's religious-cultural existence and identity.
The basic foundation for these two frameworks are the Qur'ân and its explanations, the Sunnah of the Prophet. However, during its development, Muslim communities frequently differ in their understanding of these primary sources, especially after the first exegete's death, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The result of such a difference, in the field of Islamic law for instance, has been the emergence of schools of Islamic laws verbally or institutionally. Meanwhile, differences in issues related to Islamic theology bring about the rise of firqah (group, party), such as Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyah, Mâturidiyyah, Murji'ah and others.
This paper tries to succinctly highlight the origin of madhhab, its change and development in Muslim communities. Before going further, I would like to give linguistic description on madhhab and its difference from the term of firqah.
MADHHAB AND ITS DIFFERENCE FROM FIRQAH
According to Ibn Manzûr, madhhab is المعتقد الذى يذهب إليه (a belief which is held).1 Qadri Azizy compared the term of madhhab with "view" or "opinion" [ra’y], belief or ideology [al-mu’taqad], doctrine, teaching and school [al-ta’lîm wa al-tarîqah].2 This definition is too general and includes those which relate to theology, Islamic law, political views, and so on. Madhhab, in relation to Islamic law, according to Azizy,3 originated in individual opinions which are basically an understanding of the sacred texts or an effort to find legal solutions to occurring events. It originated from individual opinions based on particular methods, which were followed by other people or pupils who were increasing in number. These individual opinions in turn become acknowledged and held by other Muslim jurists, and then become established.
The word فرقة is derived from فرق which, in Arabic, means either positively or negatively. The positive sense of such term is a good school of thought, while in the negatif sense it can refer to deviant group or school.4 And this is supported by the Hadîth of the Prophet, “My community will become separated into 73 parties, all of them are in the hell, except for one party, that is a group of Jamâ’ah”. Each party claims that it is their party that was referred by the hadîth as the saved party (firqah nâjiyah).
In linguistic sense, the word madhhab and firqah has the same meaning, that is, group. However, in the scholarly tradition of Islam, both terms are differrent in use. The use of the term madhhab, for instance, is usually associated with the issues in Islamic jurisprudences, or, to some extent, it is used to refer particular groups in Sufism. For example, there is one book which uses this term to refer "group or party" in Sufism, entitled al-Ta’arruf ilâ Madhhab Ahli al-Tasawwuf by al-Kalâbadhî. The term of madhhab also tends to be more open and inclusive.
On the other hand, the term firqah (plural: firaq) is more associated with the issues which relate to Islamic belief or theology. Some literatures on speculative theology ('ilm al-kalâm), usually use this term, such as al-Baghdâdî's al-Farq bain al-Firaq and 'Abd al-Fattâh Al-Maghribî's al-Firaq al-Kalâmiyyah. Unlike madhhab, the term firqah is more inclined to be "truth-claim" and is not open to the emergence of freedom in expression.
The following discussion will focus on a brief elucidation of madhhab in Islamic law using historical approach. In this case, the discussion will trace the use of madhhab at the early period of the growth of Islamic law (origin), of the Prophet's companions (development), and changes in using this term at the following periods (change).
MADHHAB IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS
Madhhab at the time of the Prophet
At the time of the Prophet, the term madhhab was not known in the sense of school of thought or institutionalised legal views. This is because of the fact that at this period, an authority to interpret and determine Islamic laws on issues occurring at that time lies on the hand of the Prophet himself who was guided by the divine revelation. Therefore, it is impossible for him to make mistakes in that case. Although the Prophet himself had the right to undertake ijtihâd (legal judgment or legal reasoning), but it was still in the framework of divine revelation (wahy). If there was an error in his legal judgment or reasoning, divine revelation came down to give some corrections of such errors. At that time, the freedom of undertaking ijtihâd on the part of sahâbah, which is the main prerequisite for the emergence of madhhab, did not clearly appeare. If they do have the right to perform ijtihâd, it is still within the limited proportion, and remains under the Prophet's control.
Madhhab at the period of Sahâbah
At this period of the Companions of the Prophet (sahâbah), madhhab is more understood as "opinions" attributed to the individual, that is, sahâbah, a companion of the Prophet. Most of them were jurists or experts in Islamic law. They basically knew the reasons and contexts in which Qur'ânic verses were revealed, as well as saw directly prophetic traditions. Nevertheless, their intellectual capabilities and power of memory (quwwat al-dhâkirah) differed, and also the intensity of sahâbah in giving legal opinions was not the same. There were some sahâbah who often gave fatwâs, while others were of average, and less in giving legal verdicts. According to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, it is estimated that seven sahâbah were frequent in giving fatwâs, 20 were of average, and others who less gave fatwâs were 125.
The most frequent to give fatwas are 'Umar b. Khattâb, 'Alî b.Abî Tâlib, 'Abd Allâh b. Mas’ûd, 'Âishah Umm al-Mu’minîn, Zayd b. Thâbit, 'Abd Allâh b. 'Abbâs, 'Abd Allâh b.'Umar, while those of average in giving fatwas areAbû Bakr al-Siddîq, Umm Salâmah, Anas b. Mâlik, Abû Sa’îd al-Khudrî, Abû Hurairah, 'Uthmân b. 'Affân, 'Abd Allâh b.‘Amr b. ‘Âs, 'Abd Allâh b. Zubayr, Abû Mûsâ al-Ash’arî, Sa’ad b. Abî Waqâs, Salmân al-Fârisî, Jâbir b. 'Abd Allâh, Mu’âdh b. Jabal, Talhah, Zubayr, 'Abd al-Rahmân b.‘Awf, ‘Imrân b. Husayn, Abû Bakrah, ‘Ubâdah b. Samit, Mu’âwiyah b. Abû Sufyân. The less frequent to give fatwas are Abû Dardâ’, Abû Yasr, Abû Salâmah al-Makhzûmî, Abû ‘Ubaydah b. Jarrâh, Sa’îd b. Zayd, Hasan b. 'Alî b. Abî Tâlib, Husayn b. 'Alî b. Abî Tâlib, Nu’mân b. Bashîr, Abû Mas’ûd, Ubay b. Ka’b, Abû Ayyûb, Abû Talhah, Abû Dharr, Umm 'Atiyyah, Safiyyah Umm al-Mu’minîn, Hafsah Umm al-Mu’minîn, Umm Habîbah, Usâmah b. Zayd, Ja’far b. Abî Tâlib, Barrâ’ b. ‘Âzib, Qurâzah b. Ka’b, Nakhâ’ (saudara Abû Bakrah dari jalur ibu), Miqdâd b. Aswad, Abû Sanâbil, Jârûd, 'Abîdî, Laylâ b. Qa’îf, Abû Mahzûrah, Abû Shurayh al-Ka’bî, Abû Barzah al-Aslâmî, Asmâ b. Abî Bakr, Umm Shurayk, Khaulî’ b. Tuwayt, 'Usayd b. Hudayr, Dahhâk b. Qays, Habîb b. Maslamah, 'Abd Allâh b. Anîs, Hudhayfah b. Yaman, Thumâmah b. Uthâl, ‘Ammâr b. Yâsir, ‘Amr b. ‘Âs, Abû Ghâdiyyah al-Silmî, Umm Dardâ’ al-Kubrâ, Dahhâk b. Khalîfah al-Mazanî, Hakam b. ‘Amr Al-Ghifârî, Wabîsab b. Ma’bad al-Asadî, 'Abd Allâh b. Ja’far al-Barmakî, ‘Awf b. Mâlik, ‘Âdî b. Hâtim, 'Abd Allâh b. Abî Aufâ, 'Abd Allâh b. Salam, ‘Amr b. ‘Absah, 'Attâb b. Usayd, ‘Uthmân b. Abî al-‘Âs, 'Abd Allâh b. Sarjis, 'Abd Allâh b. Rawâhah, 'Aqîl b. Abî Tâlib, ‘Â’iz b. ‘Amr, Abû Qatâdah 'Abd Allâh b. Ma’mar al-‘Adâwî, ‘Amâ b. Sa’lah, 'Abd Allâh b. Abû Bakr al-Siddîq, 'Abd al-Rahmân Akhûhu, 'Atiqah b. Zayd b. ‘Amr, 'Abd Allâh b. ‘Awf al-Zuhrî, Sa’ad b. Mu’âdh, Sa’ab b. 'Ubâdah, Abû Munîb, Qays b. Sa’ad, 'Abd al-Rahmân b. Sahl, Samrah b. Jundub, Sahl b. Sa’ad al-Sa’îdî, ‘Amr b. Muqâran, Suwayd b. Muqâran, Mu’âwiyah b. Hakam, Sahlah b. Suhayl, Abû Hudhayfah b. 'Atâbah, Salâmah b. al-Akwâ’, Zayd b. Arqam, Jarîr b. 'Abd Allâh al-Bajalî, Jâbir b. Salâmah, Juwairiyyah Umm al-Mu’minîn, Hassân b. Thâbit, Habîb b. ‘Âdî, Qudâmâ b. Maz’ûn, Uthmân b. Maz’ûn, Maimunah Umm al-Mu’minîn, Mâlik b. Huwairith, Abû 'Amâmah al-Bâhilî, Muhammad b. Maslamah, Khabbâb b. Arâtt, Khâlid b. Walîd, Damrah b. Faid, Tarîq b. Sihâb, Zâhir b. Rafî’, Rafî’ b. Khadîj, Fâtimah b. Rasûlillâh saw, Fâtimah b. Qays, Hishâm b. Hâkim b. Hizâm, Abû Hakîm b. Hizâm, Shurahbil b. Simt, Umm Salâmah, Dihyah b. Khalîfah al-Kalbî, Thâbit b. Qays b. Shammâs, Thaubân Mawlâ Rasûlillâh saw, Mughîrah b. Shu’bah, Buraydah b. Khâsib al-Aslâmî, Ruwayfâ’ b. Thâbit, Abû Hâmid, Abû Usayd, Fadâlah b. 'Ubayd, Abû Muhammad (Mas’ûd b. Aws al-Ansârî, Zaynab b. Umm Salâmah, 'Utbah b. Mas’ûd, Bilâl, 'Urwah b. Hârith, Siyâh b. Rûh (Rûh b. Siyâh), Abû Sa'îd b. Ma’lâ, 'Abbâs b. 'Abd al-Mutallib, Bashâr b. Artat, Suhaib b. Sinân, Umm Aymân, Umm Yûsuf, al-Ghâmidiyah, Mâ’iz, Abû 'Abd Allâh al-Bisrî.
The main authority to determine Islamic law at the period of sahabah lies on the hands of caliphs (khalîfah). They usually gave legal verdicts through several ways; first, they found the solution to the problems confronting them in the Qur'ân, and then in the Sunnah of the Prophet. when they did not find the answers in both primary sources, they undertook ijtihâd (legal reasoning) or collected sahabah and consulted them. This way is possible since, as al-Shayrâzî said in his Tabaqât al-Fuqahâ', the sahabah accompanying the Prophet were fuqahâ' (Muslim jurists). However, the final decision remained in the hand of khalîfah.
Within the community of sahabah, there were some tendencies which differed from one to another in understanding the basic sources of Islamic laws. In general, they could be incorporated into two different mainstreams: “liberals” and “literalists”. Or, in the history of the methodoloy of Islamic law, they were either called as ahl al-hadîth (tradisionalists) or ahl al-ra’y (rationalists). The alleged liberals tended to emphasize more on the substance and spirit of verses (mâqâsid al-sharî'ah) than their literal meanings (dilâlat al-lafz). This liberal approach was represented by 'Umar b. Khattâb who undertook breakthroughs in the field of Islamic law.5
One of the examples of the 'Umar's breakthroughs in Islamic laws was the case of booty or spoils taken from the war. According to the Qur'ân, "out of all the booty that you may aqcuire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah, and to the messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy and the wayfarer (al-Anfâl: 41). 'Umar, however, in a war to conquer Iraq and Syria, did not share the booty as stated clearly by sûrat al-Anfâl: 41, but left the land conqured to the hands of the local population in order to cultivate so that Moslems could take advantages from that without causing loss to the owners of the land.
What 'Umar has done is based on the assumption that Islam, as a religion which is rahmatan lil ‘alamîn (as a mercy for all creatures), cannot possibly instruct tyranny and injustice, but it firmly emphasizes justice, equality, and welfare. 'Umar turned from the literal meaning of the verse to the substance and spirit of the verse, that is, human's welfare and justice. 'Uthmân, 'Alî, Mu'âdh b. Jabal and Talhah came to an agreement with the opinion of 'Umar. While, on the other hand, this 'Umar decision was severely criticised by 'Abd al-Rahmân b. 'Awf, 'Ammâr b. Yassâr and Bilâl, who considered 'Umar's view on this issue as contradictory to the Qur'ânic injunction. They asked 'Umar to share the lands to the group as instructed by the Qur'ân. Bilâl and others hold the literal meaning of the verse which explicitly refers to the sharing of the spoils or booty (ghanîmah) to the above categories.6 Liberal approach of 'Umar to the understanding of the Qur'ân was then followed by such sahâbah as 'Abd Allâh b. Mas’ûd, who gave much more influences to the rationalist figure of Iraq, Abû Hanîfah (Nu’mân b. Thâbit). The products of 'Umar's legal reasonings or judgments are known as the madhhab of 'Umar.
On the other hand, the literalist group tends to hold the literal meaning of the verses rather than their substance and spirit. This group, as frequently stated in the history of Islamic law, is represented by such figures as Bilâl, 'Abd al-Rahmân b. ‘Awf, Zubayr b. 'Awwâm, and Ammâr b. Yassâr, among others, especially in the case of the share of the booty (ghanîmah). The differences of the madhâhib of the Prophet's companions, according to Nour,7 can be divided into there categories: the differences which relate to the Qur'ân, Sunnah, and legal reasoning (ijtihâd).
More elaborately, such differences, as Mustafâ Sa'îd al-Khan said in his Athâr al-Ikhtilâf fi al-Qawâ’id al-Usûliyyah fî Ikhtilâf al-Fuqahâ,8 are caused by the following factors: (1) differences in modes of reciting the Qur'ân (ikhtilâf al-qirâ’ât); (2) lack of acquaintance with the hadîth on particular issues ('adam al-ittilâ' 'alâ al-hadîth); (3) the uncertainty of the exixtence of the Hadîth (al-shakk fî thubût al-hadîth); (4) differences in understanding and interpreting texts (ikhtilâf fî fahm al-nusûs); (5) words whose their meanings are more than one (al-ishtirâk fi al-lafz); (6) contradiction of legal evidence (ta’ârud al-adillah); (7) lack of the certain text (nass) referring to one particular issue.
Despite differences among the sahâbah of the Prophet, they were still tolerant (tasâmuh) in dealing with this different attitude and view. From this assumption, I suggest that the term of madhhab at this period can be understood as the opinions which are relative and open to critique. Here, madhhab cannot bind anyone. Therefore, the naming of madhâhib such as madhhab 'Umar, madhhab 'Alî, madhhab Ibn 'Abbâs, madhhab 'Â'ishah, and so on, spreads out widely. These differences occurr since the sahâbah of the Prophet when dealing with Islamic legal-issues undertook the ways, methods, and approaches of undertanding and interpreting sacred texts which differed from one to another.
Madhhab at the times of Tâbi'în and Imâms of Madhhab
The origins of schools of Islamic laws (madhâhib) can be traced back to the end of Umayyad period, or approximately at the beginning of the second century of Islam. At that time, Islamic legal thought started to develop from the popular and administrative practices built upon from religious-ethics of the Qur'ân and Sunnah of the Prophet. Schacht calls this madhhab as "ancient schools of law", while Ahmad Hassan calls "the early schools of law". Schacht's thesis that legal traditions carry us back to about 100 A.H. is rejected not only by Muslim scholars, but also by other Western scholars, among others, Noel J. Coulson. According to Coulson,9 Islamic law is “the result of a speculative attempt by pious scholars, working during the first three centuries of Islam, to define the will of Allah… they produced a comprehensive system of rules, largely in opposition to existing legal practice, which expressed the religious ideal”. Most Muslim scholars believe that there was an activity in legal thought right from the beginning of Islam. This was indicated by the judicial activities at the time of the Prophet, the legal judgments of rightly guided caliphs (al-khulafâ' al-rashidûn), the fatwâs of the sahâbah and the legal literature of the first century.10
At this period, it appeared that there was a shift of the meaning of madhhab from the the meaning previously understood as those opinions attributed to the individual to those associated to particular areas. At this period, the various names of madhhab such as madhhab ahl al-Iraq, ahl al-Makkah, ahli al-Madînah, and ahl al-Shâm also emerged. Madhhab of
At this period, there were two dominant approaches to Islamic jurisprudence, “traditionalist” and “rationalist”. According to Nour,11 the first approach was represented by the fuqahâ' of Medina, such as Sa’îd al-Musayyab and others, who inherited not only the narration of the Companions, but also their spirit in restricting themselves from practical issues, and avoided from answering hypothetical questions (fiqh iftirâdî), as well as based their decisions on the traditions of the Prophet, the views of Sahâbat which were made as a rule or policy at the times of the caliphs Abû Bakr and 'Umar.
On the other hand, “rationalist” approach was dominated by the fuqahâ' of
Such definition of madhhab has undergone changes and modifications, from the opinions associated with the particular areas to those attributed to the individual scholar, which were supported and then spread out by his pupils and followers. These opinions became institutionalised through the support of the ruler or certain communities, especially after the time of the imâm al-Shâfi’î. Al-Shâfi’î not only argued against schools of Islamic laws (madhâhib) named based on certain areas, but also formulated a methodology of Islamic jurisprudence which was universal in nature, as can be seen in his book, al-Risâlah. This attempt in turn brings about the new madhhab with its particular name, and other madhâhib. These schools of Islamic law were in turn more known with the name of their founders rather than the areas where these schools emerged and developed. As the result, the naming of madhhab which is associated with particular areas dissapeared. The
It is such definition of madhhab that has dominated the Muslim world until these days. In such a country as
Contextual Fiqh: Considering an Indonesian Context
Although the Shâfi'ite school of Islamic law has penetrated into the consciousness of Islamic communities in Indonesia through the process of hegemony, there some Muslims who are encouraged to do some new breakthroughs to offer other forms of expression in madhhab, that is, what Azizy calls "the reform of madhhab” or “contextualization of ijtihâd” in Greg Barton's term. Both terms indicated an attempt to put Indonesian-based fiqh down on earth by looking through the social, cultural context of
Hazairin was one of the Indonesian Muslim jurists who insisted on the necessity of Islamic legal reasoning (ijtihâd). He also believes that Islam has flexibility to cope with the recent and dynamic phenomenon of society. Therefore, he had come to conclusion that the gate of ijtihâd is still open. What Hazairin meant by Islamic legal reasoning (ijtihâd) is not ijtihâd in ritual matters but in societal matters. He argued that, besides understanding Islamic science and knowlegde, every person who carries out an independent Islamic legal reasoning has also to understand sociological science and knowledge. And immitative attitude is not tolerated in Islam.12
Furthermore, Hazairin proposed what he called a national school of thought (mazhab nasional). By this new school of thought, he hoped that Indonesian Muslims would be able to reactualize their private law, especially the law which governs three matters:
1. Giving alms (zakât) which has to be systematized in accordance with modern financial management.
2. Marriage which has to be reactualized and accord with the spirit of women emancipation.
3. Inheritance which has to transform from a unilateral system towards a bilateral (parental one).13
On the other hand, Hashbie Ash-Shiddiqie, an expert of Islamic law from Aceh, promoted the establishment of Islamic law based on Indonesian context, taking a social and cultural environment of Indonesian Muslim-communities into account. The basic assumptions underlying Hashbie's notrions of Indonesian fiqh are:
1. Differentiating between sharî'ah and fiqh to determine the scope of Indonesian fiqh..
2. Understanding of the development of fiqh (târîkh al-tashrî'/al-madhâhib) to justify the existence of a regional fiqh, in this case an Indonesian fiqh.
3. A comparative study of Islamic jurisprudence (dirâsât al-muqâranah al-fiqhiyyah).
4. Social and cultural analyses to assist in solving problem that Indonesian Muslim jurists might encounter.14
Furthermore, Munawwir Sjadzali, a former minister of religious affairs of Indonesia, in the mid 1980s, came up with the idea of “reactualization of Islamic Law”, which, in fact, invited some responses and critiques particularly on the issue of inheritance. Sjadzali proposed to equalize the son and daughter in Islamic inheritance law for the sake of justice between of them.15
The arguments and logic Sjadzali used in "the reactualization of Islamic laws" as follows:
1. Applying the theory of abrogation if there is an indication that a rule of law established by earlier addressed speeches has become inoperative. It does so in such a manner that, were it not for the latter addresses speech, the rule would continue to be operative.16
2. Differentiating and classifying Islamic law into two spheres: Islamic law relates to the ritual matters and Islamic law relates to societal matters. The first classification is not mutable and cannot open to changes and modifications, while the second is mutable and can change according to changes in time and contexts.17
3. Looking to the history of the enforcement of Islamic law.18 In this case, Sjadzali urged us to imitate 'Umar b. Khattâb's courageous policies in adjusting the original teaching of Islam to the new situation. Some examples are 'Umar's policy and ijtihâd on administration of spoils in which 'Umar did not follow literally the pattern dictated by sûrat al-Anfâl: 41, and his reluctance to distribute the alms to the newly converted Muslims (muallaf). According to Sjadzali, Umar has served the true purposes of the application of the Islamic law (maqâsid al-sharî'ah): upholding justice, high morality, reasonability and the genuine popular interests.19
Social Based-Fiqh: Interaction of Islamic Laws with Social Problems
In Indonesian Muslim community, there has been also a trend to approach societal issues from the perspective of Islamic law (fiqh). This notion is called “social fiqh”. This term is still debatable in terms of its epistemology. However, it is generally understood that social fiqh focuses more on tenets concerning the relationship of people with other people – the individual with his or her society, and the community with other community. Or, in other words, social fiqh can be understood as a fiqh which has a social dimension or fiqh which is based on the relationship between individuals or social groups in society.20
In its development, social fiqh has a shift in meaning, it is not understood merely as part of fiqh any more, but as an attempt to actualize and optimize the traditional values of fiqh in order to come harmony with necessities of evolving social demands. The prominent figures who are well-known as the proponents of this notion are Ali Yafie21 and Sahal Mahfudh22. For them, the existing fiqh in terms of content is too sufficient. The only obstacle in dealing with modern demands lies on the way of presentation and reformulation. Therefore, what is needed is to do some tajdîd (modernization and innovation) and islâh (reconstruction), not deconstruction.
concluding remarks
Madhhab has gone through the development of meaning which was cyclical in nature, from opinions attributed to the individual, then to those related to particular areas or provinces, and then finally attributed to the imâms from their famous areas. It is madhhab in this particular sense that has still dominated the Muslim worlds, with the total obedience and strong attachement with the Imâms of madhhab and their interpreters. Changes and modifications in the meaning of madhhab indicates the relativity and historicity of madhhab. Therefore, both fanaticism of and overrelieance on madhhab is an absurd attitude.
In this context of the recent modern era, the awareness of the need for reform of madhhab emerges, in the sense that ijtihâd as a response to issues confronting Muslim community should look to social, cultural contexts which surround them. This is necessary since particular issues cannot emerge from empty spaces. The use of social sciences and humanities, and mastery of science and technology are primary prerequisite for perfroming ijtihâd which, it is in turn a way towards the emergence of new madhhab. Jurisprudential literatures of the second and third centuries cannot be made as the only reference (marja’) to solve the problems. Their existence is regarded just as supporting informations, not the most determining literature. The principle upheld in this case is al-muhâfazah ‘alâ al-qadîm al-sâlih wa al-akhdh bi al-jadîd al-aslah (upholding the good old-traditions and taking hold of the better-new traditions).
CATATAN
1 Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, Jilid 1, (Mesir: Muassasah Mishriyah), h. 379.
2 Qodry Azizy, Reformasi Bermazhab: Sebuah Ikhtiar Menuju Ijtihad Sesuai Saintifik-Modern, (
3 Ibid., 17.
4 Manzûr, Lisan, 11: 174.
5 Ahmad Sahal, “Umar bin Khattab dan Islam Liberal” in Wajah Liberal Islam di Indonesia, (
6 Mun'im Sirry, Sejarah Fiqih Islam: Sebuah Pengantar, Cet. ke-1, (Surabaya: Risalah Gusti, 1995), 40.
7 A.M. Haj Nour, “The Schools of Law: Their Emergence and Validity Today” in International Seminar on Islamic Law held at the Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, 1976, 57-9.
8 Mustafa Said al-Khin, Atsâr al-Ikhtilâf fi al-Qawâ’id al-Usûliyyah fi Ikhtilâf al-Fuqahâ, Cet. ke-4, (Kairo: Muassasah Risâlah, 1985), 35-118.
9 Noel J. Coulson, “The State and Individual in Islamic Law” in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, No. 6, 1957, 75.
10 Qodri Azizy, “The Concept of Madhhab and the Question of Its Boundary”, Jurnal Al-Jami’ah, UIN Sunan Kalijaga,
11 Nour, Schools, 60.
12 Hazairin, Tujuh Serangkai tentang Hukum, (Jakarta: Tintamas, 1974), 109-120.
13 Hazairin, Tujuh, 115; J.M. Muslimin, The Reactualization of Islamic Law: A Study of Trends and Methods of Islamic Legal Reform in
14 Yudian Wahyudi, Hasbi's Theory of Ijtihâd in the Context of Indonesian Fiqh, M.A Thesis, Mc.Gill University 1993, 80-88; Muslimin, Reactualization, 34-35.
15 Munawwir Sjadzali, Ijtihad Kemanusiaan, (Jakarta: Paramadina, 1997).
16 Iqbal Abdurrauf Saimima (ed), Polemik Reaktualisasi Ajaran Islam, Jakarta: Pustaka Panjimas, 1988), 6-8; Sjadzali, Islam, Realitas Baru dan Orientasi Masa Depan Bangsa, (Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia, 1993), 21-23; Sjadzali, Bunga Rampai Wawasan Islam Dewasa Ini, (Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia Press, 1994), 43.
17 Saimima, Polemik, 7-8; Sjadzali, Islam, 14.
18 Saimima, Polemik, 9-10; Sjadzali, Islam, 11-15, 25.
19 Saimima, Polemik, 11; Muslimin, Reactualization, 45.
20 Mahsun Fuad, Hukum Islam
21 Ali Yafie, Menggagas Fiqh Sosial, (Bandung: Mizan, 1994).
22 Sahal Mahfudh, Nuansa Fiqh Sosial, (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 1994).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar