Authority, Continuity, and Change
in Islamic Law

Wael B. Hallaq
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 269 pages.

This book traces the development of Islamic law from its earliest period to
the full formative period, when the major madhahib were established, to
show that institutionalizing Islamic law always involved a reasoned defense
and calculative move. Hallaq asserts that such processes were not an innova-
tion; rather, they were embedded in the structure of the original legal tradi-
tions that allowed for continual social change and the maintenance of order
and stability in Islam’s social system. Throughout the ages, the Shari‘ah has
been subjected to a dialectical milieu and change as dictated by varying social
conditions. This further stimulated change to maintain the established order’s
very essence, which was based on the logic of reasoning and calculation.

The juristic structure of authority did not remain very rigid and con-
servative as it seemed, except for a few cases. Rather, at a certain level,

Book Reviews 149



hermeneutics, insightfulness, and self-perception were the objective reali-
ties or normative standards when addressing the formulation of law and
change and development as such. Under varying sociopolitical and socio-
economic conditions, the schools’ founders were challenged to resolve a
crisis or respond to an ambiguity. In the process, many other schools, as
well as their accompanying methodologies and notions, developed. So,
contrary to the popular belief about the supremacy of the Hanafi, Maliki,
Shafi‘i, and Hanbali schools, as well as the conservative nature of Islamic
law, there emerged many other schools with specific hermeneutic tools.

In the first chapter, “Juristic Typologies: A Framework for Enquiry,”
Hallaq argues that there existed a wide variety of juristic typologies (com-
munities of legal specialists by various formal categories in the context of
historical circumstances and similarities within a particular theme) along
the lines of specific and original schools, and later deviations. These typolo-
gies were developed upon the hierarchical nature of laws, the relationship
of one type to another, historical context, and specific social circumstances.
Ibn Rushd classified the Maliki school into three categories based on how
and to what extent scholars were literalists or used reasoned judgment and
a syllogistic apparatus. Abu Amr ‘Uthman ibn al-Salah classified the
Shafi‘i school into six types under two categories, and Shaykh al-Islam
Ahmed Ibn Kamal Pashazadeh classified the Hanafi school into seven
ranks.

In the second chapter, “Early Ijtihad and the Later Construction of
Authority,” the author distinguishes between the earlier mujtahidun (main
founders) and the later development. The later mujtahid was formed as a
continuity when earlier ones had a memory loss or lag, and were based
upon historical accounts connected to a chronological rupture and a break-
down in harmony. Hallaq argues that a rupture emanated from systemati-
cally developed strategic moves rather than accidental events. This was
done to increase the later schools’ prestige and supremacy by separating
them from the earlier ones, often without exercising any ijtihad (reasoning),
and basing them upon personal opinions. To exemplify this point, the
author states that every school contained degrees of deviation. The Hanafis
and the Shafi‘is deviated the most from the original thinkers, while Malikis
remained in the middle and the Hanbalis deviated the least.

The third chapter, “The Rise and Augmentation of School Authority,”
argues that the “founders” were not truly absolute mujtahidun and did not
always exercise ijtihad across the board. Their authority was largely a
later creation, partly drawn from their attributions to the prime movers

150 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20:1



and partly to later denial of the earliest jurists’ significant contributions to
the formation of landmark figures and doctrines. This particular trend was
significantly associated with existing ideological biases, namely, often
the status quo or recognition that came into being because of individuals’
actual contributions and personal charisma, as well as historical forces in
conjunction with the period’s deciding power structure. For example, the
Shafi‘i scholar Muzani was a far more skilled and creative jurist than Ibn
Hanbal but did not emerge as a founder, despite the development of a
monumental treatise very distinct from the Shafi‘i school. Harmala, a stu-
dent of Shafi‘is, was subjected to similar adjudication.

The fourth chapter, “Taqlid: Authority, Hermeneutics, and Function,”
analyzes taqlid (imitation, emulation, or acceptance of the original doc-
trine or authority). According to the author, taqlid initially connoted
assuming the whole or a part and parcel of the Companions’ legal teach-
ings, as well as those of the Followers who had attained a high level of
training and understanding during the Companions’ lifetime, without
involving the acceptance of ijtihadi ruling. As time progressed, its mean-
ing changed to include accepting opinions from individuals (mujtahidun)
capable of using independent reasoning. In most cases, however, the pro-
cedural activity related to taqlid remained between the two opposites. In
addition, taqlid always involved juristic function, not just scholarly legal
writing (musannif). Interestingly, some individuals became famous by
simply reproducing their predecessors’ doctrine, and arrived within the
domain of a madhhab (founding authority) contingent upon the local polit-
ical and religious climates’ conducive nature. This particular process
depended upon addressing specific cases and sometimes upon their con-
texts, or both.

In the fifth chapter, “Operative Terminology and the Dynamics of
Legal Doctrine,” Hallaq states that taqlid (legal authority) was simply an
external expression of internal juridical dynamics. At the macro-level,
juridical activity remained an uncontested body of the total institutional
school, whereas at the micro-level, plurality of opinion within a given
school was almost a craft and drama of the time and hermeneutic philoso-
phy. The Hanafi and Maliki schools had divisions, and before his death
al-Shafi‘i had developed an “old” and a “new” doctrine. The Hanbalis fol-
lowed a similar trend. Such doctrinal variety produced an extensive techni-
cal vocabulary to distinguish between the types of legal opinion. The opin-
ions developed through takhriz (resolving specific problems by following
relevant ahadith as documented by the original narrators) was called wajuh

Book Reviews 151



by Shafi‘is and Hanbalis, riwayat by Malikis, and aqwal by Malikis. This
technical variation, which started early on due to the absence of a central
political authority, influenced later fiqh formulation.

Hallaq strongly asserts in the sixth chapter, “The Jurisconsult, the
Author-Jurist, and Legal Change,” that despite categorical denial by some
contemporary Muslim scholars, change occurred within the Islamic legal
system even after the formative period. These changes were not unwar-
ranted, for they took place within the congruency of tools that were funda-
mental and a structural feature of Islamic law. Thus, this part of the book
addresses the basic notion of fatwa (ruling under the dictates of circum-
stances). The author points out that this act and its process became an essen-
tial component of Islamic societies, varying across spatial geopolitical
zones, dictated by the passage of time or changing social conditions. The
four professions involved here are the qadi (judge), the mufti (jurisconsult),
the musannif (author-jurist), and the professor. Most of the time they func-
tioned interdependently.

In summary, the author has proved himself to be a very high level
scholar through his unique writing style and his central thesis that the
foundation of Islamic legal scholarship was far more flexible than con-
ceptualized by some contemporary Islamicists. And, moreover, that such
act of scholarship and the associated process often involved a continuous
use of reasoning, calculation, and functional logic in a very coherent fash-
ion, a methodological approach rooted in classical Islamic tradition.
Hallaq successfully probes the issue under investigation by moving his ini-
tial thesis from conjecturing to establishing a theory to its fullest extent,
accompanied by factually substantive evidence and scientific logic. In the
process of exploration and analysis to reach the final synthesis, all six
chapters and the concluding section remained in absolute congruency and
full harmony. However, the book falls short of its ultimate supremacy in
terms of appealing to a much larger and non-scholarly audience. A some-
what simplified approach in terms of language, structure, and philosophy
would be helpful, and a little less complicated approach would allow the
general reader to access this book and have a greater understanding of how
fiqh developed.

Muhammad M. Haque
Sociology Unit, Department of Social Sciences

Winston-Salem State University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

152 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 20:1