The Principle of Whether Every Independent Reasoning Jurist is Correct and Its Foundational Impacts in Light of Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi ‘s Al-Faqih wa Al-Mutafaqqih

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the scholars' views on the principle of whether every independent reasoning jurist is right, highlighting Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi's approach of discussing evidence and responding to objections on the issue, as well as to identify the foundational impacts arising from the disagreement on the matter. The inductive method was adopted. The study key findings revealed that the" correctness and error" issue was one of the major issues where disagreement among scholars of Islamic jurisprudence Principles was prevalent. The independent reasoning in which scholars disagreed on this principle pertained to speculative matters, not definitive or rational ones. Expressions on this matter varied: Ash'arites believe there was no specific ruling from Allah on these issues, but rather the ruling was determined by conjecture, while the Mu'tazilites believe there was a Divine ruling that the independent reasoning jurist must seek. The favored view was of the majority of Usul scholars that the truth was singular and not multiple, and that if a mujtahid erred without having been negligent in his ijtihad, there was no basis for claiming sinfulness. Independent reasoning was invalidated if it contradicts an evident analogy