A Critical Analysis of the Early Caliphs' Ijtihad and Its Impact on the Formation of Islamic Jurisprudence from the Perspective of Imam Ali (AS)
Document Type : Research
Author
Ph.D. student of Philosophy of Law, Bagheral Uloom University, Qom; and fourth level student of Qom seminary.
10.22081/iqiri.2025.71341.1188
Abstract
One of the key issues in Islamic jurisprudence is the difference in ijtihad methodology between Imam Ali (AS) and the early caliphs, particularly Abu Bakr and Umar. The early caliphs sometimes used methods like qiyas (analogy), istihsan (juridical preference), and masalih mursala (public interest) to derive legal rulings. In some cases, these approaches conflicted with the clear texts of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH). In contrast, Imam Ali (AS) stressed strict adherence to revealed texts and rejected personal ijtihad that could alter divine rulings. His approach laid the foundation for Shi’a jurisprudence, while the early caliphs’ reliance on qiyas influenced the formation of Sunni legal schools. This study, using a descriptive-analytical approach and drawing on authoritative historical and jurisprudential sources, explores the evolution of ijtihad among the early caliphs and Imam Ali’s (AS) responses. The findings reveal that methodological differences in legal derivation significantly shaped Islamic jurisprudence and led to distinct legal traditions. Sunni schools gradually accepted qiyas and personal reasoning as valid sources, while Shi’a jurisprudence remained rooted in the Quran, the Sunnah, and narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt (AS). The results show that Imam Ali’s (AS) critiques of early caliphs' ijtihad not only influenced Shi’a jurisprudence but also had broader political and social effects. By examining these differences and their impact on Islamic legal structures, this research highlights the need to reassess jurisprudential methods and uphold authentic religious principles in addressing contemporary challenges.
Keywords
)