Why Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?
If the transformation of jurisprudence into an instrument of power narrowed the space for opinion, the next step was even more dangerous: the suffocation of ijtihad itself—not as a different opinion, but as a danger that had to be neutralized.
At this point, the crisis was no longer merely a crisis of freedom of opinion, but a crisis of reason.
Ijtihad… The Spirit of Jurisprudence
Ijtihad was never an intellectual luxury, nor a departure from the text. Rather, it was the mechanism through which Islamic jurisprudence preserved its connection with reality.
Through it, legal opinions changed with changes in time and place, rulings adapted to context, and the text remained alive rather than petrified.
Yet this flexibility was always a source of concern for both political and intellectual authorities.
From Ijtihad to “Safe Imitation”
With the consolidation of states and their fear of instability, ijtihad began to be viewed as an element of uncertainty.
A new opinion might open the door to debate; debate might lead to questioning; and questioning might threaten the existing balance.
Thus, taqlid—imitation—was preferred because it was safer and carried fewer political costs.
Was the Gate of Ijtihad Truly Closed?
Historically, the gate was not closed through a single official decision.
Rather, it was gradually narrowed in practice through:
• the sanctification of earlier opinions,
• the amplification of the authority of the legal schools,
• and the criminalization of departing from what had become dominant.
Over time, what had once been human reasoning came to be treated as a “second sacred authority” after the Qur’an—something no longer open to debate.
When Reason Is Replaced by Transmission
At this stage, the central question was no longer:
What does the Qur’anic text say?
Instead, it became:
What did the earlier scholars say about it?
This occurred while ignoring the changes in time, place, and the circumstances that had produced the earlier scholars’ views and ideas.
When reason is replaced by rigid transmission, freedom loses its meaning, and jurisprudence loses its capacity for renewal.
Fear… The Hidden Driver
Fear was the common factor:
• the authority’s fear of chaos,
• the jurists’ fear of error,
• and society’s fear of change.
Yet this fear, instead of protecting religion, froze it.
Instead of safeguarding belief, it transformed it into rituals detached from life.
What Did We Lose by Closing the Gate of Ijtihad?
We lost:
• the ability to keep pace with the times,
• flexibility in dealing with changing realities,
• and confidence in the Muslim intellect.
Religion came to be seen by many not as a stimulus, but as an obstacle.
Questioning became a burden rather than a virtue.
Can the Gate Be Reopened?
The question is no longer:
Is it permissible to reopen the gate of ijtihad?
Rather, it is:
Can we continue without reopening it?
The world has changed, realities have shifted, and the text, in its essence, is broader than a single reading.
In the next installment, we will move from history to the present moment and ask:
Is ijtihad a danger—or a forgotten obligation?
To be continued…
Cairo: Five in the evening, local time in al-Mahrousa.
