abstract
-
This chapter evaluates and reconsiders some of the interpretive strategies and epistemological foundations of the current form of
ijtihad . The basic thesis is that the moral rationalist presuppositions of Muslim reformers are diametrically opposed to the traditional jurists’ text-centered epistemological assumptions. The chapter contends that the current form of inferential jurisprudence (al-fiqh al-istidlali ) should be replaced byneo-ijtihadism and that, should this transition occur, it will engender major paradigmatic shifts in the genre of rulings pronounced. An Islamic reformation also requires a revision of the epistemological and methodological foundations that undergird the current Islamic legal system. These are the key principles and procedures that guide a jurist in his interpretation and application of the rulings he deduces. The chapter also suggests different exegetical and hermeneutical strategies that neo-ijtihadism could adopt and proposes solutions that synthesize hermeneutical strategies with current exigencies so as to make Islamic law more moral, rational, and practical.