دراسة أصولية في أهلية الإفتاء لغير المجتهد

A fundamental study on the eligibility of non-mujtahids to issue fatwas

Abstract

This article examines a significant issue in Islamic legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh): the eligibility of non-mujtahids to issue Islamic legal opinions (fatwās). The study is motivated by the contemporary reality in which absolute mujtahids (mujtahid muṭlaq) have become extremely rare, while the need for fatwās continues to grow across various aspects of Muslim life. The article aims to identify the position of uṣūl scholars regarding the legitimacy of non-mujtahids issuing fatwās, to determine the scholarly parameters governing such eligibility, and to construct a systematic theoretical framework that guides the role of non-mujtahids in addressing contemporary legal questions (nawāzil). The research employs a library-based methodology combining inductive, analytical, and comparative approaches, drawing upon both authoritative and non-authoritative classical uṣūl and fiqh references. The study arrives at two principal conclusions. First, the ruling on non-mujtahid fatwās is not a single uniform judgment, but rather a differentiated one that varies according to the form of fatwā involved: independent legal derivation from primary sources without proper qualification is prohibited; the faithful and accurate transmission of established scholarly opinions is permissible under its governing conditions; and issuing fatwās within a recognized legal school (madhhab) is permitted for those who have mastered the school and identified its authoritative positions, while major contemporary issues and complex modern questions must be referred to collective scholarly bodies and official fatwā institutions. Second, the parameters governing the eligibility of non-mujtahid fatwās comprise six conditions: possessing adequate knowledge of the issue at hand, correctly comprehending the case in its proper context, giving due consideration to the objectives of Islamic law (maqāṣid al-sharīʿah) and the consequences of the ruling, and maintaining scholarly restraint and piety by saying "I do not know" when the ruling is unclear.