<![CDATA[Classical usul al-fiqh produced two ways of constructing legal theory: the deductive tariqah al-mutakallimin and the inductive tariqah al-hanafiyyah. Studies of Islamic law reform often contrast them as "normative" versus "contextual" and recommend combining them, yet rarely identify the theological premises behind each method or engage the historical precedent of tariqah al-jam'. This conceptual study applies qualitative content analysis to primary usul works and contemporary literature to answer three questions: what distinguishes the two methods, how the difference operates in concrete rulings, and what operational model of integration can be formulated. The findings show that the distinction is not reason versus text, since both methods are rational; they differ in the direction of reasoning and in their kalam premises on the rational knowability of good and evil. Four comparative cases (khamr and nabidh, guardianship in marriage, salam, and ijarah) show that divergence arises from specific rules on solitary reports, general terms, istihsan and the concept of rukn. The study proposes a four-stage model of verification, contextualization, maqasid testing and tarjih, and tests it on the 2021 Indonesian fatwa on cryptocurrency. The model develops tariqah al-jam' from a method of writing into an auditable procedure of collective ijtihad.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
