When we heard or read in Medias reports on the Islamic Legal Schools, we are quite sure that we will read an approximation on the issue, not a real and sustained analysis. First of all, let’s seize the two paths to understand the Madh-habs:
– a) the synchronic or anachronic, which exposes the four called classic (Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’i and the Hambali) without desconstruction of this feature, giving as a ready made assert that they were always functional and that their number, four, is by itself a proof that the self-recognition between them and others or news is closed. In this sense, the particular intensity by which we face the architectural disposition in Al-Azhar iwans show the voluntary concept of a closed Shari’a.
The first step in the good direction is an approach based in Human Sciences,
– b) the diachronic, which has not been written yet, excepting attempts in Islamic Historiography by orientalists: in the first centuries of the Islamic History, there were a big number of schools, interested most of them in the War Law and Trade Law, and the Orthopraxis of ‘ibadât, of course. The most interesting is to check the heterodoxies ones, as the mu’tazili, the zahiri, the shi’a, and observe how the Islamic Law realizes in a progressive and extend on centuries work in al-Andalus the concepts of natural right and power’s separation in the Society under the Legitime Law, with the dynamic inherent of Ibn Rushd’s philosophy.
Furthermore, today I affirm the explicit fact that there’s is so many Islamic Legal Schools as Islamic Countries, and that News Schools are growing up right now, as neo-mu’tazilites in France, Qaidist worldwide and the Dogmática Situacionista Islamista on the Net, in this blog.