Arguably usul al-fiqh has existed by virtue of necessity for as long as fiqh has. There can be no fiqh in the absence of its related sources and derivational methodologies. The relationship between these distinct disciplines is comparable to that of grammar and language with usul setting out standard criteria for the correct deduction of rules of fiqh from its sources. Thus both disciplines have accompanied one another by necessity from the outset Kamali 1991. However, the codification of fiqh preceded that of usul. In the early Islamic era, there was not an impetus to codify usul al-fiqh. Whilst the Prophet may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him was alive he provided guidance and solutions to problems through divine revelation and direct rulings. Following his death when novel situations presented themselves the companions performed ijtihaad with reference to the divine sources without a pressing need to explicitly detail their methodology. Their authoritativeness in this respect can be attributed to their exalted position as the direct recipients of prophetic teachings which cultivated within them a unique intimacy to the sources and intrinsic mastery of derivation. Their successors. Tabi un was able to similarly carry out ijtihaad without prompting a need to explicate their methodology Nadwi 1999. During and following the latter period of this generation however, the expansion of the territorial domain of Islam gave rise to new challenges. The mixing of Arabs and non-Arabs diluted the Arabic language new realities requiring the exercise of ijtihaad increased and there was the emergence of increasing variance and disputation in juristic thought. The divergent legal opinions could be traced geographically as a result of the scattered dissemination of Ahadith and legal judgments of the companions.
