by Daniel Haqiqatjou
When you compare the traditional schools of fiqh, you will find some of them to be more difficult to follow in some areas and easier to follow in other areas. For example, the requirements and conditions of wudu in School A might be more difficult to satisfy than School B but School B is easier or more lenient in terms of travel, etc.
But when you look at the opinions of modern reformers on matters of fiqh, they all trend in one direction. They all take very predictable positions with the only apparent common thread tying them together is that they accord with and accommodate the sensibilities, biases, and aspirations of modern Western bourgeois people. Any rational person can see that this is not a coincidence. This is the glaring red flag that signals to us that these reformers have no consistent usul, i.e., principles, by which they are deriving their opinions. Rather, they settle on their opinion, whatever is most concordant with the dominant social conventions, i.e., what they sometimes call "reason," and then, after the fact, try to cobble together a justification from a highly selective reading of the Quran and hadith, and perhaps other rare minority opinions they may find from legit ulama.
Despite all this, these reformers insist on being taken seriously by the rest of us lol