Evidences show that Ijtihad against Nass was not so ugly and unacceptable matter that it is today in the first centuries of Islam, and in other hand that respect and deference which we have nowadays in front of words of prophet of Islam (s.a.) and verses of holy Qur'an were not as strong as it is in these days.
For example when Omar said this famous expression of himself: “There were two Mut’a permitted (Halaal) in the age of Prophet (s.a.) and I forbid them and anyone who oppose I will punish him/her, Mut’a of women and Mut’a of Hajj1 (Tamattu Hajj by its specific form)”. We have heard a little or even never heard that any of Sahaba animadvert him in order that Ijtihad is not permitted in front of Nass, and in this strong form?
While if in our time greatest scholars and Faqihs of Islam say something like this, that “This act was permitted (Halaal) in the age of Prophet (s.a.) and I forbid that”, all people will be amazed and consider his expression invalid and unacceptable and they say nobody has the permission to forbid the permission of Allah and permit the thing that is forbidden by Allah, because invalidation of rulings or Ijtihad against Nass has no meaning at all.
But in the first age it was like this, and because of that we see cases that some of Faqihs let themselves to oppose divine rulings and perhaps the issue of denial of anointment of feet and changing it to Ghasl (washing) is one of examples of this act.
Maybe some persons thought that it is better to wash the feet which are often exposed to pollutions, and what benefit can anointment have, especially because in that age some of people where barefoot and did not wear shoes, and according to this one of respects to the guest was that someone brought water and washed his feet!
Proof of this expression is the text that author of Almanar has written beneath the verse of ablution for justifying the words of acceptors of Ghasl theory. He says: “Anointment of feet which are often dirty with wet hand does not make it clean, but also make it dirtier and hand will be polluted and dirty, too.
And famous Faqih of Ahl -e- Sonnat, Ibn Qudama (died 620 h.gh.), quotes from some persons that, feet are exposed to dirt and pollution but head is not like this, therefore it is preferred to wash the feed and perform anointment for the head.2 And in this way they prefer their Ijtihad and their Istihsan (preference) over the feature of verse of Qur'an and leave anointment and justify the verse unjustified.
But perhaps this group has forgot that ablution is a combination of cleaning and worship; Anointment of feet and with only one finger has no place in purifying and cleaning as some have issued Fatwa, also anointment of feet.
In fact anointment of head and feet refers to the point that person who performs ablution for prayer is obedient of Allah from top of the head to the pace, otherwise neither anointment of head is the cause of cleanliness nor anointment of feet.
Anyhow we obey the rules and orders of Allah and we do not have the right to change divine orders by our limited wisdom; when Qur'an orders in the last Sura that descended to Prophet (s.a.) that we should wash our hand and face and perform anointment of head and feet, we should not oppose that by philosophy makings of limited wisdoms of human and for justifying oppositions go for unjustified interpretations of words of Allah.
Yes, individual interpretation and Ijtihad against Nass are two major disasters that unfortunately have scratch the appearance of Islamic Fiqh in some cases.
1- Evidences of this Hadith mentioned in the issue of temporary Nikah.
2- Ibn Qudama Almughani, vol. 1, page 117.
