Neo-traditionalists cite this (potentically mythical?) event as their reason for banning the wholescale use of independent reasoning. This incident is typically tied to an apparent 10th century consensus of classical scholars. The four sunni schools of thought had been essentially established by this point and dissenting creeds (such as the mu'tazilah) had been largely wiped out.

KAEF suggests it may find its origins in 19th century British colonialism as a means to portray muslim law as outdated so they could carry the ''white man's burden'' of ''saving'' uncivilized races - i.e. replacing local muslim laws with the British's.

What do you guys think about this ''closing of the doors of ijtihad'' event that traditionalists use? Is this an authoritative, eternal dogma that statized Islamic fiqh?

Less extreme traditionalists may concede that theological disputes seemed to be relegated only to the minor fiqh issues and how to apply shariah, but never the fundamental premises that the muslims believed to be true and had formed their basic legal understanding on. So for example, they may dispute on what a tazir punishment should look like in a certain context, but they don't dispute Ash'ari Divine Command Theory-style thinking. Rationalist theological understandings of shariah and fiqh were never their thing. Even if certain scholars like Al-Ghazali may occasionally employ elements of rationality, the scholars as a whole never based their doctrine or fundamental understanding of fiqh on rationalism as a priority. (Rationality ≠ Rationalism)