The Agreed Principles of Deriving Islamic Rulings and their Impact: A Research Study of the Opinions of Jurists and Mujtahids

منہجِ استنباطِ احکام کے متفقہ اصول اور ان کے اثرات: مجتہدین و فقہاء کی آراء کا تحقیقی جائزہ

Abstract

This research explores the unified methodology (manhaj) adopted by classical Islamic jurists (mujtahidīn) and legal scholars (fuqahāʾ) for deriving legal rulings (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām) from the primary sources of Islamic law, the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. In addition to the clear textual evidences (naṣṣ), the Islamic legal system provides mechanisms such as ijmāʿ (consensus) and qiyās (analogical reasoning) to address non-explicit legal issues. The study finds that the foundational principles for istinbāṭ are largely agreed upon among the leading schools of Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the four Sunni madhāhib (Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī). While minor differences do occur in application, these are generally based on interpretational preferences (rājiḥ vs marjūḥ) rather than on fundamental legal contradictions. The study draws from historical and contemporary sources to demonstrate how these jurists applied agreed-upon principles to address emerging issues in various contexts. It also explores how their methodology helped maintain legal coherence and unity in the Muslim Ummah despite contextual differences. Furthermore, the research reflects on early applications of juristic reasoning by the Companions (ṣaḥābah), such as ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s deduction of punishment for intoxication through analogical linkage to slander. The study concludes that the agreed methodology of legal derivation in Islamic law not only offers a consistent legal framework but also ensures that Islamic jurisprudence remains dynamic, adaptable, and spiritually rooted.