According to the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 83rd session of the “Method on Sundays” series of this research institute was held online and in Arabic, focusing on the methodology of deduction from the Holy Quran in Sunni jurisprudential works.
This session, held in the presence of Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Sa’d al-Ka’bi, Academic Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the University of Kufa, Dr. Mohammad-Ali Mirzayi, faculty member at Al-Mustafa International University, and Dr. Layth al-‘Attabi, professor at the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the University of Kufa, while meticulously examining the historical approaches of Sunni jurists, emphasized the necessity of transitioning from a purely comparative view toward an evolutionary and problem-oriented approach in contemporary jurisprudence.
Dr. al-Ka’bi initially, while honoring the memory of the Martyred Leader and the martyrs of the American-Zionist imposed war, commenced his remarks by pointing to the importance of scientific research in the methodology of deduction using Quranic texts.
The Academic Vice-Dean at the University of Kufa, with the goal of elucidating jurisprudential foundations and how Quranic texts are utilized in one of the prominent Sunni jurisprudential works, presented his material by addressing the importance of the book Al-Mughni as a commentary on Mukhtasar al-Khiraqi.
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen al-Ka’bi, in explicating Ibn Qudamah’s methodology in Al-Mughni, stated that he remarkably utilized Quranic verses in deducing jurisprudential rulings. In this regard, he said: “The prominent point in Ibn Qudamah’s work is the abundant use of Quranic text in this commentary. He utilized Quranic verses copiously, such that there is no jurisprudential issue unless a sentence from the noble verses, from the beginning of the book (purity) to its end, is cited as evidence.”
Based on Dr. al-Ka’bi’s analysis, Ibn Qudamah’s general methodology rests upon “the linguistic dimension and lexical indication of the Quranic text, as well as upon customary apparent meaning (zuhur-e ‘urfi) in articulating rulings.” He explained that Ibn Qudamah, relying on linguistic meanings, apparent meanings, absolute expressions, and qualifications, proceeds to deduce rulings, even attending to various Quranic variant readings (qira’at).
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen al-Ka’bi considered one of the unique features of Ibn Qudamah’s methodology to be his ability to justify differing variant readings of the Quran and the manner of qualifying text based on consensus (ijma’) and Hadith.
In conclusion, Dr. al-Ka’bi expressed gratitude for the opportunity to present this scientific analysis, emphasizing the importance of meticulously examining deductive methods in jurisprudence, and expressed hope that this session presented a clear picture of Ibn Qudamah’s analytical precision and methodical approach in utilizing the Quran as a primary source of jurisprudential deduction.
Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Layth al-‘Attabi, while expressing gratitude to the session organizers, pointed to the vastness of the subject of Quranic deductive methodology, explaining that his research focused on Jassas al-Hanafi as a representative of the Hanafi school.
Dr. al-‘Attabi examined the book Ahkam al-Qur’an by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ali al-Razi, known as Jassas al-Hanafi (d. 370 AH), to elucidate his methodology in deducing Sharia rulings from the Quran, with emphasis on Hanafi jurisprudential foundations. He stated the purpose of this choice as becoming acquainted with how Hanafi jurisprudence was executed by one of the most prominent jurists of this school, famous for the precise execution of its principles, particularly analogy (qiyas).
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen al-‘Attabi, stating that the Holy Quran as the primary source of Islamic legislation holds a special standing in deducing rulings, referred to numerous works by Muslim scholars in this field, considering Jassas’s book Ahkam al-Qur’an a prime example of executing Hanafi Usul al-Fiqh principles in deducing rulings from Quranic verses.
The University of Kufa professor emphasized the importance of understanding the methodology of deduction from the Quran among Sunni jurists. He also added that this research, presenting a reading from an Imami perspective, seeks to articulate commonalities and points of divergence in deduction methodology between the two jurisprudential schools.
Dr. al-‘Attabi elaborated his research approach across five essential axes: introducing Jassas and his book, examining general foundations of his method in Quranic deduction, deductive tools he employed, the impact of the Hanafi school on his deductions, and finally, evaluating his method from an Imami viewpoint.
He stated: This research demonstrates that Jassas, like many Sunni jurists, considers the Holy Quran the primary source for deducing rulings, and in interpreting verses of rulings (ayat al-ahkam), relies on Hanafi jurisprudential foundations and principles, particularly analogy (qiyas) and juristic preference (istihsan). Selecting numerous examples from this book, he analyzed Jassas’s methodology in deducing from the Holy Quran and examined his foundational principles.
The University of Kufa professor emphasized the importance of such comparative studies in deeper comprehension of jurisprudential deduction methods and finding commonalities and points of divergence among various Islamic schools.
In the concluding part of his speech, Dr. Layth al-‘Attabi addressed the contemporary trend in Sunni jurisprudence and its difference from historical approaches, emphasizing its importance in civilizational dialogue among Muslims.
At the conclusion of this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mohammad-Ali Mirzayi, while expressing appreciation for Dr. al-Ka’bi and Dr. al-‘Attabi’s presentations examining the methodology of deduction from the Holy Quran, emphasized the importance of the contemporary approach in Islamic jurisprudence and the necessity of an evolutionary view among schools of thought.
The faculty member at Al-Mustafa International University enumerated two main approaches in Islamic jurisprudence (Shi’i and Sunni). First, the historical approach with a focus on past methods and research; and the contemporary approach addressing the provision of solutions and empowering jurisprudence to face the challenges of the present era.
Dr. Mirzayi emphasized the importance of the contemporary approach, considering it common ground for civilizational dialogue among Muslims (Shi’i and Sunni).
He further described the evolutionary view, unlike the comparative view, as a perspective wherein Sunni jurisprudence and Imami jurisprudence complement one another, without ignoring distinctions. This approach steers discussions away from purely descriptive modes toward “treatment and problem-solving.”
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mirzayi, posing a question, stated: “Today, what factor has caused Sunni jurisprudential thinkers, such as Mohammad Ghazali, Qaradawi, Jaber al-Alwani, and others, to call people toward the objectives of Sharia (Maqasid al-Shari’ah) and distance themselves from literal and atomistic interpretation? Why has Maqasid-based jurisprudence grown to such an extent among Sunnis and reached such a level of dynamism and wonder?”
He then added: “It is true that we as followers of Imami jurisprudence do not accept their objectives in that exact meaning, but does our jurisprudence not face this very same challenge? It must be asked how Imami jurisprudence can compensate for gaps such as the absence of a Maqasid-based perspective?”
In conclusion, Dr. Mirzayi expressed hope that holding these sessions continues so that Sunni jurisprudence, both in its traditional form and contemporary shape, is examined fundamentally and precisely.
The session “Methodology of Deduction from the Quran in Sunni Jurisprudence” at the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, by highlighting the importance of deep comprehension of jurisprudential sources and deduction methods, opened a new window toward constructive dialogue among Islamic schools of thought. Emphasis on the necessity of an evolutionary and Maqasid-based perspective on jurisprudence, beyond purely historical and comparative analyses, transformed this session into an appropriate opportunity to reflect on the challenges facing Islamic jurisprudence in the contemporary era. It is hoped that with the continuation of such sessions, we witness an effective step toward enriching Islamic jurisprudence and presenting comprehensive solutions for newly emerging issues (masa’il-e mustahdasah).