ISTINBĀṬ AL-AḤKĀM IN CLASSICAL SUNNI JURISPRUDENCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE FOUR MADHHABS

Abstract

The discourse on istinbāṭ al-aḥkām the derivation of Islamic legal rulings remains central to understanding how Islamic law maintains its relevance across time and context. This study explores istinbāṭ al-aḥkām as a dynamic epistemological framework within classical jurisprudence, focusing on how the four major Sunni jurists Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik ibn Anas, Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Syāfi‘ī, and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal constructed distinct yet complementary methodologies in applying revelation to social realities. Employing a qualitative library-based approach, the research analyzes primary classical sources such as al-Risālah and al-Muwaṭṭa’, alongside modern interpretations by Kamali, Auda, and Aziz, through a comparative-descriptive method. Data were collected through textual documentation and analyzed through content and comparative synthesis to identify the distinctive reasoning patterns of each imam. The findings reveal that the four imams shared common sources of law al-Qur’ān, al-Sunnah, ijmā‘, and qiyās but diverged in methodological emphasis: Abū Ḥanīfah through rational-analogical reasoning (istiḥsān), Mālik through communal practice and maṣlaḥah, al-Syāfi‘ī through linguistic textualism, and Aḥmad through transmitted authenticity. This diversity demonstrates that istinbāṭ al-aḥkām functions as a plural yet unified system of reasoning, balancing revelation, reason, and context. The study concludes that methodological plurality in uṣūl al-fiqh strengthens, rather than fragments, Islamic jurisprudence, ensuring its adaptability and ethical coherence across changing times and conditions.