Legal deduction from the Qur’an and Sunnah: A comparative study between the Sunni and Shiite schools

Abstract

This study analyzes the methodologies of Islamic legal inference (Ijtihad) within Sunni and Shia schools, focusing on their Quranic, Hadith, and Usul al-Fiqh (legal theory) foundations. It presents practical examples from Quranic narratives and contemporary legal issues to illustrate these approaches. Employing a comparative methodology, the research examines legal texts and scholarly opinions from both schools. The study's significance lies in addressing a gap in comparative applied studies on legal inference principles between these two traditions and proposing the development of more flexible inferential tools to meet modern needs.

The findings indicate that both schools agree on the centrality of the Quran as a primary source for legal rulings. However, they differ in their engagement with Quranic text, the authority and acceptance criteria of Hadith, and the acceptance of Qiyas (analogical reasoning), while agreeing on the importance of Ijma (consensus), albeit with differing stipulations. These differences highlight the richness of Islamic jurisprudence and underscore the need for continued dialogue and rapprochement between the various legal schools.