Jurisprudential Subject Analysis versus Identification of Legal Rationale: A Critical Reconsideration of Evaluating Textual Evidence

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research (Fast Track Review)

Author

, Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Department of Political Jurisprudence and Professor of advanced levels of Qom seminary

10.22034/jrj.2025.71263.2955

Abstract

One way to rationally question the validity of textual narration when deducing religious rulings is to challenge the interpretations of religious texts. To accurately uncover the legislator's intent, two approaches are essential: identifying the rationale behind Sharia rulings and determining the real subject matter with its specific limitations. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine the foundations and implications of scholars' opinions on jurisprudence principles. It argues for rethinking the role of jurisprudential subjectology in ijtihad by comparing its potential for uncovering true subject matter with its capacity to identify the rationale behind rulings. The primary aim was to highlight how jurisprudential subjectology can enhance ijtihad. The findings reveal that discovering the rationale behind rulings, whether through rational analysis or customary understanding, faces significant challenges. In contrast, relying on customary understanding as a criterion for identifying true subjects, both in conceptual analysis and contextual interpretation (verbal, rational, or customary), offers greater potential for accurately interpreting religious texts. This underscores the need to reassess and elevate the position of jurisprudential subjectology in ijtihad.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Journal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 22 November 2025

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics