The Rule of Considering Juristic Disagreement and Its Impact on Juristic Ijtihad

Abstract

This study examines the principle of consideration of juristic disagreement (Murāʿāt al-Khilāf) as a fundamental methodological tool in Islamic jurisprudence, particularly within the Mālikī school. The research highlights its role in achieving the objectives of Islamic law, such as facilitation, removal of hardship, prevention of harm, and realization of benefits. The paper begins by discussing juristic disagreement as a natural outcome of diverse interpretive methods and intellectual capacities among scholars. It then defines Murāʿāt al-Khilāf linguistically and technically, and traces its legal foundations in the Qur’an, Sunnah, practices of the Companions, and rational reasoning. Furthermore, the study clarifies the distinction between Murāʿāt al-Khilāf and the principle of “avoiding disagreement,” emphasizing that the former is an ijtihād-based principle applied after an act has occurred, in light of its consequences, while the latter is a precautionary rule applied beforehand. The research also outlines the conditions for applying this principle and analyzes its impact on the diversity of legal rulings, legal facilitation, justice, and scholarly convergence. The study concludes that Murāʿāt al-Khilāf represents a practical manifestation of considering consequences (fiqh al-maʾālāt) and demonstrates the flexibility and realism of Islamic law in addressing emerging realities while preserving its foundational principles.