The Reasoning Behind Rulings of Dislike in the Hanbali School: An Analytical Study Based on Kashshaf al-Qina'

Abstract

Abstract

This study aims to uncover the methods of reasoning employed by the Hanbali jurists in their rulings of dislike (karahah) as presented in Kashshaf al-Qina‘. The research is structured into an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion, and applies both inductive and applied methodologies. The inductive approach is used to trace instances of juristic rulings deemed disliked along with their stated reasons, while the applied approach analyzes these justifications and relates them back to overarching principles and legal maxims from which various subsidiary rulings emerge.

The study first discusses the concept of ta‘lil (legal reasoning) in usul al-fiqh, alongside its broader linguistic usage, before addressing the motives behind the Hanbalis’ resort to reasoning. It then identifies the principal forms of justification, including: construing a prohibition as implying dislike rather than prohibition when supported by context, reliance on analogical reasoning (qiyas), deference to the opinions of Companions, contravention of established Sunnah, avoidance of scholarly disagreement, and adherence to precaution.

The findings highlight the Hanbalis’ close attention to the higher objectives of Shari‘a (maqasid al-shari‘a) and their use of these objectives both in issuing rulings and in weighing between divergent opinions.