A Critical Comparative Study of Sunni and Twelver Shia Approaches to Legislative Sources and Their Impact on Jurisprudential Rulings

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Sunni and Twelver Shia in sources of legislation and their impact on deriving jurisprudential rulings, providing a critical comparative analysis. The research aims to clarify how the prioritization of sources affects rulings in worship, transactions, personal status, and legal punishments, while highlighting the wisdom behind divergent jurisprudential opinions.

The study employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, drawing on classical and contemporary sources, comparative jurisprudence texts, fatwas, and analysis of Qur’anic and prophetic texts. It also reviews recent studies and compares jurists’ positions to identify points of agreement and divergence.

The findings show that differences in source prioritization lead to diverse rulings but remain within the framework of Sharia objectives. Understanding each school’s methodology allows for rulings that balance religious, social, and ethical considerations. The study concludes that a critical comparative approach enhances jurisprudential awareness and supports the development of rulings that serve the public interest while respecting jurisprudential diversity.