Methodological Analysis of the Istidlāl of Madhhab al-Zāhiriyyah and al-Syāfiʿiyyah in the Issue of Breaking the Fast: A Comparative Analysis of Uṣūliyyah

Abstract

The issue of acts that invalidate fasting is a significant topic in Islamic jurisprudence, reflecting notable differences among schools of thought. This study focuses on the methodological approach (istidlāl) of the Ẓāhirī and Shāfiʿī schools in determining rulings related to factors that nullify fasting. Employing a qualitative library-based methodology, the research analyses data from both classical (turāth) and contemporary sources representing the two schools. Through a comparative uṣūliyyah analysis, the study identifies the foundational differences in reasoning that lead to divergent rulings on issues such as eating and drinking unintentionally, cupping, and the use of medication. The findings reveal that the contrast between the two schools stems from their differing uṣūliyyah approaches. The Ẓāhirī school adheres strictly to the literal meaning of textual evidence without interpretation, while the Shāfiʿī school applies broader analogical reasoning (qiyās) and inference. This study highlights the importance of understanding juristic disagreement (khilāf fiqhī) through methodological analysis and encourages the practice of tolerance (tasāmuḥ) in responding to legal differences within Islamic jurisprudence.