قرآن مجید کی آیاتِ احکام کے فہم میں مفسرین اور فقہاء کے مناہج

Abstract

This research article undertakes a comparative and analytical study of the methodologies adopted by classical and contemporary Mufassirin and Fuqaha in understanding the legal injunctions derived from the verses of the Holy Qur’an. The divergence in interpretive approaches has given rise to a rich yet complex tapestry of Islamic legal thought. The study examines how variations in linguistic analysis, reliance on hadith, principles of abrogation naskh, contextual considerations asbab al-nuzul, and the use of reason and juristic preference istihsan have shaped legal rulings. While mufassirun often focus on semantic and thematic coherence of the Holy Qur’an, fuqaha prioritize operational legal frameworks applicable to changing societies. Through a thematic and historical lens, this research identifies key epistemological differences and convergences between these two scholarly traditions. It argues that neither methodology is inherently superior; rather, their integration leads to a more holistic understanding of divine intent. The article also highlights contemporary challenges such as the neglect of maqasid al-shariah higher objectives of law and the growing chasm between textual literalism and contextual reasoning. By revisiting the hermeneutical principles of early luminaries like Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafii, and Ibn Rushd, the study proposes a renewed synthesis of tafsir and fiqh. Ultimately, the research calls for a humanized revival of ijtihad independent legal reasoning that honors the spirit of revelation while addressing modern ethical and legal dilemmas. The findings aim to bridge the gap between textual fidelity and living reality, offering a balanced framework for scholars and students of Islamic law.