اختلافِ فقہاء کا اخلاقی معیار: ائمہ مجتہدین کے استنباطی اصولوں کا تقابلی مطالعہ

Abstract

This research paper explores the ethical framework and scholarly decorum embedded within the juristic disagreements among the renowned Imams of Islamic jurisprudence. Far from being a source of division, the differences among the Fuqahāʼ (jurists) illustrate the intellectual richness and methodological diversity of Islamic legal thought. By examining the inferential principles (Usūl al-Istinbāṭ) adopted by leading Mujtahidīn such as Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Imām Mālik, Imām al-Shāfiʿī, and Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, the study uncovers how their disagreements were governed by deep ethical commitment, scholarly humility, and a mutual recognition of ijtihād’s sanctity. This comparative analysis reveals that Islamic legal pluralism was built not on conflict but on a disciplined ethic of divergence rooted in sincere pursuit of truth. The findings aim to provide a framework for reviving respectful discourse in contemporary Islamic scholarship by emulating the moral and methodological ethos of classical jurists.