تفاسیر قرآن میں فقہی اختلافات: اسباب ومناہج کا مطالعہ

Abstract

This research explores the jurisprudential differences found in Tafasir of Holy Qur'an, focusing on their underlying causes and interpretive methodologies. Qur’anic commentators have historically derived varying legal rulings from the same divine text due to several factors including linguistic nuances, variations in qira’at, recitation styles, differences in principles of hermeneutics, reliance on abrogated rulings, regional juristic traditions, and the influence of theological schools. The study investigates how classical and contemporary exegetes approached legal verses, and why interpretive divergence occurred even among major commentators like al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Razi, and al-Shawkani. It classifies the methods employed: literalist, rationalist, contextualist, and traditionalist, while highlighting how these approaches shaped distinct legal conclusions. The article argues that jurisprudential differences in tafsir are not signs of contradiction but reflect the richness of Islamic legal theory and the flexibility of Shariah. These differences have preserved intellectual vitality and ijtihad across centuries. However, misunderstanding these differences has sometimes led to sectarian rigidity. The research calls for a balanced approach that appreciates methodological pluralism within the boundaries of authentic exegetical principles. Ultimately, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how juristic reasoning operates within the field of Qur’anic interpretation, offering a bridge between classical scholarship and modern legal thought.