Abstract:

This research examines the methodology of discerning the objectives of Islamic law (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa) in the rulings related to marriage (nikāḥ) and divorce (ṭalāq) from the perspective of the two major Islamic schools of thought: Sunni and Shia. The significance of this study lies in the fact that understanding the methodological approaches of each school is key to comprehending the reasons behind jurisprudential commonalities and differences in family law, thereby enriching the field of comparative jurisprudence and promoting inter-school dialogue. The main objective of this article is to elucidate and compare the mechanisms, sources, and criteria employed by each school in inferring the intentions of the Lawgiver from textual evidence pertaining to marriage and divorce.

The research adopts a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach, relying on library-based study of primary jurisprudential and legal texts from both traditions. Findings indicate that while both schools share common overarching objectives such as preserving lineage, ensuring marital tranquility, and preventing harm, they differ fundamentally in their methodological approaches. Imami (Shia) jurisprudence, relying on the teachings of the infallible Imams and rational demonstration, follows a text-based and structured methodology. In contrast, Sunni jurisprudence—particularly within the Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools—employs a more flexible and interest-based (maṣlaḥa-oriented) approach by prioritizing public benefit and inductive reasoning across textual evidence.

These methodological differences have led to distinct interpretations of rulings such as dowry (mahr), khulʿ divorce, and the boundaries of guardianship in marriage.