Cited by 19Qur’anic Interpretation StudiesIslamic Studies and HistoryIslamic Thought and Society Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 59 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Legal Maxims (qawāʿid fiqhiyya) in Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī's Jurisprudence and Fatwas

Open access
Shaham, Ron·2021·Journal of the American Oriental Society

Abstract

Subsequent to the crystallization of the legal schools, Muslim jurists felt the need to consolidate the massive corpus of legal opinion in order to aid students and practitioners of the law. The result was legal maxims (qawāʿid fiqhiyya), concise theoretical statements that captured the objectives of the Sharia. An example is al-ḍarar yuzāl (“Harm must be removed”), which is based on the hadith lā ḍarar wa-lā ḍirār. This article analyzes the role of legal maxims in Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī's (b. 1926 in Egypt) jurisprudence and fatwas, as found in his numerous books and articles. Its preliminary assumption is that Qaraḍāwī uses legal maxims to control and systematize the use of considerations of public welfare (maṣlaḥa), especially in the field of “the jurisprudence of reality” (fiqh al-wāqiʿ). Because this fiqh deals mainly with political topics on which there are hardly any guidelines in scripture, and stems therefore from mostly nontextual benefits (maṣāliḥ mursala), it is an area vulnerable to undisciplined use of utilitarian considerations by jurists. Legal maxims then come in handy when weighing the relevant benefit and harm related to each topic.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The article analyzes how Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī uses Islamic legal maxims in his jurisprudence and fatwas, placing them below revealed texts and Sharia objectives in his ijtihād hierarchy. It argues that maxims are especially important for modern political, medical, and public-policy questions, where Qaraḍāwī weighs benefit and harm.

Key findings

  • Qaraḍāwī did not write a dedicated study on legal maxims, but refers to them under varied labels; he treats maxims grounded in clear Quranic or prophetic texts as definitive proofs, while generally ranking revealed texts first, Sharia objectives second, and maxims third.
  • In 32 fatwas where the author found maxim use, excluding the jurisprudence of Muslim minorities, maxims appear most often in contemporary political/public-policy topics (14 cases), new medical topics (6), and old topics newly illuminated by science (3); less often in family law (4), female modesty (2), bank interest (1), worship (1), and morality (1).
  • Maxims support leniency and necessity-based reasoning, such as permitting Western Muslims’ political participation, allowing interest-based home financing when Islamic banking is unavailable, permitting a woman to travel without a male relative, and prohibiting smoking and female genital mutilation based on modern evidence of harm.
  • In exceptional cases, harm-benefit balancing and necessity lead Qaraḍāwī to set aside clear textual indicators, for example permitting suicide attacks in Palestine, forbidding Israeli Palestinians from Knesset participation, and forbidding visits to al-Aqsa Mosque.

Methods

  • Doctrinal and textual analysis of Qaraḍāwī’s writings and fatwas, with an appendix listing fatwas drawn mainly from *Min hudā l-Islām: Fatāwī muʿāṣira* and some online sources.
  • The author identifies fatwas in which maxims are invoked, categorizes them by legal field and topic, and reconstructs how Qaraḍāwī integrates maxims with maqāṣid, revealed texts, and harm-benefit calculation.
  • The study situates Qaraḍāwī’s approach through comparisons with premodern jurists such as al-Qarāfī, al-Juwaynī, and al-Shāṭibī, and modern figures such as Muḥammad ʿAbduh, Rashīd Riḍā, and Bin Bāz.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a formal limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the count of 32 fatwas reflects the author’s own identification of maxim use and excludes *fiqh al-aqalliyyāt al-muslima*, so it is not a complete census of Qaraḍāwī’s fatwas.
  • Evident from the text: conclusions about Qaraḍāwī’s “fiqh of reality” depend on the author’s interpretation of selected published fatwas and writings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.2.0435

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

55 Sources not found · 43 No basis given · 8 Own interpretation · 5 Own result

Show all 52 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 46
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
59 of 59
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A gap exists in existing scholarship concerning the role legal maxims play in al-Qaradawi's methodology and fatwas.

    “The current study seeks to fill a gap by analyzing the role that legal maxims play in the methodology and fatwas of the well-known Egyptian jurist and mufti Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī (b.1926).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Premodern jurists extracted the leading maxims from revealed texts, which makes the maxims an integral part of Sharia.

    “Because premodern jurists extracted the leading maxims from revealed texts, which makes the maxims an integral part of the Sharia”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Qaradawi's methodology assumes that few older legal questions have consensus and that clear revealed texts for novel legal questions are rare.

    “since Qaraḍāwī's methodology assumes that the number of older legal questions on which there is consensus is low, and since there are rarely any revealed textual texts with regard to novel questions of law”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hasan, A. 2004. A Comparative Study of Islamic Maxims in Majallat al-Aḥkām al-ʿAdliyyah, Jordanian Civil Code and United Arab Emirates Law of Civil Transaction. The Islamic Quarterly 47: 47-68.
  2. ---, et al. 2016. The Relevance of Islamic Legal Maxims in Determining Some Contemporary Legal Issues. International Islamic University of Malaysia Law Journal 24: 415-51.
  3. ---. 2012c. Islamic Legal Maxims for Attainment of Maqasid-al-Shariʿah in Criminal Law: Reflec- tions on the Implications for Muslim Women in the Tension between Shariʿah and Western Law. In Women in Islam: Reflections on Historical and Contemporary Research, ed. T. Lovat, 117-34. Dordrecht: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shaham, R.
Corresponding author
Shaham, Ron
Venue
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Published
2021-09-19
Volume
140
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0003-0279 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-2289
OpenAlex
W3040887763
Cited by
19
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of the American Oriental Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Islamic Studies and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
Keywords
legal maxims, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, maslahah, Islamic jurisprudence, fatwa

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review