The Correlation Between Rational and Sharia Rulings in Islamic Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Imamiyyah and Maturidiyyah Perspectives.

Abstract

This study explores the intricate relationship between rational judgment and Sharia rulings from the viewpoints of the Imamiyyah and Maturidiyyah schools of thought. The core inquiry addresses whether human actions inherently possess moral attributes—such as goodness or badness—prior to divine revelation, and whether a consistent correlation exists between the rulings of reason and those of Sharia. The significance of this discussion lies in its foundational role in shaping both ethical reasoning and legal interpretation within Islamic thought. Adopting a descriptive–analytical and comparative methodology, this research examines the theological and jurisprudential implications of rational–divine interrelation in both traditions. The findings reveal that Imamiyyah scholars affirm the independence and authority of reason in discerning moral values, maintaining that divine law never contradicts sound intellect. In contrast, Maturidiyyah scholars acknowledge this correspondence only within theological principles while rejecting it in the domain of legal rulings. These divergent positions reflect broader epistemological distinctions concerning the interplay between intellect, revelation, and divine legislation in Islamic legal theory.