Invalid istidlal in the hanifa methodical doctrine

Istidlal, meaning that inferring a thing from another thing, is a form of legal reasoning or ratiocination. This thesis examines the matter of invalid istidlal within the context of the Hanafi doctrine or school. Hanafi scholars consider istidlal not as a distinct source of Islamic law other than the Koran, the Sunnah, written materials of Islamic scholars and qiyas-specific documents, but as a method utilised in comprehending the Islamic order and its obvious rules. The thesis reveals that istidlal, according to Hanafi scholars, is a discourse-based method of understanding the Islamic order and finding out its provisions. These scholars attach importance to the content of the discourse concerned rather than the sermonizer's will or intent. The scholars, regarding istidlal as an instrument taken into account in identifying the order and its apparent principles, embrace a prudent approach by separating valid istidlals from their invalid counterparts. They classify those obtained via the methodological perspectives of inscription, denotation and contextualisation as valid istidlals whilst categorising those acquired through the other methodological standpoints as invalid istidlals. The thesis systematically analyses the followings: the meanings of valid and invalid istidlals under the Hanafi doctrine, the types of invalid istidlals, the reasons and grounds why some istidlals are acknowledged as invalid, several views arguing that Hanafi Muslims draw on some methods associated with the invalid form of istidlal and those other views scrutinising the aforementioned arguments. Keywords: Islamic Law, Istidlal, Valid-Invalid Istidlal, Types of Invalid Istidlal