Comparative evaluation of the ayahs of ahkam in cessas and qurtubi exegesis (criminal law example)

This study comparatively examines how classical period Islamic criminal law was interpreted within the context of the tafsir of ahkam verses, through the works "Ahkâmü'l-Kur'ân" by the Hanafi scholar al-Jassas (d. 370/981) and "el-Câmi' li-ahkâmi'l-Kur'ân" by the Maliki scholar al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273). The study specifically addresses fundamental criminal law offenses such as zina, qadf, sirqa, hırâba, and bağy. It analyzes how the ahkam verses related to these crimes were interpreted within the framework of two different madhhab and tafsir traditions. The systematic approach of Jassas, which highlights rational proofs within the Hanafi methodology, is comparatively evaluated with Qurtubi's more hikma-oriented, contextual, and inter-madhhab-inclusive method of interpretation. The study systematically examines the interpretations of the mufassirûn on criminal law through intertextual comparative analysis. This method allows for the consideration of not only the fiqhî interpretations of the two mufassirūn but also the influence of the social, political and intellectual contexts of their respective eras on their tafsîrât. In addition to hadd punishments such as zinâ, qaḏf, sirqa, hirâba, and baġy, their approaches to verses concerning qisâs, diya, and tazîr are compared, revealing the differences in their interpretations.In the study, offenses such as khamr (intoxicants/alcohol) and irtidâd (apostasy) have been excluded from the scope. The primary reason for this is that the injunctions in the Quran regarding these offenses are not based on direct and explicit rulings but rather on indirect references or Sunnah-based practices. Therefore, the study is limited to crimes that are directly regulated by the ahkam verses of criminal law. Our study, while revealing how criminal law was interpreted within the classical period tafsir tradition, also identifies the reflections of inter-madhhab differences at the methodological and content-related levels. The distinctions between al-Jassas's normative-fiqhî ijtihâd method and al-Qurtubi's more comprehensive and contextual approach not only offer a historical comparison but also provide a rich methodological perspective that can contribute to contemporary Islamic legal thought