DefinePK

Abstract

Islamic jurisprudence derives its rulings from four primary sources: the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijmāʿ (consensus), and Qiyās (analogical reasoning). In addition to these, jurists employ several subsidiary interpretive tools, such as istiḥsān (juristic preference), maṣlaḥah (public interest), sadd al-dharāʾiʿ (blocking the means), istiṣlāḥ, and ʿurf (custom). Among them, ʿurf occupies a special place as it reflects the lived practices of society, providing jurists with a contextual framework for understanding legal texts, contracts, and general provisions. However, it is not considered an independent source of law but rather a complementary instrument that supports interpretation and application within the boundaries of revelation. Classical jurists across the four Sunni schools recognized the value of ʿurf, though their acceptance varied in scope. Ḥanafī and Mālikī jurists gave greater weight to ʿurf in legislation and fatwā, while Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī scholars showed more cautious acceptance. The research also highlights the relationship between ʿurf and other principles like istiḥsān and maṣlaḥah, clarifying where it can strengthen juristic reasoning and where it must be limited to prevent deviation from divine injunctions. This comparative study concludes that ʿurf serves as a dynamic interpretive tool in fiqh, allowing Islamic law to remain practical and socially relevant without undermining its textual foundations. By evaluating the role of custom across different schools, the paper underscores its importance as a secondary but essential source in addressing contemporary issues through jurisprudence.