The Status of Jurisprudential Maxims in the Rulings and Rituals of Hajj from the Perspective of Islamic Schools of Thought

Abstract

Jurisprudential maxims, as distinguished from principles of Islamic jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh), refer to general legal rules that apply across various branches of Islamic jurisprudence and serve as a basis for deriving particular legal rulings. Jurisprudential maxims constitute an important foundation of Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic law. The necessity of examining jurisprudential maxims in the present study arises from the fact that deriving general rulings from these maxims can provide solutions to many jurisprudential impasses in different areas of Islamic law, including Hajj. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims to analyze the manner in which jurisprudential maxims influence the rulings and rituals of Hajj. The principal jurisprudential maxims examined in this context include the maxims of no harm (lā ḍarar), necessity (iḍṭirār), negation of hardship and undue difficulty (nafy al-ʿusr wa al-ḥaraj), common applicability of legal rulings, sufficiency and discharge of obligation (ijzāʾ), passing beyond the point of doubt and completion (tajāvuz and farāgh), the prescribed pilgrimage stations (mīqāt), and the prohibition against disrespecting religious symbols and sacred rites. In the field of Hajj, jurisprudential maxims not only provide responses to diverse issues concerning its rulings and rituals but also demonstrate considerable effectiveness in addressing newly emerging and unprecedented questions related to Hajj. In some cases, these maxims may even serve as a decisive basis for resolving disagreements among Islamic sects and schools of jurisprudence concerning matters of Hajj.