Criticism and Review of Qurtubi and Ardabili’s Jurisprudential Method in the Verses of Juridical Injunctions (With Emphasis on the verses of Noble Surah Noor ـ “The light”)

The present research tries to answer the questions of what are the features of Qurtubi and Ardabili’s jurisprudential method, particularly in relation to the juridical verses of the Surah Noor; what are their sources of jurisprudence, inference and discovery of legal norms, their arguments and tools of such jurisprudential inference; how much they have considered other jurists’ views and works; and what are their similarities and differences in terms of the method of inferring jurisprudential injunctions of the Surah Noor. It is a library research with an analytical ـ descriptive approach, among whose findings it can be referred to identifying Qurtubi and Ardabili’s primary and secondary sources in deducing and inferring injunctions, their juridical arguments and tools, how they applied these sources and their position for them by providing proofs and evidence. Furthermore, these two scholars’ differences and similarities as well as the depth and precision of Shia and Sunni sources or the lack of these features in such sources are clarified in each case when examining the details and features of primary and secondary sources including the Holy Quran, tradition, consensus, intellectual reasoning, judicial reasoning by analogy, juristic preference, consideration of public interest, blocking the means that can lead to evil, common practices, previous religious law, and the methods and practices of holy Prophet’s companions. Qurtubi pays so much attention to the consensus of holy Prophet’s companions and nearly ignores intellectual reasoning to the extent that he sometimes underestimates primary sources such as the Holy Quran and tradition and completely distorts the way of inferring injunctions, while Ardabili repeatedly uses intellectual reasoning and tradition in inferring judicial injunctions throughout his book, Zobdat Al ـ Bayan, although he believes consensus do not contradict with Shia jurists’ view and sometimes cast doubt on the realization of a consensus. Despite the differences between these two great jurists in applying presumptive sources (judicial reasoning by analogy, juristic preference, consideration of public interest, blocking the means that can lead to evil) there are considerable similarities between them in terms of inferring injunctions, how they evaluate and use primary and secondary sources, and other influential points in juristic inferences such as the aims of Sacred Law and such principles as continuance, exemption, prudence and other jurisprudential principles which are discussed in the paper. Qurtubi’s mastery in referring to Sunni scholars’ view is high and his pairwise comparison is at the level of their school of thought, while Zobdat Al ـ Bayan mostly relies on the exegeses of Majma’ Al ـ Bayan Al ـ Kashshaaf and Anwar Al ـ Tanzil instead of scholars’ view, and Ardabili’s pairwise comparison includes all schools of thoughts. Their other difference is that Ardabili had a free thought and dared to state his view even though it was against dominant one, while this is not the case with Qurtubi.