A Statistical Analysis of the Disagreement Rate Between Imami jurisprudence and Hanafi jurisprudence in Civil Law Issues

Abstract

The aim of this research is to answer the objection of those who object to the codification of Islamic jurisprudence in civil law, that there is no common denominator between the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, by carrying out an accurate statistical analysis, to know the disagreement rate issues between the two most important schools of jurisprudence spread in Iraq, the Imami jurisprudence and the Hanafi jurisprudence, in the book al-Khilaf by the founder of the Hawza in Najaf al-Ashraf, Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi, who died in the year 460 AH.

Many scholars and thinkers in legal jurisprudence have called for Iraq and other Arab and Islamic countries to return to the symbol of their authenticity: the application of Islamic jurisprudence. However, voices of opposition have risen, raising a recurring objection: the multiplicity and differences among the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, with each school adhering to its own rulings. How, then, can the rulings of these schools be unified into a single legal text?

This research attempts to answer this question by conducting a precise statistical analysis to determine the percentage of points of disagreement between the two most prevalent schools of thought in Iraq: the Imamite and Hanafi schools. This analysis is based on the book "Al-Khilaf" (The Disagreement) by the leading Imamite scholar and founder of the seminary in Najaf, Imam Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, who died in 460 AH.

The final result of the statistical analysis revealed a significant overlap between the two sects in matters of civil law, approaching 70%, which is an acceptable percentage for codifying Islamic jurisprudence in civil law, and it constitutes a scientific and practical response to the skepticism of those who object to the application of Islamic law in Iraq