Ma`rifat Farhangi Ejtemaei

Individual jurisprudence has long been the dominant approach in the legal reasoning of Muslim jurists. Social jurisprudence, by contrast, represents a novel approach to fiqh studies that brings about significant transformations in legal rulings. In this study, social jurisprudence is defined as an approach in which the jurist, in the process of deriving rulings, takes into account the social consequences of legal opinions and the requirements of society, whereas such considerations are absent in individual jurisprudence. Based on this definition and after evaluating various viewpoints, the study employs an analytical–comparative method with a critical approach to examine the similarities and differences between individual and social jurisprudence in terms of their outcomes and implications. The findings show that both approaches share similarities in their systematic derivation of rulings from legal sources, attention to both the individual and society, engagement with behavioral rulings, and formulation of both prescriptive and declarative laws. Their differences include the following: in individual jurisprudence, the subject of legal rulings is determined by the individual legally responsible, whereas in social jurisprudence it is society as a whole; governmental rulings constitute a distinctive output of social jurisprudence; the ultimate aim of individual jurisprudence is divine satisfaction and otherworldly salvation, while social jurisprudence also seeks the establishment of religion in society; and social jurisprudence, in addition to behavioral rulings, addresses strategic rulings (such as macro-level policymaking) and structural rulings (such as defining the desired political and economic order).