Deriving Juristic Rulings from the Parables of the Holy Qur’an

Abstract

This research article explores the methodology of deriving jurisprudential rulings   from the parables  of the Holy Qur’an. While Qur’anic parables are often studied for their moral and spiritual dimensions, their role as a source of legal inference remains underexplored in classical and contemporary jurisprudential literature. This study argues that Qur’anic parables are not merely rhetorical devices for admonition but carry implicit legal connotations that can be systematically analyzed for juristic extraction. Employing a combined method of linguistic tafsir, and inductive reasoning, the article identifies eight distinct categories of legal derivation from parables: direct command embedded in simile, prohibition through allegorical warning, conditional rulings within narrative frameworks, analogical reasoning   triggered by parabolic scenarios, abrogation indicators within parables, legal maxims deduced from parabolic conclusions, evidentiary precedence in disputed cases, and finally, the hermeneutic limits where parables cannot serve as sole proofs. Each heading provides classical examples such as the parable of the mosquito, the blazing fire and the spider’s house. The article concludes that parabolic inference enriches Islamic legal theory by offering contextual depth and psychological insight into legislative intent,  but requires strict adherence to linguistic authenticity and avoidance of speculative interpretation. This research fills a significant gap in jurisprudential discourse and offers a framework for contemporary jurists to engage with Qur’anic narratives in issuing balanced and context aware fatwas.

Keywords: Holy Qur’an, Juristic Rulings, Jurisprudential Inference, Legal Maxims,Qur’anic Parables, Tafsir.