broader rules of justice or because it is not in the interest of the public good, and is likely to cause undue inconvenience to those to whom it is applied, the jurist is at liberty to reject the same, and to adopt instead a rule which is conducive to public good, or is in consonance with the broader rules of justice. This method is peculiar to the Ḥanafī system, but owing to strong opposition from the other schools of thought, it has not, even in that system, been developed to its full extent. The principle underlying it is, however, a very sound one and is quite in accordance with the spirit of the Holy Qur’ān. There is, moreover, less liability to error in this method than in far-fetched analogy, which often leads to narrow results opposed to the broad spirit of the Holy Book. In the school of Imām Mālik, a similar rule is adopted under the name of istiṣlāh which means “a deduction of law based on considerations of public good”.

Istidlāl or inference

Istidlāl literally signifies the inferring of one thing from another, and the two chief sources recognized for such inferences are customs and usages, and the laws of religions revealed before Islām. It is admitted that customs and usages which prevailed in Arabia at the advent of Islām, and which were not abrogated by Islām, have the force of law. On the same principle, customs and usages prevailing anywhere, when not opposed to the spirit of the teachings of the Holy Qur’ān or not forbidden by it, would be admissible, because, according to a well-known maxim of the jurists, “permissibility is the original principle,” and therefore what has not been declared unlawful is permissible. In fact, as a custom is recognized by a vast majority of the people, it is looked upon as having the force of Ijmā‘, and, hence, it has precedence over a rule of law derived from analogy. The only condition required is that it must not be opposed to a clear text of the Holy Qur’ān or a reliable ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet. The Ḥanafī law lays special stress on the value of customs and usages.7 As regards laws revealed previous to Islām, opinion is divided. Some jurists hold that all such laws as have not been expressly abrogated have the force of law even now, while others argue that they have not. According to the Ḥanafī school, those laws of the previous religions are binding which have