Erturhan, Sabri2025-05-042025-05-0420242528-98612528-987Xhttps://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.1516774https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/35278Tafwid is an intricate issue based on the principle of ruling from the first without resorting to ijtihad. The source of ahkamu'shar'ia is either revelation or ijtihad informed by revelation. In tafwid, however, the ruling is not based on any revelation or ijtihad, but rather from the authority previously delegated by Allah. In tafwid, there is an initial and ex officio ruling.The possibility of such authorization was a subject of debate among jurists, resulting in two main perspectives: acceptance and rejection. It is evident that the theological debates sorrounding husn-qubh played an important role in this dispute. The jurists who accepted tafwid, there was a further division between those who considered it intellectually permissible and those who deemed it both intellectually and practically possible. The jurists who accepted it also disagreed in detail; some of them permitted tafwid for the Prophet, the mujtahid/alim, and even the commons, while others ruled that it was permissible only for the Prophet, and some ruled that it was permissible for both the Prophet and the mujtahids. The majority of Mutazilite jurists, however, did not consider it possible, either intellectually or de facto. Notably, the Mu'tazilite scholar al-Muways b. Imran stands out among those jurists who permitted tafwid both intellectually and de facto, extending its application to prophets and scholars. Although Imam al-Shafi'i and the Shafi'i jurists were also included in the same group, no clear information has been provided, especially regarding the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i. The jurists who accepted its realization both intellectually and de facto tried to justify their views with rational and semantic evidences. The jurists who permitted tafwid also accepted tafwid as one of the sources of shar'i ruling. Conversely, jurists who rejected tafwid- predominantly scholars of the fuqaha and the Hanafi tradition-emphasized that the sources of shar'i rulings are limited to revelation and ijtihad. They argued that no other source of legislation exists, even for prophets, supporting their claims with both rational and scriptural evidence. Among the Shi'a jurists, there are those who reject tafwid fundamentally, and there are also scholars who have similar approaches to Sunni jurists in terms of acceptance and rejection. There is also an understanding called takwini tafwid among some extreme Shi'a factions. According to this understanding, matters such as the creation of the universe, its administration, killing, resurrection, provision, and punishment and reward in the hereafter have been entrusted by Allah to The Prophet (PBUH), Prophet Ali, and the imams. However, this understanding was strongly rejected by the moderate Shi'a scholars, who ruled that those who advocated it were heretics. It appears that some jurists confuse ijtihad with tafwid, or at least regard tafwid as falling within the scope of ijtihad. However, one of the fundamental features of tafwid is that it involves issuing rulingsen10.18505/cuid.1516774info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIslamic LawFiqh MethodologyRevelationIjtihadTafwidHusn-QubhArticle282772746Q3WOS:001399012900005N/A