Ibadi Juristic Reasoning Between Doctrinal Unity and Methodological Diversity: A Comparative Study of Diwan al-Ashayikh and Al-Nil – The Chapter on Fasting as a Case Study

Abstract

Abstract:
This study undertakes a comparative examination of two of the most prominent authoritative jurisprudential references relied upon in Ibadi fatwa practice in the Islamic Maghrib, namely: Diwan al-Ashayikh (manuscript, Wadi Areg, 5th/11th century) and Al-Nil (published, Wadi Mzab, 13th/19th century). The comparison is conducted through an analysis of each work's methodological approach to presenting jurisprudential issues, and a study of the rulings contained in the chapter on fasting (Kitāb al-Ṣawm) as a case study.
The study finds that Diwan tends toward elaboration and comprehensive exposition in presenting various juristic opinions alongside the relied upon view (al qawl al muʿtamad), frequent citation of concessions (rukhaṣ) with attribution to their proponents, and careful attention to jurisprudential sub branches (tafrīʿ). In contrast, Al Nil tends toward conciseness in presenting opinions, systematic organization, and specification of the most authentic opinion (al qawl al aṣaḥḥ) alongside reference to other views, with the formulation of comprehensive legal maxims (qawāʿid kulliyyah). Despite this methodological divergence, the research reveals substantial agreement between the two works on major issues, including the pillars of fasting (arkān al ṣawm), the conditions of its obligation (shurūṭ al wujūb), and the rulings on the crescent sighting (aḥkām al hilāl), whereas differences emerge in detailed matters such as the delay of the ritual bath (ghusl), lying, backbiting (ghībah), coercion (ikrāh), and the formulation of jurisprudential rules.
The study also documents issues that are unique to each work, underscoring that neither book renders the other dispensable. It concludes by recommending that both muftis and students of knowledge draw upon both sources, as they reflect the richness and diversity of Ibadi juristic reasoning in accordance with differing contexts and periods, while maintaining methodological unity in the foundational principle.