Aḥkām Al-Mandūb Between Jurisprudential Theory and Practical Application: A Comparative Study of Its Legal Characterization (Al-Takyeef Al-Uṣūlī) and the Necessity of Completion (Luzūm Al-Itmām)

Abstract

A central point of analytical contention within Islamic legal theory (usūl al-fiqh) involves the scope and application of Al-Mandūb (Recommended Acts), particularly concerning its internal divisions and the legal implications of its performance. This research focuses particularly on the structural definition of al-mandūb and the resulting practical implications of its performance and omission across various schools of thought.

Employing an analytical-comparative methodology, this study examines classical works of Islamic legal theory (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) to investigate three core areas of scholarly disagreement (ikhtilāf): firstly, the categorization of al-mandūb (specifically the Hanafi division into sunnah mu'akkadah, ghayr mu'akkadah, and zawā’id versus the consensus view of the majority); secondly, the theoretical debate on whether al-mandūb constitutes a ḥukm taklīfī (a binding obligation); and thirdly, the central issue of luzūm al-mandūb bi al-shurū’ fīhi (whether starting a voluntary act necessitates its completion).

The research highlights that the disagreement regarding the necessity of completion directly affects rulings in critical areas such as voluntary prayer, fasting, and i'tikāf. Key research objectives include elucidating the definition and methods of indication for al-mandūb, clarifying the theoretical differences concerning its nature and scope, demonstrating the practical jurisprudential consequences of these disagreements, and presenting the preponderant (rājih) opinion which generally upholds the necessity of completion (with the exception of voluntary fasting) as a legal safeguard (iḥtiyāṭ). The findings underscore the indispensable relationship between theological structure and applied jurisprudence in regulating voluntary worship.