A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent

Abstract

Legal interpretation is an essential aspect in every legal system, consistently playing a significant role in the application of the law and its impact on the rights of individuals. In the common law system, two significant approaches, namely the "literal" and "purposive" approaches, exist in opposition to each other, each with its own proponents. This article, while tracing the trajectory of interpretive approaches in the common law system towards the purposive approach and elucidating its important principles such as the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule" of interpretation, seeks to analyze descriptively and analytically whether the purposive approach and to determine the extent to which the principles and rules of the purposive approach are acceptable and applicable in Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system. The research findings indicate that Islamic jurisprudence places special emphasis on the "text" of the law. However, discussions on topics such as the "Purposes of the Sharia" or similar concepts can be observed in the discourse and opinions of jurists, warranting further investigation. A comparable approach can be observed in Iranian laws and Islamic jurisprudence, indicating a movement towards the purposive approach despite legal pluralism.

Keywords

• purposive interpretation
• purposive jurisprudence
• mischief rule of interpretation
• golden rule of interpretation