Understanding the reasoning pattern of Islamic jurists’ views on the status of ar-rahn (Islamic pawn broking) contract and its ruling

According to Islamic jurisprudence, ar-rahn can be described as the detention of the pledge to the creditor or the seller in securing his debt or fulfilling his right. However, Muslim jurists differed in determining the nature of ar-rahnu contract. The ?anafī, Shāfi?ī and ?anbalī jurists viewed ar-rahnu as a charitable (tabarru? ) contract wheareas the Maliki jurists considered it as a form of an exchangeable (mu?āwa?āt). These differences originated from the different interpretation of the verse 2: 283 in the Qur’an. Using the taxonomical classification’s approach founded by Rosch (1976), this paper examines the pattern of reasoning adopted by the jurists of main schols of Islamic jurisprudence. Rosch’s model is chosen as it can assist the researcher to categorize the aspects of discussion between the ar-rahn’s nature, conditions (shurū?) and rulings (?ukm). While the model consists of superordinate and subordinate relationships, the paper enhances the conceptual framework of rahn into the discussion of conditions and rulings. Thus, the harmonized effort of taxonomical classification is been developed to discuss the related rulings of expanded discussion resulted from the status of ar-rahn either a form of charity or an exchange contract. The finding shows that Mālikī and Shāfi?i were seen to be the most consistent schools in holding their stance about ar-rahn’s nature. The consistency can be identified through the examination of ar-rahn’s rulings that matched with their original position. It is also found that the rulings of Mālikī jurists are more lenient about the stipulation of conditions in the contract while Shāfi?i stood otherwise.