The Criteria for Recognizing Devotional Rulings in Islamic Jurisprudence

In a general view, Shar'i rulings are divided into two categories: devotional (ta‘abbudī) and explanatory (ta‘līlī). The first category, which is also called rulings of non-reasonable meaning, is such that intellect is not able to understand their detailed wisdom and if it is left to the obligee to determine and recognize them, he will fail to understand them. In contrast to this category, there are explanatory or reasonable rulings. Considering that the judgment of all incidents and events is not specified in the texts and the ruling for many of them is left to the ijtihāds of the mujtahids, it is important and necessary to distinguish between the devotional rulings and the explanatory rulings, whose cause can be discovered and understood, because in devotional rulings there is no way for ijtihād, and ijtihād leads to heresy, while in explanatory rulings, the prohibition of ijtihād would lead to the non-compliance of Shari'a with the conditions, and as a result, to improper ijtihād. In order to understand the devotional rulings, such criteria as lack of reasonableness of meaning, lack of appearance of wisdom, constraint, stability, human inability to understand the cause and lack of explanation have been stated. It seems that among these criteria, only the criterion of constraint can be the real criterion for recognizing the devotional rulings. Firstly, other criteria alone are not considered as sufficient; secondly, some of them overlap or refer to a common meaning; and thirdly, they do not include all the referents of devotional rulings.