Abstract

The impact of jurisprudential schools in exegesis books goes beyond elucidating jurisprudential opinions; it extends to the stance on certain rulings, beliefs, and doctrinal assumptions, influencing the interpretation to become more of a juristic opinion or definitive ruling than subject to the views of the early scholars or its historical reality. For instance, when encountering varying opinions on the verse related to ablution, it is acceptable, given the diversity of jurisprudential perspectives. However, when these opinions are laden with doctrinal affiliations, it may not be acceptable from an interpretative standpoint. One of the historical realities where the doctrinal affiliation governs and manifests its impact on interpretation is the claim of disbelief in Abu Talib – may God be pleased with him. In this case, the matter does not adhere to a jurisprudential opinion but represents a historical fact, becoming the criterion and measure for elucidating it in exegesis or narrative evidence. Therefore, this research delves into these two issues, the historical reality, and the jurisprudential aspect, examining the differences in two contentious matters in Islamic history – one being jurisprudential, the divergence among Muslims regarding the verse on ablution, and the other historical, the faith of Abu Talib. The research emphasizes the need to distinguish between the two, acknowledging that each has its domain in the realm of scholarly inquiry.

Keywords: Narrative impact, Prophetic infallibility, Islam of Abu Talib.