istihsan

Istihsan (Arabic: استحسان) is a term in Islamic jurisprudence meaning “juristic preference.” It refers to a method by which a jurist departs from a ruling derived by strict analogy (qiyas) in favor of a ruling considered more appropriate given the circumstances, welfare, or customary practice.

In practice, istihsan allows jurists to choose a different ruling when applying qiyas would produce undue hardship, inequity, or inconsistency with broader aims of Sharia. The decision is typically justified by considerations of public interest (maslahah), ease, or local custom (urf), rather than by textual evidence alone. It is thus a form of discretionary reasoning within usul al-fiqh.

Historically, istihsan is most closely associated with the Hanafi school, but it has been acknowledged and discussed by various Sunni scholars with differing views on its scope and justification. Some express caution, arguing that it involves subjective judgment without explicit textual support, while others defend it as a necessary tool to reflect maqasid (goals) of the law and adapt to changing circumstances.

Relation to other methods: Istihsan is distinct from maslahah mursalah (unrestricted public interest) and from strict application of maqasid; it is one mechanism among several used to reconcile textual guidance with practical realities. It is not universally accepted in all schools, and its application is often subject to scholarly scrutiny and tradition.

In contemporary discourse, istihsan is part of debates on how Islamic law can address modern issues—such as finance, commerce, and bioethics—while maintaining fidelity to its sources and principles.