Abstract

In this article, the essential claims and approaches seen in American and Scandinavian legal realism are presented and compared with Islamic law. The uncertainty on which it is based constitutes the essence of legal realism; In terms of Islamic law, there is no possibility of an uncertainty approach as seen in legal realism. The agreed points became clear and fixed. On the other hand, there are different appearances of clarification, not ambiguity in ijtihad issues. Even though realists reject the understanding of root and source, Islamic law, based on the Book and Sunnah is a legal system that consists of certain roots and develops with them. Despite the rejections of realists, morality and values have a central place and importance in Islamic law. While realists define justice as part of the law and subject to the direction of the law; Islamic jurists are based on the approach of interdependence. While realists reject all the rules of law formed in the process; Islamic jurists systematized the rules of law and compiled works in this context. In contrast to the realists' approach that the law will become clear and come into existence with the decision of the judge, Islamic jurists have declared the system of law, which has come into existence with ijtihad as well as what has become clear with the texts. Contrary to the unlimited pluralism seen in realism due to the rejection of the understanding of root and source, there has been limited pluralism in Islamic law, which finds its traditional meaning within the framework of source understanding. After analyzing these issues in the article, the study was completed with the presentation of the results obtained.