Version 2.0.0 of the Twelve-Pillar Framework designs a structured comparison of five Islamic legal schools, indicating a need for robust auditability.
Comparative fiqh has a long tradition of recording juristic agreement, difference, reasoning, and contextual variation, but contemporary multi-source research additionally requires an auditable chain from a precisely defined legal proposition to source authority, evidence location, coding decision, uncertainty, human review, and bounded interpretation. This article presents Version 2.0.0 of the Twelve-Pillar Framework for Comparative Jurisprudence (TPF-CJ) as a pre-validation, design-science framework for structured comparison across five focal legal schools: Jaʿfarī, Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī. The Version 1 taxonomy and its source-reported applied Shia-Ḥanafī lineage were re-specified through documentary artifact analysis of the supplied synopsis, Version 2 workbook, and user guide. The resulting architecture separates six core comparative-jurisprudence pillars from six optional institutional, foresight, media, and global-engagement pillars; defines the Case as proposition × school/scope × jurisdiction × period × version; and adds source, evidence, data-quality, formula, reviewer, ethics, decision, and release gates. The current registry contains 240 design-derived candidate indicators, with 20 records per pillar, four controlled formula families, missing-not-zero rules, context-specific targets, provisional weighting controls, claim traceability, and a staged validation roadmap. TPF-CJ therefore provides a pluralism-preserving bridge between qualitative comparative jurisprudence and auditable research governance. It may support source-grounded profiles, teaching, institutional learning, and controlled pilots, but it cannot yet support universal thresholds, causal claims, school rankings, or validated cross-case composites. Specialist review, primary-source mapping, empirical pilot data, reliability testing, and measurement-invariance assessment remain pending.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SeyyedAbdolHojjat MoghadasNian (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: