Context & Objective: The Golden Rule is a fundamental moral principle advocating that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. Although this ethical standard appears in numerous pre-Islamic religions and Islamic texts Islamic jurists have not formally recognized it as a jurisprudential maxim. This research investigates the possibility of identifying the Golden Rule as a jurisprudential maxim and explores the reasons behind its historical exclusion from this categorization. The study questions whether the Golden Rule can function within Islamic jurisprudence and under what specific legal title it might operate. The objective is to delineate the exact status of this rule in jurisprudence by analyzing its core elements and structural compatibility with established jurisprudential criteria.
Method & Approach: This study utilizes a doctrinal research method relying on library-based sources and deductive analysis. The approach is structured into three main sections. The first section identifies the constituent elements of the Golden Rule and evaluates its binding normative level. The second section compares the characteristics of standard jurisprudential maxims with the Golden Rule to test for structural alignment. The final section examines the position of the Golden Rule under the specific legal category of independent rational proofs evaluating its associated legal rulings implementation conflicts and potential to generate civil liability.
Findings: The research reveals that the Golden Rule bridges theoretical and practical rationality through its core element of consistency which comprises the dual principles of conscientiousness and impartiality. This structural alignment allows the rule to qualify as an independent rational proof within Islamic jurisprudence. Rulings derived from this rule involve formal legal obligations and prohibitions regarding societal behavior which are established through the jurisprudential principle of correlation between rational and religious edicts. The rule inherently lacks conflict with other established legal maxims in theory. Whenever practical implementation clashes occur the Golden Rule takes precedence as the governing and more significant directive. Furthermore, disregarding this rule serves as a necessary but insufficient condition for establishing strict civil liability since actual damages or other specific legal triggers must also be present.
Conclusion: Most Islamic jurists historically declined to adopt the Golden Rule as a formal jurisprudential maxim due to concerns about its reliance on human imagination and the variance in individual preferences. The analysis demonstrates however that the strict application of the consistency element nullifies these subjective variables and successfully guides legal reasoning toward definitive rulings based on universal human principles. The Golden Rule successfully transforms individual subjective desires into an objective and rational framework for social regulation. Recognizing this rule as an independent rational proof empowers jurists to enforce equitable social relations and prioritize public interest over arbitrary personal preferences in Islamic legal practice.