Analytical Examination of the Doctrine of Istihsan (Juristic Preference) and Its Application to Contemporary Islamic Banking Products in Nigeria

Istihsan (juristic preference) is a methodological instrument of Islamic legal reasoning employed by Hanafi and Maliki scholars to depart from strict analogical reasoning where such departure better serves justice or public interest. Its application to contemporary Islamic banking product development, particularly in structuring innovative Sharia-compliant financial instruments for the Nigerian market, represents a significant analytical gap in the Islamic finance jurisprudence literature. This study analytically examines the doctrinal basis of Istihsan and its application by the CBN Advisory Council of Experts and Jaiz Bank's Sharia supervisory board to Islamic banking product approval in Nigeria. A doctrinal and empirical methodology is applied, combining classical Fiqh analysis of Istihsan doctrine across Hanafi and Maliki schools with structured interviews of twelve Islamic finance scholars serving on Nigerian Sharia advisory boards and analysis of published Sharia board fatawa for six Islamic banking products offered in Nigeria. The study evaluates the extent to which Istihsan reasoning has been employed to accommodate Nigerian market conditions, identifies the products where Maslaha-based departures from strict analogy are most pronounced, and assesses whether such departures maintain doctrinal coherence. Available Islamic finance literature from Nigeria identifies the tension between doctrinal rigour and commercial practicability as the central Sharia governance challenge. The classical Hanafi Istihsan doctrine and the AAOIFI Standards provide analytical benchmarks. Findings are expected to reveal strategic use of Istihsan that occasionally lacks rigorous doctrinal justification. Keywords: Istihsan, Islamic banking, juristic preference, Nigeria, Sharia board.