Introduction to Usul al-Fiqh IV: The Authorized Books of Usul al-Fiqh in the Shafi’i Madhhab
The Authorized Books of Usul al-Fiqh in the Shafi’i Madhhab
In the principles of Jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), two tariqahs (methods) are well known:
- Tarīqat al-mutakallimin (mutakallim is generally translated as ‘Muslim theologian’).
- Tarīqat al-fuqaha (jurists)
Tarīqat al-mutakallimin is the method followed by the Shafiʿī yah, the Malikiyah, Hanabilah and the Mu’tazilah.
It was known as the method of the mutakallimun because:
- The authors who wrote their books according to this method would introduce them with discussions of theological-and philosophical-issues.
- The use of the deductive method in defining the principles of source methodology, in ascertaining the validity of those principles, and in refuting those whose opinions differed without paying much attention to the issues and details which stem from the application of these principles.
The books of the Shafiʿī yah, Hanabilah, Malikiyah and Mu’tazilah all followed a similar pattern in the order of their chapters and the treatment of their subject matter.
The Shafiʿiyyah’s Books
Al-Risālah by Imam al-Shāfi’ī (204 A.H.)
Al-ʿAmad by al-Qādī ‘Abd al-Jabbār ibn Aḥmad al-Mu’tazilī (415 A.H.)
Al-Muʿtamad by Abū al-Husayn al-Mu’tazili (436 A.H.)
Al-Burhān by Imam al-Haramayn al-’Ash’arī (478 A.H.)
Al-Mustasfā by Imam al-Ghazālī al-’Ash’arī (505 A.H.)
Imam Ibn Khaldūn rahimahuLlah ta’ala mentions, “Among the best books of the Mutakallimūn on usul al-fiqh are al-Burhān by Imam al-Ḥaramayn and al-Mustaṣfā by al-Ghazālī, from the al-Ashʿariyyah. As for from the Muʿtazilah are al-ʿAhd (or al-ʿAmad) by ʿAbd al-Jabbār and its commentary al-Muʿtamad by Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī. These four books are the foundation and pillars in this science.”
Al-Maḥṣūl by al-Rāzī (606 A.H.), summarized from the above four books, his method is that he mentions the evidences and proofs.
These four main books also had been summarized by Sayf al-dīn al-Amidī (630 A.H.) named as al-Iḥkām. His method is that he expounds the different viewpoints of the madhahib and he deduces masa’il (legal issues) contrary to Ibn al-Khatib al-Rāzi.
Ibn al-Ḥājib abridged Al-Iḥkām (646 A.H.) twice named as al-Muntahi and then became Mukhtaṣar al-Muntahi. Then Taj al-Subkī (771 A.H.) explains this Mukhtaṣar and names it Rafʿ al-ḥājib ʿan Ibn al-Ḥājib (2 vol.).
Al-Ḥāṣil by al-Armawī (652 A.H.), abridged of al-Maḥṣūl by al-Rāzī
Al-Minhāj by al-Bayḍāwī, abridged of al-Ḥāṣil, Al-Qadi al-Baydawi (d 685) summarized al-Hasil in his book Minhaj al-Wusul Ila ‘Ilm al-Usul “The Way of Mastering the Science of Source Methodology”; but his summary was so abbreviated that the result is like a riddle, and very difficult to understand. Thus, many scholars undertook to produce commentaries on the book. Among such commentaries, the best is that of al-Isnawi (d 772), which is entitled Nihayat al-Sūl “An End to Questioning” This book occupied the attention of the scholars in the field for a long time, and the Shafiʿī yah scholars of al-Al-Azhar are still devoted to it.
Then Taqī al-din al-Subkī (756 A.H.) wrote a commentary on al-Minhāj, al-Ibhāj bi sharḥ al-Minhāj till the introduction of “al-wājib,” from there his son Taj al-dīn al-Subki (771 A.H.) completed it.
Among the Shafiʿī yah scholars, Taj al-dīn al-Subki wrote his famous book, Jam’ al-Jawami’ “The Compilation of the Comprehensive”. Imam Taj al-dīn al-Subki tried to gather as many of the principles of fiqh possible, he gathered his commentary on al-Muntahi (Rafʿ al-hājib) and al-Minhāj (al-Ibhāj) and compiled them as Jamʿ al-jawāmiʿ. In the introduction, he mentioned that he had compiled his work from one hundred different books on al-Usul. Many scholars wrote commentaries and added footnotes to imam al-Subki’s book. Of these, perhaps the most important and most widely-available commentary is Sharh al-Jalal al-Mahalli, which remains even today the basis for studies in al-Usul, especially for the Shafiʿīyyah scholars.
Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi (d 794) wrote a commentary, entitled Tashnif al-Masamiʿ“To Please the Ears”. Imam Al-Zarkashi also wrote al-Bahr al-Muhit “The Vast Ocean”, in which he collected the submissions of scholars of al-Usul from over one hundred books.
The studie of usul al-fiqh is a vast ocean to be explored. In Islamic legal studies, it is important to study usul al-fiqh especially for us Shafi’iyyah. Our fiqh is based on al-usul and we are the ones who introduced this subject as a completed subject matter, developed it, propagated and disseminated it to the world.
References:
- Islamic Jurisprudence, Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani.
- Al-Wajīz fī uṣūl al-tashrīʿi al-Islāmī, Dr. Muḥammad Hasan Hītū, First Edition 2006, Muassasah al-Riṣalāh, Beirut.
Assalaam alaykum,
Jazakum Allah
khayran for another brilliant article.
Here in Fes, most notably at the Qarawiyyin, Jama’ Al-Jawami’ by Imam As-Subki is still taught, even though this is the middle of the Maliki heartlands. The reason, as I’ve been told, is the sheer quality of the text. Amongst their own ‘ulama the Malikis don’t have anything quite like it.
One of my teachers here studied Jama Al-Jawami’ in the Qarawiyyin back in 1974. It took a year to complete, two hours a day, and in each session between 4 and 10 words were covered. Allah
!
Assalaam alaykum,
Mahdi
Im almost sure i read somewhere the mutakallimeen is the way of imam abu hanifah and the fuqahaa is the way of imam shafi’i,ahmad and maalik. I could be mistaken though.
Please refer to the book of Dr. Hasan Hitu, al-Wajiz fi usul al-tashri’i al-Islami
wassalam
Assalaam alaykum,
I have a question about Istihsan and Maslaha Mursala.
I’m currently reading the Qarawiyyin High School text books on Usul with my teacher here in Fes and in our last class we covered the abovementioned topics. The books are obviously Maliki based but comparative notes regarding the other three schools are given.
Regarding istihsan, the book states that the Shafi’i madhab is the most vehement in opposition to it (ashadd al-madhaahib ‘itiraadan) and quotes Imam Ash-Shafi’i as saying: “Man istahsana faqad shara’a”, i.e. whoever does istihsan has legislated.
My teacher (a Maliki) wanted to know what the reason and evidence for the opposition is, especially considering that one of the examples given in the book is that a Muslim can show his/her ‘awra to a non-mahram doctor. Another example from the Sunnah is the hadith from At-Tirmidhi that allows for someone to eat and drink in Ramadan out of forgetfulness, i.e. their fast is still valid.
The same goes for Maslaha Mursala. My teacher wants to know why the Shafi’is are against it when the Khulafa Rashidun did. The example given is that of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab, ra, who negated the Zakat category of ‘mu’alafat quluubahum’ (those who hearts are to be assuaged) in his time because Islam had become strong. He said: ‘Allah
has made Islam mighty and it has no need of you. Either you are firm in Islam or you aren’t, and if the latter then between us and you is the sword.’
I don’t know the answer but I did quote the hadith: “alaikum bisunnati wa khulafaa’ ar-raashideen al-mahdiyeen min ba’di” as a guess. What I meant is the the Khulafa Ar-Raashideen have a special rank in this regard.
Can you please provide some clarification?
Assalaam alaykum,
Mahdi
The issue of the rejection of masalih al-mursalah is not as straightforward as it appears to be. This is not helped by famous attributions made to scholars, as if the camps were clearly delineated.
I do not wish to enter the fray of trying to define once again what is meant by the terms ” mursalah” and ” maslaha”.
I however wish to illustrate that the Shafi’I school does accept the usage of maslaha as a secondary source to discover the Law.
There are essentially five schools of thought in relation to their approach in the usage of masalah.
1- The first approach is one which is famously attributed to Imam Malik. This view allows all the usages of maslaha in terms of whether the maslaha is essential, needed or embellishment. This is also irrespective whether the textual proof for the ” benefit” is specific or ” far-fetched”. Thus this school sees a very wide application for the usage of maslaha and as a result we find that the Maliki madhab is most famously seen as the adherence of ”maslaha”
2- The second approach is that maslaha can only be employed if it conforms/resembles [in principle] the established texts or ethos of the Shariah. This view has been attributed to Imam Shafi’i.
3- The third approach is that maslaha can only be employed if it is on the level of the essential and needed. As Ghazali states in ” Shifa al- Ghalil”- ” As for the last category [referring to the maslaha of embellishment] it is not permissible to adhere to it, unless it is supported by a specific source of the Shariah…………
4- The fourth approach is that the maslaha can only be used if it is essential” dhururi”- This is the view of Qadi al-Baydawi in his Minhaj as well as Ghazali in his Mustasfa.
5- The fifth approach is a rejection of the employment of maslaha – this view is attributed to Qadi al- Baqilani as well as the preferred view of al-Amidi and ibn Hajib. –it should however be pointed out that these scholars do employ maslaha if it is supported by a text, qiyas or ijma. For them it would thus be seen as and extension of the sources of the Shariah.
As for what the exact position of Imam Shafi’I is in relation to the usages of maslaha , is a disputed point amongst the Shafi’I legal theorists. The most preferred opinion as expressed by, Ibn Subki in his ” Takmlilah al-Ibhaj”, Ghazali in his ”Mankhul”, and al-Zarkashi in his ”al-Bahr al-Muhit” is that the Imam did employ maslaha only if it in agreement with the general principles of the Shariah.
It is therefore essential to note that the general attribution to the madhab that it does not employ maslaha is incorrect. It does however have a much more restricted view than the one attributed to Imam Malik. And any attribution as to the rejection of maslaha would refer only to that specific approach of accepting maslaha without restrictions.
The same approach in principle applies to Istihsan.