Usul al-Fiqh
A Question on al-Asl fi al-Ashya’ al-Ibahah and Ibadat
Question:
As-Salam Alaykum,
What is the position of Shafii school in regards to the concept ‘Al-Aslu fil ashya al-ibahah’ in the matters of Ibadah?
JazakAllah khaira.
Country: Malaysia
Answer:
Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuHu,
There is an istishab called istishab al-‘adam al-asli. This would, for example, negate there being a sixth obligatory prayer. In al-Ibhaj, Subki brings a discussion on this, as does Zarkashi in al-Bahr al-Muhit.
Imam Shafi’i’s Statement on The Muwatta
Question:
My question is: Imam Al-Shafi said, “After Allah’s book, Malik’s Muwatta is the most authentic book on earth.” If the quote builds the understanding that Muwatta is having all authentic ahadiths, which Imam Shafi verifies, so why did Imam Shafi not follow those ahadith and fiqh?
Country: Pakistan
Answer:
Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuHu,
It is reported in Razi’s al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil v. 1, p. 12 on the authority of Yunus b. ‘Abd al-’Ala, in Dhahabi’s Tadhkirat al-Huffaz v. 1, p. 154 and his Siyar v. 8, p. 111, in Asbahani’s Hilyah v. 6, p. 329 on the authority of Rabi’ b. Sulayman al-Muradi, from all of them that Imam Shafi’i said:
ما في الأرض كتاب من العلم أكثر صوابا من موطأ مالك
“There is not a book of knowledge on earth more correct than Malik’s Muwatta.”
The statement mentioned in the question is frequently attributed to Imam Shafi’i, Hafiz Ibn Hajar does mention that some report it that way. (Fath al-Bari v. 1, p. 10) However, we have not been able to locate it with a researchable isnad. This version of the statement we have been able to locate is from ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi. In his Siyar v. 9, p. 205, Hafiz Dhahabi reported on the authority of Bundar that Ibn Mahdi said:
ما نعرف كتابا في الإسلام بعد كتاب الله أصح من موطأ مالك
“We do not know of a book in Islam, after Allah’s Book, more authentic than Malik’s Muwatta.”
Also, there is a similar statement related from Imam Shafi’i:
ما كتاب بعد كتاب الله أنفع من كتاب مالك بن أنس
“There is no book, after Allah’s Book, more beneficial than Malik b. Anas’s book.”
This is related by Asbahani in Hilyah v. 9, p. 70 and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in Tamhid v. 1, p. 77 via Yahya b. ‘Uthman b. Salih < Harun b. Sa’id < Imam Shafi’i. Regarding Yahya b. ‘Uthman b. Salih, Hafiz Mizzi related that he would narrate material not found with other authorities. (Tahdhib al-Kamal v. 31, p. 462) Hafiz Dhahabi stated, “lahu ma yunkaru.” (Kashif v. 2, p. 371)
The Difference Between Imam An-Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajr in Status of Tarjih
The following is correspondence with Shaykh Taha and Sidi Abdullah Marbuqi regarding the status in the school of Imam An-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr Al-Haytami (rahmatullah ‘alayhim) regarding tarjih - determining the correct opinion of the school. This article is really for the more advanced student of the madhdhab. The red italics are statements made by Sidi Abdullah, the rest being from Shaykh Taha. The Shaykh explains why some are chosen for tarjih while others are not, and voices his opinion on why and how the madhdhab developed in the way it did.
Bismillah
As-salamu `alaykum
I received from you a set of questions, or rather statements, to which I surmised you require comment from my side. I have done that in what stands below, keeping your original comments in red and italics, and my remarks in black.
The general rules is that Imam al-Nawawi’s opinions were still given preference over the qawl of Ibn Hajar of al-Ramli.
In principle, there should never exist the need to compare the tarjihat of Ibn Hajar and Ramli to those of Nawawi, simply because the role of Ibn Hajar and Ramli is
(1) to assign tarjih to cases upon where Nawawi did not assign tarjih
(2) to assign preference to cases where Nawawi’s books contain conflicting tarjihat
Their role does not include overturning Nawawi’s established tarjihat. Although they do in rare instances cross over into that territory, their views in such cases will not be given preference over that of Nawawi.
Imam al-Nawawi’s opinion still has significance even though there are consensus among the mutaakhkhirin (refer to Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari, al-Shihab al-Ramli and their pupils).
The stated rule of the madhhab is that where consensus exists between the muta’akhkhirin, the position taken by the Shaykhayn will be overturned. This rule, however, has for the most part remained restricted to the realm of theory. When one actually starts looking for examples, you find it hard to prove an absolute consensus. In the case of tawaruth al-harbiyyayn there was a good chance of having an actual example of this phenomenon. Zarkashi, Adhra’i, Isnawi, Shaykh al-Islam, Ramli, Ibn Hajar and a host of other muta’akhkhirin all concurred in describing Nawawi’s statement as a sahw. Yet Kurdi goes on to demonstrate that Subki, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Ibn al-Athir and Bakri have all agreed with Nawawi on the point.
The question which Ibn Hajar asks where he states the rule of overturning Nawawi’s position on the strength of consensus between the muta’akhkhirin, is very significant: “Anna bihi?”
I would say that the significance Nawawi’s views retain in the face of putative cases of consensus is due more to the challenge of establishing an actual consensus than a flaw in the theory. The difficulty in proving an actual consensus appears to be what stands in the way of this theory emerging from the level of theory into practical application.
Imam Nawawi rahimahuLlah ta’ala is in the rank of sahib al-tarjih, where as Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli didn’t reach this level.
What are the factors to be considered in the categorisation of fuqaha into ranks? If it is knowledge alone, there are those like Taj al-Din Subki who believe that his father was more learned. Yet his tarjih is not given quite the same consideration, not even by Taj himself. A factor that I believe features prominently in elevating a person to the rank of tarjih is the era in which he lived. Where this coincides with a certain level of development in the madhhab, the person’s knowledge and works combine with the time and level of development within the madhhab to elevate him to that status. Although there may then come others who surpass him, the time of tarjih, and the need for tarjih, has already passed, so despite his knowledge, he does not get counted as a murajjih.
With Nawawi and Rafi’i we find that both of them lived at a time when the madhhab had seen substantial growth through the development of wujuh in the two Tariqahs. In addition, the existing corpus of the maddhab (both aqwal and wujuh) had been systematically documented in the works of men like Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi in the Iraqi tariqah, and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali in the Khurasani tariqah. Seeing as the dawn of the 6th century saw both development and systematisation, all that remained to be done was tarjih. And in the next century the ones who stepped up to this task were Rafi’i and Nawawi.
Now we move a few centuries ahead, to the 10th century where we find Ibn Hajar and Ramli. In their time there was no need to reinvent the wheel already perfected by the Shaykhayn. What was needed now was to rework the madhhab into a comprehensive and cohesive corpus in which would be included not only the development, systematisation and recension up the Shaykhayn, but also the development that came in the 3 centuries following the Shaykhayn. The contrbutions of muhaqqiqin like Ibn al-Rif’ah, the Subkis, Adhra’i, Zarkashi, Isnawi and others now had to be incorporated as well. In addition there was the need to bring stability in cases of conflicting tarjih by Nawawi. This was the task to which initially Shaykh al-Islam and Shihab Ramli, and later their pupils Khatib, Ibn Hajar and Shams Ramli addressed themselves.
The above is my own approach, fashioned through a careful consideration of the historical factor. I am aware of statements that arbitrarily place later scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ramli on a lower level than Nawawi; but I find it hard to reconcile with the level of knowledge I see in them. How does one reconcile the abundant tarjihat of Ramli and Ibn Hajar with the view that they were ineligible for tarjih? That they did exercise tarjih cannot be denied by anyone who has properly studied their works. What is clearly noticeable, however, is that their tarjihat tend almost exclusively to be on cases where no tarjih by the Shaykhayn has been recorded. To anyone possessed of reasonable powers of deduction, the connotations hereof are clear.
When a later muhaqqiq turns his attention away from what earlier muhaqqiqin have already accomplished, and focuses it on areas still requiring attention, there are those who interpret this as inability on their part. With all due respect to those who take this view of things, I personally believe it to be a flawed deduction. The benefit of historical hindsight allows for a bird’s eye view of the development of our fiqh, and the insight afforded by this panoramic view of its development shows a unique inter-generational collaborative effort in which successive generations strive not to plant on land already cultivated by their predecessors, but on fresh, hitherto untilled virgin soil.
And Allah knows best.
Read MoreCommentary: If the Hadith is Authentic, that is my Madhhab
It is authentically recorded from Imam Ash-Shafi’i (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) that he said,
إذا صح الحديث فهو مذهبي
“If the hadith is authentic, that is my Madhhab.”
It is also recorded that he said
إذا صح الحديث خلاف قولي، فاعملوا بالحديث واتركوا قولي
“If an authentic hadith contradicts my opinion [in fiqh], act upon the hadith and abandon my opinion.”1
Imam An-Nawawi commented upon the first statement,
“What Imam Ash-Shafi’i said does not mean that everyone who sees a Sahih hadith should say “This is the madhhab of Al-Shafi’i,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person as has the rank of ijtihad in the madhhab. It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imam Al-Shafi’i was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of al-Shafi’i and other similar books of the companions of al-Shafi’i, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them.
This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfill. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times2 What we have explained has been made conditional because Imam Al-Shafi’i had abandoned acting purely on the external meaning of many proofs for criticism of the hadith or its abrogation or specific circumstances or interpretation and so forth. Shaykh Abu ‘Amr [Ibn Al-Salah] said: “It is no trivial matter to act according to the literal meaning of what Imam Al-Shafi’i said. For it is impermissible for every faqih – let alone an ordinary person (‘ammi) – to act independently with what he takes to be a proof from the hadith… Therefore, any Shafi’i that finds a hadith that contradicts his School must examine whether he is absolutely accomplished in all the disciplines of ijtihad, or in that particular topic, or specific question. [If he is,] then he has the right to apply it independently. If he is not, but finds t hat contravening the hadith bears too heavily upon him – after having researched it and found no justification for contravening it – then he may apply it if another independent Imam other than Al-Shafi’i applies it. This is a good reason for him to leave the madhhab of his Imam in such a case.”3
[Translation taken from "The Four Imams and their Schools" by Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad published by Muslim Academic Trust pp. 225-226, and reproduced here with the permission of Shaykh Gibril for Shafiifiqh.com]
The great Shafi’i Imam, Shaykh ul Islam Taqi Al-Din Al-Subki wrote a wonderful treatise explaining this statement of Imam Ash-Shafi’i titled, “Ma’na Qawl Al-Imam Al-Muttalibi Idha Sahha Al-Hadithu Fahuwa Madhhabi” (The meaning of the statement of the Imam, the Muttalibi, ‘If the hadith is authentic, that is my madhhab’) that is recommended for students to read.
You can download it from the following, however it is currently only in arabic: download here
- qawli is translated here as ‘my opinion’ as that is what is meant here, though it literally means ‘my statement’ [↩]
- I.e. al-Nawawi’s times, a fortiori ours. Among those who lived in Al-Nawawi’s centure were Al-Fakhr Al-Razi, Ibn al-Salah, Al-Mundhiri, Ibn ‘Abdus-Salam, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Al-Qattan, Al-Diya’ Al-Maqdisi, Ibn Qudama, and Ibn Daqiq Al-’Id! [↩]
- Al-Nawawi, Al-Majmu‘ Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab (1:64), citing Ibn Al-Salah’s Fatawa wa Masai’l (1:54, 1:58-59). Cf. Al-Tahanawi, I’la‘ Al-Sunan (2:290-291). [↩]
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.
Introduction to Usul al-Fiqh III: The Method of Imam al-Shafi'i in al-Risalah
This is an abridged excerpt from the Book: “Islamic Jurisprudence” by Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani.
THE METHOD OF AL-IMAM AL-SHAFI’I IN AL-RISALAH
Al-Imam al-Shafi’i rahimahuLlahu ta’ala began his book by describing the state of mankind just before the mission of the Prophet. In doing so, he divided them into two groups:
- Ahl al-Kitab “The People of the Book”
- The Mushrikun and Kafirun.
Then he stated that Allah rescued all mankind by sending the Last of the Prophets sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and revealing to him His Book as a means of guidance:
Then al-Imam al-Shafi’i discussed the status of the Qur’an in Islam in detail.
Followed the introduction is a chapter on al-Bayan, in which the word is defined as a legal-term, and then divided into categories in explanation of the ways that the Qur’anic declaration indicates matters of legal significance. There are five such categories:
- That which Allah expressed as a specific legal-provision which admits of no interpretation other than its literal-meaning. This category of al-Bayan needs no other explanation than the Qur’an itself.
- That which the Qur’an mentions in texts that may be interpreted in several-ways; and for which the Sunnah provided an explanation as to exactly which one was intended.
- That which was clearly stated to be obligatory; and which Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explained in terms of how, why, upon whom, and when applicable and when not.
- That which was explained by Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but not mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah commanded in the Qur’an that Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam be obeyed and his rulings accepted. Therefore, what is said on the authority of Rasulullah r, is said on the authority of Allah.
- That which Allah requires His creation to seek through Ijtihad. This is Qiyas. According to al-Imam al-Shafi’i, Qiyas is a method for reaching a legal-decision on the basis of evidence (a precedent) in which a common reason, or an effective cause, is applicable.
Al-Imam al-Shafi’i then went on to explain these five categories in five separate chapters, giving examples and evidence for each. Thereafter, the Risalah included the following chapters:
- The General Declaration revealed in the Qur’an is meant to be ‘Amm (comprehensive), but includes the Khass (particular).
- The Explicit General Declaration of the Qur’an in which the General and the Particular are included.
- The Explicit General Declaration of the Qur’an which appears to be General but is intended to be entirely Particular.
- The Category of al-Bayan in the Qur’an by means of which meaning is clarified by context.
- The Category of al-Bayan in the Qur’an the wording of which indicates the al-Batin (implicit) meaning rather than the al-Zahir (explicit).
- That, of the Qur’an, which was revealed as General but which the Sunnah specifically indicates is meant to be Particular.
In the above-mentioned chapter; al-Imam al-Shafi’i 0 explained the validity of the Sunnah as evidence and its status in the religion. For this reason, he then included the following chapters:
- The duty imposed by Allah in the Qur’an to follow the Sunnah of Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
- Allah’s command ordering obedience to Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is both associated with obedience to Him and ordered independently.
- Matters in which Allah commanded obedience to Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
- How Allah made it clear that Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was obliged to follow what was revealed to him and to obey whatever commands Allah gave him; and that Allah will guide any who follow him.
In this chapter, al-Imam al-Shafi’i affirmed that parts of the Sunnah of Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam dealt with and were related to the Qur’an, whilst other parts explained matters concerning which there was no relevant text in the Book. Al-Imam al-Shafi’i also showed that the Sunnah existed independently of the Qur’an, and quoted evidence in refutation of those who disagreed with him in that matter.
Then he said: “I shall explain what I have already said about the Sunnah, (whether) it particularizes the Qur’an or provides additional-legislation for matters not mentioned therein; and this will illustrate what I have discussed above, Allah willing. I shall first speak of the Sunnah based on the Book of Allah, by dealing, by means of deductive reasoning, with the subject of the Sunnah in regard to al-Nasikh (abrogating) and al-Mansukh (abrogated) passages of the Qur’an. Thereafter, I shall mention the Fard-duties specified (in the Qur’an) and the Sunnah in regard to them; the Fard-duties revealed in General-terms which Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made Particular through his specifying details relating to how and when; the General texts that were intended to be understood as General, and the General texts that were intended to be understood as Particular; and, finally, the Sunnah of the Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for which there is no textual authority from the Book of Allah.”
There follows a chapter entitled, “The Origin of the Abrogating and the Abrogated”; which explains that Allah used abrogation to make (the Shari’ah) easier and more flexible. This chapter also makes the point that Ayah (a verse) of the Qur’an can only be abrogated by another verse of the Qur’an; and that the Sunnah can only be abrogated by the Sunnah.
Thereafter comes mention of the Fard-duty of Salah and the explanation in the Qur’an and the Sunnah concerning those who may be excused from performing it, and those whose Salah is not accepted because of some act of disobedience they may have committed.
Then al-Imam al-Shafi’i writes of the Abrogating and the Abrogated that are indicated by the Sunnah and al-Ijma’;
In the next chapter he discussed defects in Hadith, and explained that the contradictions between Hadith could be attributed to many reasons. He then went on to explain some of these reasons. For example, a contradiction might appear because one Hadith was abrogated by another, or because mistakes occurred in the narration of the Hadith. He explained the mistakes which might cause contradictions in the Hadith, and many other reasons for such contradictions. Then he dealt with the various types of prohibitions, and explained that some Hadith clarify others.
Al-Imam al-Shafi’i also included a chapter on knowledge, and explained that there are two types of knowledge. The first is that sort of common knowledge which no sane, mature adult could possibly not know about. All of this knowledge can be found mentioned in the text of the Qur’an, and every Muslim knows all about it because it has been transmitted down from Rasulullah sallaLlahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to each succeeding generation in turn. There is no dispute concerning the authenticity of this knowledge, and all are agreed that it is binding. Indeed, the nature of this knowledge is such that there can be no mistakes in its transmission or interpretation.
The second type of knowledge is of the details which stem from the obligations, and the specific laws relating to them. These are not mentioned in the text of the Qur’an, and most of them are not mentioned in the text of the Sunnah, apart from single-individual-narrations, Ahad.
Thus, al-Imam al-Shafi’i introduced a new subject, Khabr al-Wahid. Al-Imam al-Shafi’i then explained what is meant by this term, and the conditions which determine whether or not a narration is of the single-individual-variety. The difference between Shahadah (testimony) and Riwayah (reporting) was explained; as were those matters which may be accepted through a Khabr al-Wahid, and those for which a Khabr al-Wahid alone is not sufficient.
Then al-Imam al-Shafi’i discussed the authority of the Khabr al-Wahid, and whether such reports could be adduced as evidence. His conclusion, supported by very sound arguments, was that indeed they could be used. Thus, al-Imam al-Shafi’i succeeded in refuting all the misgivings brought up by his opponents on this issue.
The following chapters then follow:
- On al-Ijma’: its definition, and legal-authority.
- On al-Qiyas: its meaning and nature, the need for it, the varieties of Qiyas, and who is, and is not, competent to employ it.
- On Ijtihad: how it is based first on the Qur’an, and then on the Sunnah; what constitutes correct and incorrect Ijtihad.
- On al-Istihsan, Juristic Preference: al-Shafi’i was careful to explain that no Muslim is permitted to use al-Istihsan in order to contravene the Hadith, nor may he pronounce any legal-judgement which is not based on the Qur’an, Sunnah, al-Ijma’ or al-Qiyas. He also explained the difference between al-Qiyas and al-Istihsan.
- On disagreement among the scholars: al-Imam al-Shafi’i explained that these disagreements are of two types; the type that are prohibited and the type that are not. The types of disagreements which are not allowed are those concerning matters for which Allah has provided clear evidence in the texts of the Qur’an or Sunnah. Those disagreements which are permitted pertain to matters which could be interpreted in several-ways and to which each scholar applies his own reasoning.
The Risalah concludes with an explanation of al-Shafi’i’s opinion on the “categories of evidence” mentioned above:
“We base our judgements primarily on the Qur’an and the agreed-upon Sunnah concerning which there is no dispute, and say: ‘This is our judgement after studying both the explicit and the implicit meanings of the texts.’ Then, if we have to refer to the Sunnah that is narrated by only a few persons and concerning which there is no agreement, we say: ‘We accept the Hadith as it is, but are aware that there could be some hidden fault in its narrators.’ Then we will refer to at Ijma’ then to al-Qiyas. Al-Qiyas is weaker than at Ijma’ and it is used only when necessary because it is not lawful to use al-Qiyas when there is a narration concerning the matter being dealt with.”
Recent Comments