Zahir, is open to ta'wil and abrogation. For example, the absolute terms of the ayah which we just
quoted on the prohibition of dead carcasses and blood have been qualified elsewhere in the Qur'an
where 'blood' has been qualified as 'blood shed forth' (al-An'am, 6:145). Similarly, there is a Hadith
which permits consumption of two types of dead carcasses, namely fish and locust.
Hadith no. 4132.]
(See full version of this Hadith on page 131.) Another example of the Nass which has been
subjected to ta'wil is the Hadith concerning the legal alms (zakah) of livestock, which simply provides
that this shall be 'one in every forty sheep'.
[15. Abu Dawud, Sunan, II, 410, Hadith no. 1567.]
The obvious Nass of this Hadith admittedly requires that the animal itself should be given in zakah. But
it would seem in harmony with the basic purpose of the law to say that either the sheep or their
equivalent monetary value may be given. For the purpose of zakah is to satisfy the needs of the poor,
and this could equally be done by giving them the equivalent amount of money; it is even likely that
they might prefer this.
[16. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 165; Amidi (Ihkam, III, 57) considers this to be a ta'wil which is far-fetched.]
The Hanafis have
offered a similar interpretation for two other Qur'anic ayat, one on the expiation of futile oaths, and the
other on the expiation of deliberate breaking of the fast during Ramadan. The first is enacted at feeding
ten poor persons (al-Ma'idah, 5:92), and the second at feeding sixty such persons (al-Mujadalah, 58:4).
The Hanafis have held that this text can be implemented either by feeding ten needy persons or by
feeding one such person on ten occasions. Similarly, the provision in the second ayah may be
understood, according to the Hanafis, to mean feeding sixty poor persons, or one such person sixty
times.
[17. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
[14. Tabrizi, Mishkat, II, 1203,
As already stated, Nass is stronger than Zahir, and should there be a conflict between them, the former
prevails over the latter. This may be illustrated in the following two Qur'anic passages, one of which is
a Nass in regard to the prohibition of wine, and the other a Zahir in regard to the permissibility of eating
and drinking in general. The two passages are as follows:
O believers! Intoxicants, games of chance and sacrificing to stones and arrows are the
unclean works of Satan So avoid them . . . (al-Ma'idah, 5:93).
On those who believe and do good deeds, there is no blame for what they consume
while they keep their duty and believe and do good deeds (al-Ma'idah, 5:96)
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 91
The Nass in the first ayah is the prohibition of wine, which is the main purpose and theme of the text.
The Zahir in the second ayah is the permissibility of eating and drinking without restriction. The main
purpose of the second ayah is, however, to accentuate the virtue of piety (taqwa) in that taqwa is not a
question of austerity with regard to food, it is rather a matter of God-consciousness and good deeds.
There is an apparent conflict between the two ayat, but since the prohibition of wine is established in
the Nass, and the permissibility regarding food and drink is in the form of Zahir, the Nass prevails over
the Zahir.
[18. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.95.]
To give an example of Zahir in modern criminal law, we may refer to the word 'night' which occurs in
many statutes in connection with theft. When theft is committed at night, it carries a heavier penalty.
Now if one takes the manifest meaning of 'night', then it means the period between sunset and sunrise.
However this meaning may not be totally harmonious with the purpose of the law. What is really meant
by 'night' is the dark of the night, which is an accentuating circumstance in regard to theft. Here the
meaning of the Zahir is qualified with reference to the rational purpose of the law and the nature of the
offence in question.
[19. Cf. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
I. 3 & 4 Unequivocal (Mufassar) and Perspicuous (Muhkam)
Mufassar is a word or a text whose meaning is completely clear and is, in the meantime, in harmony
with the context in which it appears. Because of this and the high level of clarity in the meaning of
Mufassar, there is no need for recourse to ta'wil. But the Mufassar may still be open to abrogation
which might, in reference to the Qur'an and Sunnah, have taken place during the lifetime of the Prophet.
The idea of the Mufassar, as the word itself implies, is that the text explains itself. The Lawgiver has, in
other words, explained His own intentions with complete clarity, and the occasion for ta'wil does not
arise. The Mufassar occurs in two varieties, one being the text which is self-explained, or Mufassar
bidhatih, and the other is when the ambiguity in one text is clarified and explained by another. This is
known as Mufassar bighayrih, in which case the two texts become an integral part of one another and
the two combine to constitute a Mufassar.
[20. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96; Badran, Usul, pp. 404-405.]
An example of
Mufassar in the Qur'an is the text in sura al-Tawbah (9:36) which addresses the believers to 'fight the
pagans all together (kaffah) as they fight you all together'. The word 'kaffah' which occurs twice in this
text precludes the possibility of applying specification (takhsis) to the words preceding it, namely the
pagans (mushrikin). Mufassar occurs in many a modern statute with regard to specified crimes and their
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 92
penalties, but also with regard to civil liabilities, the payment of damages, and debts. The words of the
statute are often self-explained and definite so as to preclude ta'wil. But the basic function of the
explanation that the text itself provides is concerned with that part of the text which is ambivalent
(mujmal) and needs to be clarified. When the necessary explanation is provided, the ambiguity is
removed and the text becomes a Mufassar. An example of this is the phrase 'laylah al-qadr' ('night of
qadr') in the following Qur'anic passage. The phrase is ambiguous to begin with, but is then explained:
We sent it [the Qur'an] down on the Night of Qadr. What will make you realise what
the Night of Qadr is like?[...] It is the night in which angels and the spirit descend [...]
(al-Qadr, 97:1-4).
The text thus explains the 'laylah al-qadr' and as a result of the explanation so provided, the text
becomes self-explained, or Mufassar. Hence there is no need for recourse to ta'wil. Sometimes the
ambiguous of the Qur'an is clarified by the Sunnah, and when this is the case, the clarification given by
the Sunnah becomes an integral part of the Qur'an. There are numerous examples of this, such as the
words salah, zakah, hajj, riba, which occur in the following ayat:
Perform the salah and pay the zakah (al-Nahl, 16:44)
God has enacted upon people the pilgrimage of hajj to be performed by all who are
capable of it (Al-'Imran, 3:97).
God permitted sale and prohibited usury (riba ) (al-Baqarah, 2:275).
The juridical meanings of salah, zakah, hajj and riba could not be known from the brief references that
are made to them in these ayat. Hence the Prophet provided the necessary explanation in the form of
both verbal and practical instructions. In this way the text which was initially ambivalent (mujmal)
became Mufassar. With regard to salah, for example, the Prophet instructed his followers to 'perform
the salah the way you see me performing it', and regarding the hajj he ordered them to 'take from me
the rituals of the hajj.
[21. Tabrizi, Mishkat, I, 215, Hadith no. 683; Shatibi, Muwafaqat III, 178; Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.167; Badran, Usul, p. 405.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 93
There are also many ahadith which explain the Qur'anic prohibition of riba in specific and elaborate
detail.
The value (hukm) of the Mufassar is that acting upon it is obligatory. The clear meaning of a Mufassar
is not open to interpretation and unless it has been abrogated, the obvious text must be followed. But
since abrogation of the Qur'an and Sunnah discontinued upon the demise of the Prophet, to all intents
and purposes, the Mufassar is equivalent to the perspicuous (Muhkam), which is the last in the range of
clear words and is not open to any change.
Specific words (al-alfaz al-khassah) which are not open to ta'wil or any change in their primary
meanings are in the nature of Mufassar. Thus the Qur'anic punishment of eighty lashes for slanderous
accusation (qadhf) in sura al-Nur (24:4), or the ayah of inheritance (al-Nisa', 4:11) which prescribes
specific shares for legal heirs, consist of fixed numbers which rule out the possibility of ta'wil. They all
partake in the qualities of Mufassar.
[22. Badran, Usul, p. 404.]
Since Mufassar is one degree stronger than Nass, in the event of a conflict between them, the Mufassar
prevails. This can be illustrated in the two hadiths concerning the ablution of a woman who experiences
irregular menstruations that last longer than the expected three days or so: she is required to perform the
salah; as for the ablution (wudu') for salah, she is instructed, according to one Hadith:
A woman in prolonged menstruations must make a fresh wudu' for every salah:
Dawud, Sunan, I, 76, Hadith nos. 294, and 304 respectively.]
And according to another Hadith
A woman in prolonged menstruation must make a fresh wudu' at the time of every
salah.
[24. Abu Dawud, Sunan, I, 76, Hadith nos. 294, and 304 respectively.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 94
The first Hadith is a Nass on the requirement of a fresh wudu' for every salah, but the second Hadith is
a Mufassar which does not admit of any ta'wil. The first Hadith is not completely categorical as to
whether 'every salah' applies to both obligatory and supererogatory (fara'id wa-nawafil) types of salah.
Supposing that they are both performed at the same time, would a separate wudu' be required for each?
But this ambiguity/ question does not arise under the second Hadith as the latter provides complete
instruction: a wudu' is only required at the time of every salah and the same wudu' is sufficient for any
number of salahs at that particular time.
[25. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 169; Badran, Usul, p. 408.]
Words and sentences whose meaning is clear beyond doubt and are not open to ta'wil and abrogation
are called Muhkam. An example of this is the frequently occurring Qur'anic statement that 'God knows
all things'. This kind of statement cannot be abrogated, either in the lifetime of the Prophet, or after his
demise.
[26. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p.518; Badran, Usul, p. 406; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.96.]
The text may sometimes explain itself
in terms that would preclude the possibility of abrogation. An example of this is the Qur'anic address to
the believers concerning the wives of the Prophet: 'It is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of
God; nor should you ever marry his widows after him. For that is truly an enormity in God's sight' (alAhzab,
33:35). The prohibition here is emphasised by the word abadan
(never, ever) which renders it Muhkam, thereby precluding the possibility of abrogation. The Muhkam is, in reality, nothing other than Mufassar with one difference, namely that Muhkam is not open to abrogation. An example of Muhkam in the Sunnah is the ruling concerning jihad which provides that 'jihad (holy struggle) remains valid till the day of resurrection'.
[27. Abu Dawud, Sunan, II, 702, Hadith no. 2526; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96.]
The ulema of usul have given the Qur'anic ayah on slanderous accusation as another example of
Muhkam, despite some differences of interpretation that have arisen over it among the Hanafi and
Shafi'i jurists. The ayah provides, concerning persons who are convicted and punished for slanderous
accusation (qadhf): 'And accept not their testimony ever, for such people are transgressors' (al-Nur,
24:4). Once again the occurrence of abadan ('for ever') in this text renders it Muhkam and precludes all
possibility of abrogation. The Hanafis have held that the express terms of this ayah admit of no
exception. A qadhif, that is, a slanderous accuser, may never be admitted as a witness even if he
repents. But according to the Shafi'is, if the qadhif repents after punishment, he may be admitted as a
witness. The reason for this exception, according to the Shafi'is, is given in the subsequent portion of
the same text, which reads: 'Unless they repent afterwards, and rectify themselves.' The grounds of
these differential interpretations need not be elaborated here. Suffice it to point out that the differences
are over the understanding of the pronouns in the text, whether they refer to the qadhif and transgressors
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 95
both, or to the latter only. There is no difference of opinion over the basic punishment of qadhf, which
is eighty lashes as the text provides, but only with regard to the additional penalty disqualifying them as
witnesses forever. It would thus appear that these differences fall within the scope of tafsir rather than
that of ta'wil.
The Muhkam is not open to abrogation. This may be indicated in the text itself, as in the foregoing
examples, or it may be due to the absence of an abrogating text. The former is known as Muhkam
bidhatih, or Muhkam by itself, and the second as Muhkam bighayrih, or Muhkam because of another
factor.
[28. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96; Badran, Usul, p. 406.]
The purpose of the foregoing distinction between the four types of clear words is to identify their
propensity or otherwise to ta'wil, that is, of admitting a meaning other than their obvious meaning, and
whether or not they are open to abrogation. If a word is not open to either of these possibilities, it would
follow that it retains its original or primary meaning and admits of no other interpretation. The present
classification, in other words, contemplates the scope of ta'wil in that the latter is applicable only to the
Zahir and Nass but not to the Mufassar and Muhkam. The next purpose of this classification is to
provide guidelines for resolving possible conflicts between the various categories of words. In this way
an order of priority is established by which the Muhkam prevails over the other three varieties of clear
words and the Mufassar takes priority over the Nass, and so on. But this order of priority applies only
when the two conflicting texts both occur in the Qur'an. However, when a conflict arises between, say,
the Zahir of the Qur'an and the Nass of the Sunnah, the former would prevail despite its being one
degree weaker in the order of priority. This may be illustrated by the ayah of the Qur'an concerning
guardianship in marriage, which is in the nature of Zahir. The ayah provides: 'If he has divorced her,
then she is not lawful to him until she marries (hatta tankiha) another man' (al-Baqarah, 2:229). This
text is Zahir in respect of guardianship as its principal theme is divorce, not guardianship. From the
Arabic form of the word 'tankiha' in this text, the Hanafis have drawn the additional conclusion that an
adult woman can contract her own marriage, without the presence of a guardian. However there is a
Hadith on the subject of guardianship which is in the nature of Nass, which provides that 'there shall be
no marriage without a guardian (wali).
[29. Abu Dawud, Sunan (Hasan's trans.), II, 555 Hadith no. 2078; Badran, Usul, p. 408.]
This Hadith is more specific on the point that a woman must be contracted in marriage by her guardian.
Notwithstanding this, however, the Zahir of the Qur'an is given priority, by the Hanafis at least, over
the Nass of the Hadith. The majority of ulema have, however, followed the ruling of the Sunnah on this
point.
[30. Badran,Usul, p.409.]
II. Unclear Words (al-Alfaz Ghayr al-Wadihah)
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 96
These are words which do not by themselves convey a clear meaning without the aid of additional
evidence that may be furnished by the Lawgiver Himself, or by the mujtahid. If the inherent ambiguity
is clarified by means of research and ijtihad, the words are classified as Khafi (obscure) and Mushkil
(difficult). But when the ambiguity could only be removed by an explanation which is furnished by the
Lawgiver, the word is classified either as Mujmal (ambivalent) or Mutashabih (intricate), as follows.
Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.162; Badran, Usul, p. 409.]
II. 1 The Obscure (Khafi)
Khafi denotes a word which has a basic meaning but is partially ambiguous in respect of some of the
individual cases to which it is applied: the word is consequently obscure with regard to these cases only.
The ambiguity in Khafi needs to be clarified by extraneous evidence which is often a matter of research
and ijtihad. An example of Khafi is the word 'thief' (sariq) which has a basic meaning but which, when
it is applied to cases such as that of a pickpocket, or a person who steals the shrouds of the dead, does
not make it immediately clear whether 'thief' includes a pickpocket or not and whether the punishment
of theft can be applied to the latter. The basic ingredients of theft are present in this activity, but the fact
that the pickpocket uses a kind of skill in taking the assets of a person in wakefulness makes it
somewhat different from theft. Similarly, it is not certain whether 'thief' includes a nabbash, that is, one
who steals the shroud of the dead, since a shroud is not a guarded property (mal muhraz). Imam Shafi'i
and Abu Yusuf would apply the prescribed penalty of theft to the nabbash, whereas the majority of
ulema only make him liable to the discretionary punishment of ta'zir. There is also an ijtihadi opinion
which authorises the application of the hadd of theft to the pickpocket.
The word 'qatil' (killer) in the Hadith that 'the killer shall not inherit',
[32. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.170; Badran, Usul, p. 410.]
[33. Shafi'i, Al-Risalah, p. 80.]
is also Khafi
in respect of certain varieties of killing such as 'erroneous killing' (qatl al-khata'). The malikis have held
that erroneous killing is not included in the meaning of this Hadith, whereas according to the Hanafis, it
is in the interest of safeguarding the lives of the people to include erroneous killing within the meaning
of this Hadith.
[34. Badran, Usul, p. 411.]
To remove the ambiguity in Khafi is usually a matter of ijtihad, which
would explain why there are divergent rulings on each of the foregoing examples. It is the duty of the
mujtahid to exert himself so as to clarify the ambiguity in the Khafi before it can constitute the basis of
a judicial order.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 97
II.2 The Difficult (Mushkil)
Mushkil denotes a word which is inherently ambiguous, and whose ambiguity can only be removed by
means of research and ijtihad. The Mushkil differs from the Khafi in that the latter has a basic meaning
which is generally clear, whereas the Mushkil is inherently ambiguous. There are, for example, words
which have more than one meaning, and when they occur in a text, the text is unclear with regard to one
or the other of those meanings. Thus the word 'qur' ' which occurs in sura al-Baqarah (2:228) is Mushkil
as it has two distinct meanings: menstruation (hayd) and the clean period between two menstruations
(tuhr). Whichever of these is taken, the ruling of the text will differ accordingly. Imam Shafi'i and a
number of other jurists have adopted the latter, whereas the Hanafis and others have adopted the former
as the correct meaning of qur'.
Sometimes the difficulty arising in the text is caused by the existence of a conflicting text. Although
each of the two texts may be fairly clear as they stand alone, they become difficult when one attempts to
reconcile them. This may be illustrated in the following two ayat, one of which provides:
'Whatever good that befalls you is from God, and whatever misfortune that happens to
you' is from yourself' (al-Nisa', 4:79).
Elsewhere we read in sura Al-'Imran (3:154): 'Say that the matter is all in God's hands.' A similar
difficulty is noted in the following two passages. According to the first, 'Verily God does not command
obscenity/evil' (al-A'raf, 7:28). And then we read in sura Bani Isra'il (17: 16), 'When We decide to
destroy a population, We first send a definite order to their privileged ones, and when they transgress,
the word is proven against them, then We destroy them with utter destruction.' Could it be said that total
destruction is a form of evil? There is no certainty as to the correct meaning of Mushkil, as it is
inherently ambiguous. Any explanation which is provided by the mujtahid is bound to be speculative.
The mujtahid is nevertheless bound to exert himself in order to discover the correct meaning of Mushkil
before it can be implemented and adopted as a basis of action.
II.3 The Ambivalent (Mujmal)
[35. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.173; Badran, Usul, p. 413.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 98
Mujmal denotes a word or text which is inherently unclear and gives no indication as to its precise
meaning. The cause of ambiguity in Mujmal is inherent in the locution itself. A word may be a
homonym with more than one meaning, and there is no indication as to which might be the correct one,
or alternatively the Lawgiver has given it a meaning other than its literal one, or the word may be totally
unfamiliar. In any of these eventualities, there is no way of removing the ambiguity without recourse to
the explanation that the Lawgiver has furnished Himself, for He introduced the ambiguous word in the
first place. Words that have been used in a transferred sense, that is, for a meaning other than their
literal one, in order to convey a technical or a juridical concept, fall under the category of Mujmal. For
example, expressions such as salah, riba, hajj, and siyam have all lost their literal meanings due to the
fact that the Lawgiver has used them for purposes other than those which they originally conveyed.
Each of these words has a literal meaning, but since their technical meaning is so radically different
from the literal, the link between them is lost and the technical meaning becomes totally dominant. A
word of this type remains ambivalent until it is clarified by the Lawgiver Himself. The juridical
meaning of all the Qur'anic words cited above has been explained by the Prophet, in which case, they
cease to be ambivalent. For when the Lawgiver provides the necessary explanation, the Mujmal is
explained and turns into Mufassar.
The Mujmal may sometimes be an unfamiliar word which is inherently vague, but is clarified by the
text where it occurs. For example 'al-qari'ah' and 'halu ' which occur in the Qur'an. The relevant
passages are as follows:
The stunning blow (al-qari'ah)! What is the stunning blow? What will make you realise
what the stunning blow is? It is the Day on which the people will act like scattered
moths; and the mountains will be like carded wool (al-Qari'ah, 101:1-5).
Truly man was created restless (halu'an); so he panics whenever any evil touches him;
and withholds when some fortune befalls him (al-Ma'arij, 70:20-23).
The ambivalent words in these passages have thus been explained and the text has as a result become
self-explained, or Mufassar. The Mujmal turns into the Mufassar only when the clarification that the
Lawgiver provides is complete; but when it is incomplete, or insufficient to remove the ambiguity, the
Mujmal turns into a Mushkil, which is then open to research and ijtihad. An example of this is the word
riba which occurs in the Qur'an (al-Baqarah, 2:275) in the form of a Mujmal, as when it reads: 'God
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 99
permitted sale and prohibited riba', the last word in this text literally meaning 'increase'. Since not every
increase or profit is unlawful, the text remains ambivalent as to what type of increase it intends to
forbid. The Prophet has clarified the basic concept of riba in the Hadith which specifies six items (gold,
silver, wheat, barley, salt and dates) to which the prohibition applies. But this explanation is insufficient
for detailed purposes in that it leaves room for reflection and enquiry as to the rationale of the text with
a view to extending the same rule to similar commodities. The Hadith thus opens the way to further
ijtihad and analogy to the goods that it has specified.
Badran, Usul, pp. 414-415.]
II.4 The Intricate (Mutashabih)
[36. Muslim, Sahih Muslim, I, 252, Hadith no. 949; Khallaf, 'Ilm, pp.173-175;
This denotes a word whose meaning is a total mystery. There are words in the Qur'an whose meaning is
not known at all. Neither the words themselves nor the text in which they occur provide any indication
as to their meaning. The Mutashabih as such does not occur in the legal nusus, but it does occur in other
contexts. Some of the suras of the Qur'an begin with what is called al-muqatta'at, that is, abbreviated
letters whose meaning is a total mystery. Expressions such as alif-lam-mim, ya-sin, ha-mim and many
others which occur on 29 occasions in the Qur'an, are all classified as Mutashabih. Some ulema have
held the view that the muqatta'at are meant to exemplify the inimitable qualities of the Qur'an, while
others maintain that they are not abbreviations but symbols and names of God; that they have numerical
significance; and that they are used to attract the attention of the audience. According to yet another
view, the Mutashabih in the Qur'an is meant as a reminder of limitations in the knowledge of the
believer, who is made to realise that the unseen realities are too vast to be comprehended by reason.
The Holy Qur'an (Yusuf Ali's trans.) p. 118; Denffer, 'Ulum, p. 84; Abdur Rahim, Jurisprudence, p. 100.]
Some ulema, including Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri, have held the view that with the exception of the muqatta'at
there is no Mutashabih in the Qur'an. Others have maintained that the passages of the Qur'an which
draw resemblances between God and man are also in the nature of Mutashabih.
[38. Badran, Usul, p. 416.]
Thus
the ayat which provide: 'the hand of God is over their hands' (al-Fath, 48:10); and in a reference to the
Prophet Noah where we read: 'build a ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration' (Hud, 11:37) and in sura
al-Rahman (55:27) where the text runs 'and the face of your Lord will abide forever', are instances of
Mutashabih as their precise meaning cannot be known. One can of course draw an appropriate
metaphorical meaning in each case, which is what the Mu'tazilah have attempted, but this is neither
satisfactory nor certain. To say that 'hand' metaphorically means power, and 'eyes' means supervision is
no more than a conjecture. For we do not know the subject of our comparison. The Qur'an also tells us
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence
Kamali 100
that 'there is nothing like Him' (al-Shura, 42:11). Since the Lawgiver has not explained these
resemblances to us, they remain unintelligible.
[39. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 176.]
The existence of the Mutashabih in the Qur'an is proven by the testimony of the Book itself, which is as
follows:
He it is who has sent down to you the Book. Some of it consist of Muhkamat, which are
the Mother of the Book, while others are Mutashabihat. Those who have swerving in
their hearts, in their quest for sedition, follow the Mutashabihat and search for its
hidden meanings. But no one knows those meanings except God. And those who are
firmly grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord. But
only people of inner understanding really heed. (Al-'Imran, 3:7).
The ulema have differed in their understanding of this ayah, particularly with regard to the definition of
Muhkamat and Mutashabihat. But the correct view is that Muhkam is that part of the Qur'an which is
not open to conjecture and doubt, whereas the Mutashabih is. With regard to the letters which appear at
the beginning of suras, it has been suggested that they are the names of the suras in which they occur.
As for the question of whether acting upon the Mutashabih is permissible or not, there is disagreement,
but the correct view is that no one may act upon it. This is so not because the Mutashabih has no
meaning, but because the correct meaning is not known to any human being.
[40. Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 68.]
There
is no doubt that all the Mutashabihat have a meaning, but it is only known to God, and we must not
impose our estimations on the words of God in areas where no indication is available to reveal the
correct meaning to us.
[41. Shawkani, Irshad, pp.31-32.]
Classification II: The 'Amm (General) and the Khass (Specific).
From the viewpoint of their scope, words are classified into the 'general' and the 'specific'. This is
basically a conceptual distinction which is not always obvious in the grammatical forms of words,
although the ulema have identified certain linguistic patterns of words which assist us in differentiating
the 'Amm from the Khass.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 101
quoted on the prohibition of dead carcasses and blood have been qualified elsewhere in the Qur'an
where 'blood' has been qualified as 'blood shed forth' (al-An'am, 6:145). Similarly, there is a Hadith
which permits consumption of two types of dead carcasses, namely fish and locust.
Hadith no. 4132.]
(See full version of this Hadith on page 131.) Another example of the Nass which has been
subjected to ta'wil is the Hadith concerning the legal alms (zakah) of livestock, which simply provides
that this shall be 'one in every forty sheep'.
[15. Abu Dawud, Sunan, II, 410, Hadith no. 1567.]
The obvious Nass of this Hadith admittedly requires that the animal itself should be given in zakah. But
it would seem in harmony with the basic purpose of the law to say that either the sheep or their
equivalent monetary value may be given. For the purpose of zakah is to satisfy the needs of the poor,
and this could equally be done by giving them the equivalent amount of money; it is even likely that
they might prefer this.
[16. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 165; Amidi (Ihkam, III, 57) considers this to be a ta'wil which is far-fetched.]
The Hanafis have
offered a similar interpretation for two other Qur'anic ayat, one on the expiation of futile oaths, and the
other on the expiation of deliberate breaking of the fast during Ramadan. The first is enacted at feeding
ten poor persons (al-Ma'idah, 5:92), and the second at feeding sixty such persons (al-Mujadalah, 58:4).
The Hanafis have held that this text can be implemented either by feeding ten needy persons or by
feeding one such person on ten occasions. Similarly, the provision in the second ayah may be
understood, according to the Hanafis, to mean feeding sixty poor persons, or one such person sixty
times.
[17. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
[14. Tabrizi, Mishkat, II, 1203,
As already stated, Nass is stronger than Zahir, and should there be a conflict between them, the former
prevails over the latter. This may be illustrated in the following two Qur'anic passages, one of which is
a Nass in regard to the prohibition of wine, and the other a Zahir in regard to the permissibility of eating
and drinking in general. The two passages are as follows:
O believers! Intoxicants, games of chance and sacrificing to stones and arrows are the
unclean works of Satan So avoid them . . . (al-Ma'idah, 5:93).
On those who believe and do good deeds, there is no blame for what they consume
while they keep their duty and believe and do good deeds (al-Ma'idah, 5:96)
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 91
The Nass in the first ayah is the prohibition of wine, which is the main purpose and theme of the text.
The Zahir in the second ayah is the permissibility of eating and drinking without restriction. The main
purpose of the second ayah is, however, to accentuate the virtue of piety (taqwa) in that taqwa is not a
question of austerity with regard to food, it is rather a matter of God-consciousness and good deeds.
There is an apparent conflict between the two ayat, but since the prohibition of wine is established in
the Nass, and the permissibility regarding food and drink is in the form of Zahir, the Nass prevails over
the Zahir.
[18. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.95.]
To give an example of Zahir in modern criminal law, we may refer to the word 'night' which occurs in
many statutes in connection with theft. When theft is committed at night, it carries a heavier penalty.
Now if one takes the manifest meaning of 'night', then it means the period between sunset and sunrise.
However this meaning may not be totally harmonious with the purpose of the law. What is really meant
by 'night' is the dark of the night, which is an accentuating circumstance in regard to theft. Here the
meaning of the Zahir is qualified with reference to the rational purpose of the law and the nature of the
offence in question.
[19. Cf. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
I. 3 & 4 Unequivocal (Mufassar) and Perspicuous (Muhkam)
Mufassar is a word or a text whose meaning is completely clear and is, in the meantime, in harmony
with the context in which it appears. Because of this and the high level of clarity in the meaning of
Mufassar, there is no need for recourse to ta'wil. But the Mufassar may still be open to abrogation
which might, in reference to the Qur'an and Sunnah, have taken place during the lifetime of the Prophet.
The idea of the Mufassar, as the word itself implies, is that the text explains itself. The Lawgiver has, in
other words, explained His own intentions with complete clarity, and the occasion for ta'wil does not
arise. The Mufassar occurs in two varieties, one being the text which is self-explained, or Mufassar
bidhatih, and the other is when the ambiguity in one text is clarified and explained by another. This is
known as Mufassar bighayrih, in which case the two texts become an integral part of one another and
the two combine to constitute a Mufassar.
[20. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96; Badran, Usul, pp. 404-405.]
An example of
Mufassar in the Qur'an is the text in sura al-Tawbah (9:36) which addresses the believers to 'fight the
pagans all together (kaffah) as they fight you all together'. The word 'kaffah' which occurs twice in this
text precludes the possibility of applying specification (takhsis) to the words preceding it, namely the
pagans (mushrikin). Mufassar occurs in many a modern statute with regard to specified crimes and their
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 92
penalties, but also with regard to civil liabilities, the payment of damages, and debts. The words of the
statute are often self-explained and definite so as to preclude ta'wil. But the basic function of the
explanation that the text itself provides is concerned with that part of the text which is ambivalent
(mujmal) and needs to be clarified. When the necessary explanation is provided, the ambiguity is
removed and the text becomes a Mufassar. An example of this is the phrase 'laylah al-qadr' ('night of
qadr') in the following Qur'anic passage. The phrase is ambiguous to begin with, but is then explained:
We sent it [the Qur'an] down on the Night of Qadr. What will make you realise what
the Night of Qadr is like?[...] It is the night in which angels and the spirit descend [...]
(al-Qadr, 97:1-4).
The text thus explains the 'laylah al-qadr' and as a result of the explanation so provided, the text
becomes self-explained, or Mufassar. Hence there is no need for recourse to ta'wil. Sometimes the
ambiguous of the Qur'an is clarified by the Sunnah, and when this is the case, the clarification given by
the Sunnah becomes an integral part of the Qur'an. There are numerous examples of this, such as the
words salah, zakah, hajj, riba, which occur in the following ayat:
Perform the salah and pay the zakah (al-Nahl, 16:44)
God has enacted upon people the pilgrimage of hajj to be performed by all who are
capable of it (Al-'Imran, 3:97).
God permitted sale and prohibited usury (riba ) (al-Baqarah, 2:275).
The juridical meanings of salah, zakah, hajj and riba could not be known from the brief references that
are made to them in these ayat. Hence the Prophet provided the necessary explanation in the form of
both verbal and practical instructions. In this way the text which was initially ambivalent (mujmal)
became Mufassar. With regard to salah, for example, the Prophet instructed his followers to 'perform
the salah the way you see me performing it', and regarding the hajj he ordered them to 'take from me
the rituals of the hajj.
[21. Tabrizi, Mishkat, I, 215, Hadith no. 683; Shatibi, Muwafaqat III, 178; Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.167; Badran, Usul, p. 405.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 93
There are also many ahadith which explain the Qur'anic prohibition of riba in specific and elaborate
detail.
The value (hukm) of the Mufassar is that acting upon it is obligatory. The clear meaning of a Mufassar
is not open to interpretation and unless it has been abrogated, the obvious text must be followed. But
since abrogation of the Qur'an and Sunnah discontinued upon the demise of the Prophet, to all intents
and purposes, the Mufassar is equivalent to the perspicuous (Muhkam), which is the last in the range of
clear words and is not open to any change.
Specific words (al-alfaz al-khassah) which are not open to ta'wil or any change in their primary
meanings are in the nature of Mufassar. Thus the Qur'anic punishment of eighty lashes for slanderous
accusation (qadhf) in sura al-Nur (24:4), or the ayah of inheritance (al-Nisa', 4:11) which prescribes
specific shares for legal heirs, consist of fixed numbers which rule out the possibility of ta'wil. They all
partake in the qualities of Mufassar.
[22. Badran, Usul, p. 404.]
Since Mufassar is one degree stronger than Nass, in the event of a conflict between them, the Mufassar
prevails. This can be illustrated in the two hadiths concerning the ablution of a woman who experiences
irregular menstruations that last longer than the expected three days or so: she is required to perform the
salah; as for the ablution (wudu') for salah, she is instructed, according to one Hadith:
A woman in prolonged menstruations must make a fresh wudu' for every salah:
Dawud, Sunan, I, 76, Hadith nos. 294, and 304 respectively.]
And according to another Hadith
A woman in prolonged menstruation must make a fresh wudu' at the time of every
salah.
[24. Abu Dawud, Sunan, I, 76, Hadith nos. 294, and 304 respectively.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 94
The first Hadith is a Nass on the requirement of a fresh wudu' for every salah, but the second Hadith is
a Mufassar which does not admit of any ta'wil. The first Hadith is not completely categorical as to
whether 'every salah' applies to both obligatory and supererogatory (fara'id wa-nawafil) types of salah.
Supposing that they are both performed at the same time, would a separate wudu' be required for each?
But this ambiguity/ question does not arise under the second Hadith as the latter provides complete
instruction: a wudu' is only required at the time of every salah and the same wudu' is sufficient for any
number of salahs at that particular time.
[25. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 169; Badran, Usul, p. 408.]
Words and sentences whose meaning is clear beyond doubt and are not open to ta'wil and abrogation
are called Muhkam. An example of this is the frequently occurring Qur'anic statement that 'God knows
all things'. This kind of statement cannot be abrogated, either in the lifetime of the Prophet, or after his
demise.
[26. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p.518; Badran, Usul, p. 406; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.96.]
The text may sometimes explain itself
in terms that would preclude the possibility of abrogation. An example of this is the Qur'anic address to
the believers concerning the wives of the Prophet: 'It is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of
God; nor should you ever marry his widows after him. For that is truly an enormity in God's sight' (alAhzab,
33:35). The prohibition here is emphasised by the word abadan
(never, ever) which renders it Muhkam, thereby precluding the possibility of abrogation. The Muhkam is, in reality, nothing other than Mufassar with one difference, namely that Muhkam is not open to abrogation. An example of Muhkam in the Sunnah is the ruling concerning jihad which provides that 'jihad (holy struggle) remains valid till the day of resurrection'.
[27. Abu Dawud, Sunan, II, 702, Hadith no. 2526; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96.]
The ulema of usul have given the Qur'anic ayah on slanderous accusation as another example of
Muhkam, despite some differences of interpretation that have arisen over it among the Hanafi and
Shafi'i jurists. The ayah provides, concerning persons who are convicted and punished for slanderous
accusation (qadhf): 'And accept not their testimony ever, for such people are transgressors' (al-Nur,
24:4). Once again the occurrence of abadan ('for ever') in this text renders it Muhkam and precludes all
possibility of abrogation. The Hanafis have held that the express terms of this ayah admit of no
exception. A qadhif, that is, a slanderous accuser, may never be admitted as a witness even if he
repents. But according to the Shafi'is, if the qadhif repents after punishment, he may be admitted as a
witness. The reason for this exception, according to the Shafi'is, is given in the subsequent portion of
the same text, which reads: 'Unless they repent afterwards, and rectify themselves.' The grounds of
these differential interpretations need not be elaborated here. Suffice it to point out that the differences
are over the understanding of the pronouns in the text, whether they refer to the qadhif and transgressors
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 95
both, or to the latter only. There is no difference of opinion over the basic punishment of qadhf, which
is eighty lashes as the text provides, but only with regard to the additional penalty disqualifying them as
witnesses forever. It would thus appear that these differences fall within the scope of tafsir rather than
that of ta'wil.
The Muhkam is not open to abrogation. This may be indicated in the text itself, as in the foregoing
examples, or it may be due to the absence of an abrogating text. The former is known as Muhkam
bidhatih, or Muhkam by itself, and the second as Muhkam bighayrih, or Muhkam because of another
factor.
[28. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 96; Badran, Usul, p. 406.]
The purpose of the foregoing distinction between the four types of clear words is to identify their
propensity or otherwise to ta'wil, that is, of admitting a meaning other than their obvious meaning, and
whether or not they are open to abrogation. If a word is not open to either of these possibilities, it would
follow that it retains its original or primary meaning and admits of no other interpretation. The present
classification, in other words, contemplates the scope of ta'wil in that the latter is applicable only to the
Zahir and Nass but not to the Mufassar and Muhkam. The next purpose of this classification is to
provide guidelines for resolving possible conflicts between the various categories of words. In this way
an order of priority is established by which the Muhkam prevails over the other three varieties of clear
words and the Mufassar takes priority over the Nass, and so on. But this order of priority applies only
when the two conflicting texts both occur in the Qur'an. However, when a conflict arises between, say,
the Zahir of the Qur'an and the Nass of the Sunnah, the former would prevail despite its being one
degree weaker in the order of priority. This may be illustrated by the ayah of the Qur'an concerning
guardianship in marriage, which is in the nature of Zahir. The ayah provides: 'If he has divorced her,
then she is not lawful to him until she marries (hatta tankiha) another man' (al-Baqarah, 2:229). This
text is Zahir in respect of guardianship as its principal theme is divorce, not guardianship. From the
Arabic form of the word 'tankiha' in this text, the Hanafis have drawn the additional conclusion that an
adult woman can contract her own marriage, without the presence of a guardian. However there is a
Hadith on the subject of guardianship which is in the nature of Nass, which provides that 'there shall be
no marriage without a guardian (wali).
[29. Abu Dawud, Sunan (Hasan's trans.), II, 555 Hadith no. 2078; Badran, Usul, p. 408.]
This Hadith is more specific on the point that a woman must be contracted in marriage by her guardian.
Notwithstanding this, however, the Zahir of the Qur'an is given priority, by the Hanafis at least, over
the Nass of the Hadith. The majority of ulema have, however, followed the ruling of the Sunnah on this
point.
[30. Badran,Usul, p.409.]
II. Unclear Words (al-Alfaz Ghayr al-Wadihah)
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 96
These are words which do not by themselves convey a clear meaning without the aid of additional
evidence that may be furnished by the Lawgiver Himself, or by the mujtahid. If the inherent ambiguity
is clarified by means of research and ijtihad, the words are classified as Khafi (obscure) and Mushkil
(difficult). But when the ambiguity could only be removed by an explanation which is furnished by the
Lawgiver, the word is classified either as Mujmal (ambivalent) or Mutashabih (intricate), as follows.
Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.162; Badran, Usul, p. 409.]
II. 1 The Obscure (Khafi)
Khafi denotes a word which has a basic meaning but is partially ambiguous in respect of some of the
individual cases to which it is applied: the word is consequently obscure with regard to these cases only.
The ambiguity in Khafi needs to be clarified by extraneous evidence which is often a matter of research
and ijtihad. An example of Khafi is the word 'thief' (sariq) which has a basic meaning but which, when
it is applied to cases such as that of a pickpocket, or a person who steals the shrouds of the dead, does
not make it immediately clear whether 'thief' includes a pickpocket or not and whether the punishment
of theft can be applied to the latter. The basic ingredients of theft are present in this activity, but the fact
that the pickpocket uses a kind of skill in taking the assets of a person in wakefulness makes it
somewhat different from theft. Similarly, it is not certain whether 'thief' includes a nabbash, that is, one
who steals the shroud of the dead, since a shroud is not a guarded property (mal muhraz). Imam Shafi'i
and Abu Yusuf would apply the prescribed penalty of theft to the nabbash, whereas the majority of
ulema only make him liable to the discretionary punishment of ta'zir. There is also an ijtihadi opinion
which authorises the application of the hadd of theft to the pickpocket.
The word 'qatil' (killer) in the Hadith that 'the killer shall not inherit',
[32. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.170; Badran, Usul, p. 410.]
[33. Shafi'i, Al-Risalah, p. 80.]
is also Khafi
in respect of certain varieties of killing such as 'erroneous killing' (qatl al-khata'). The malikis have held
that erroneous killing is not included in the meaning of this Hadith, whereas according to the Hanafis, it
is in the interest of safeguarding the lives of the people to include erroneous killing within the meaning
of this Hadith.
[34. Badran, Usul, p. 411.]
To remove the ambiguity in Khafi is usually a matter of ijtihad, which
would explain why there are divergent rulings on each of the foregoing examples. It is the duty of the
mujtahid to exert himself so as to clarify the ambiguity in the Khafi before it can constitute the basis of
a judicial order.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 97
II.2 The Difficult (Mushkil)
Mushkil denotes a word which is inherently ambiguous, and whose ambiguity can only be removed by
means of research and ijtihad. The Mushkil differs from the Khafi in that the latter has a basic meaning
which is generally clear, whereas the Mushkil is inherently ambiguous. There are, for example, words
which have more than one meaning, and when they occur in a text, the text is unclear with regard to one
or the other of those meanings. Thus the word 'qur' ' which occurs in sura al-Baqarah (2:228) is Mushkil
as it has two distinct meanings: menstruation (hayd) and the clean period between two menstruations
(tuhr). Whichever of these is taken, the ruling of the text will differ accordingly. Imam Shafi'i and a
number of other jurists have adopted the latter, whereas the Hanafis and others have adopted the former
as the correct meaning of qur'.
Sometimes the difficulty arising in the text is caused by the existence of a conflicting text. Although
each of the two texts may be fairly clear as they stand alone, they become difficult when one attempts to
reconcile them. This may be illustrated in the following two ayat, one of which provides:
'Whatever good that befalls you is from God, and whatever misfortune that happens to
you' is from yourself' (al-Nisa', 4:79).
Elsewhere we read in sura Al-'Imran (3:154): 'Say that the matter is all in God's hands.' A similar
difficulty is noted in the following two passages. According to the first, 'Verily God does not command
obscenity/evil' (al-A'raf, 7:28). And then we read in sura Bani Isra'il (17: 16), 'When We decide to
destroy a population, We first send a definite order to their privileged ones, and when they transgress,
the word is proven against them, then We destroy them with utter destruction.' Could it be said that total
destruction is a form of evil? There is no certainty as to the correct meaning of Mushkil, as it is
inherently ambiguous. Any explanation which is provided by the mujtahid is bound to be speculative.
The mujtahid is nevertheless bound to exert himself in order to discover the correct meaning of Mushkil
before it can be implemented and adopted as a basis of action.
II.3 The Ambivalent (Mujmal)
[35. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.173; Badran, Usul, p. 413.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 98
Mujmal denotes a word or text which is inherently unclear and gives no indication as to its precise
meaning. The cause of ambiguity in Mujmal is inherent in the locution itself. A word may be a
homonym with more than one meaning, and there is no indication as to which might be the correct one,
or alternatively the Lawgiver has given it a meaning other than its literal one, or the word may be totally
unfamiliar. In any of these eventualities, there is no way of removing the ambiguity without recourse to
the explanation that the Lawgiver has furnished Himself, for He introduced the ambiguous word in the
first place. Words that have been used in a transferred sense, that is, for a meaning other than their
literal one, in order to convey a technical or a juridical concept, fall under the category of Mujmal. For
example, expressions such as salah, riba, hajj, and siyam have all lost their literal meanings due to the
fact that the Lawgiver has used them for purposes other than those which they originally conveyed.
Each of these words has a literal meaning, but since their technical meaning is so radically different
from the literal, the link between them is lost and the technical meaning becomes totally dominant. A
word of this type remains ambivalent until it is clarified by the Lawgiver Himself. The juridical
meaning of all the Qur'anic words cited above has been explained by the Prophet, in which case, they
cease to be ambivalent. For when the Lawgiver provides the necessary explanation, the Mujmal is
explained and turns into Mufassar.
The Mujmal may sometimes be an unfamiliar word which is inherently vague, but is clarified by the
text where it occurs. For example 'al-qari'ah' and 'halu ' which occur in the Qur'an. The relevant
passages are as follows:
The stunning blow (al-qari'ah)! What is the stunning blow? What will make you realise
what the stunning blow is? It is the Day on which the people will act like scattered
moths; and the mountains will be like carded wool (al-Qari'ah, 101:1-5).
Truly man was created restless (halu'an); so he panics whenever any evil touches him;
and withholds when some fortune befalls him (al-Ma'arij, 70:20-23).
The ambivalent words in these passages have thus been explained and the text has as a result become
self-explained, or Mufassar. The Mujmal turns into the Mufassar only when the clarification that the
Lawgiver provides is complete; but when it is incomplete, or insufficient to remove the ambiguity, the
Mujmal turns into a Mushkil, which is then open to research and ijtihad. An example of this is the word
riba which occurs in the Qur'an (al-Baqarah, 2:275) in the form of a Mujmal, as when it reads: 'God
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 99
permitted sale and prohibited riba', the last word in this text literally meaning 'increase'. Since not every
increase or profit is unlawful, the text remains ambivalent as to what type of increase it intends to
forbid. The Prophet has clarified the basic concept of riba in the Hadith which specifies six items (gold,
silver, wheat, barley, salt and dates) to which the prohibition applies. But this explanation is insufficient
for detailed purposes in that it leaves room for reflection and enquiry as to the rationale of the text with
a view to extending the same rule to similar commodities. The Hadith thus opens the way to further
ijtihad and analogy to the goods that it has specified.
Badran, Usul, pp. 414-415.]
II.4 The Intricate (Mutashabih)
[36. Muslim, Sahih Muslim, I, 252, Hadith no. 949; Khallaf, 'Ilm, pp.173-175;
This denotes a word whose meaning is a total mystery. There are words in the Qur'an whose meaning is
not known at all. Neither the words themselves nor the text in which they occur provide any indication
as to their meaning. The Mutashabih as such does not occur in the legal nusus, but it does occur in other
contexts. Some of the suras of the Qur'an begin with what is called al-muqatta'at, that is, abbreviated
letters whose meaning is a total mystery. Expressions such as alif-lam-mim, ya-sin, ha-mim and many
others which occur on 29 occasions in the Qur'an, are all classified as Mutashabih. Some ulema have
held the view that the muqatta'at are meant to exemplify the inimitable qualities of the Qur'an, while
others maintain that they are not abbreviations but symbols and names of God; that they have numerical
significance; and that they are used to attract the attention of the audience. According to yet another
view, the Mutashabih in the Qur'an is meant as a reminder of limitations in the knowledge of the
believer, who is made to realise that the unseen realities are too vast to be comprehended by reason.
The Holy Qur'an (Yusuf Ali's trans.) p. 118; Denffer, 'Ulum, p. 84; Abdur Rahim, Jurisprudence, p. 100.]
Some ulema, including Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri, have held the view that with the exception of the muqatta'at
there is no Mutashabih in the Qur'an. Others have maintained that the passages of the Qur'an which
draw resemblances between God and man are also in the nature of Mutashabih.
[38. Badran, Usul, p. 416.]
Thus
the ayat which provide: 'the hand of God is over their hands' (al-Fath, 48:10); and in a reference to the
Prophet Noah where we read: 'build a ship under Our eyes and Our inspiration' (Hud, 11:37) and in sura
al-Rahman (55:27) where the text runs 'and the face of your Lord will abide forever', are instances of
Mutashabih as their precise meaning cannot be known. One can of course draw an appropriate
metaphorical meaning in each case, which is what the Mu'tazilah have attempted, but this is neither
satisfactory nor certain. To say that 'hand' metaphorically means power, and 'eyes' means supervision is
no more than a conjecture. For we do not know the subject of our comparison. The Qur'an also tells us
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence
Kamali 100
that 'there is nothing like Him' (al-Shura, 42:11). Since the Lawgiver has not explained these
resemblances to us, they remain unintelligible.
[39. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 176.]
The existence of the Mutashabih in the Qur'an is proven by the testimony of the Book itself, which is as
follows:
He it is who has sent down to you the Book. Some of it consist of Muhkamat, which are
the Mother of the Book, while others are Mutashabihat. Those who have swerving in
their hearts, in their quest for sedition, follow the Mutashabihat and search for its
hidden meanings. But no one knows those meanings except God. And those who are
firmly grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord. But
only people of inner understanding really heed. (Al-'Imran, 3:7).
The ulema have differed in their understanding of this ayah, particularly with regard to the definition of
Muhkamat and Mutashabihat. But the correct view is that Muhkam is that part of the Qur'an which is
not open to conjecture and doubt, whereas the Mutashabih is. With regard to the letters which appear at
the beginning of suras, it has been suggested that they are the names of the suras in which they occur.
As for the question of whether acting upon the Mutashabih is permissible or not, there is disagreement,
but the correct view is that no one may act upon it. This is so not because the Mutashabih has no
meaning, but because the correct meaning is not known to any human being.
[40. Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 68.]
There
is no doubt that all the Mutashabihat have a meaning, but it is only known to God, and we must not
impose our estimations on the words of God in areas where no indication is available to reveal the
correct meaning to us.
[41. Shawkani, Irshad, pp.31-32.]
Classification II: The 'Amm (General) and the Khass (Specific).
From the viewpoint of their scope, words are classified into the 'general' and the 'specific'. This is
basically a conceptual distinction which is not always obvious in the grammatical forms of words,
although the ulema have identified certain linguistic patterns of words which assist us in differentiating
the 'Amm from the Khass.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 101
No comments:
Post a Comment