Fourthly, that the Mursal has been approved by the ulema, and a number of them are known to have
relied on it.
Fifthly, that the transmitter of Mursal has a reputation not to have reported weak and doubtful Hadith.
For instance the Mursal transmitted by Said b. al-Musayyib or any one of the prominent Successors
mentioned above is normally acceptable.'
[139. Badran, Usul, p. 100; Khudari, Usul, p.231; Khin, Athar, p.399.]
When a Mursal is strengthened in any of these ways, especially when the Successor who has reported it
is a leading figure and has met with the Companions, Imam Shafi'i would accept it. But even so, if the
Mursal in question is contradicted by another Hadith which is more reliable, the latter will take priority.
The foregoing basically explains al-Shafi'i's approach to the Mursal. Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam
Malik, on the other hand, are less stringent in their acceptance of the Mursal. They accept not only the
Mursal which is transmitted by a Successor, but also one which is transmitted by the second generation
of Followers, known as tabi' al-tabi'i. In support of this they quote the Hadith in which the Prophet is
reported to have said, 'Honour my Companions, for they are the best among you, then those who follow
them and then the next generation; and then lying will proliferate.'
Tabrizi, Mishkat, III, 1695, Hadith no. 6003.]
[140. Shafi'i, Risalah, p. 904; Isnawi, Nihayah, II, 223;
However, both Imams Abu Hanifah and Malik add the proviso that the narrator of a Mursal must be a
leading transmitter of Hadith, failing which his report will be unacceptable. They rely on it only when
they are assured of the trustworthiness of the narrator. They have held the view that when an upright
and learned man is convinced about the truth and reliability of a report, he tends to link it directly to the
Prophet, saying that the Prophet said such-and-such, but when he is not so convinced, he refers to the
person from whom he received it. Examples of such Mursals are those that are transmitted by
Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybani who is a tabi' al-tabi'i but considered to be reliable. The majority of
ulema are of the view that acting upon a Mursal Hadith is not obligatory.
p. 87; Khin, Athar, p. 401.]
[141. Shafi'i, Risalah, p. 64; Abu Zahrah, Usul,
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 81
The differential approaches that the leading Imams have taken toward the reliability of the Mursal may
be partially explained by the fact that Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal lived at a time when the distance to
the Prophet was further extended. Hence they felt the need of continuity in transmission more strongly
than their predecessors, Abu Hanifah and Malik.
The remaining two varieties of disconnected Hadith that need only briefly to be mentioned are the
Munqati' and the Mu'dal. The former refers to a Hadith whose chain of narrators has a single missing
link somewhere in the middle. The Mu'dal on the other hand is a Hadith in which two consecutive links
are missing in the chain of its narrators. Neither of them are acceptable; and the ulema are in agreement
on this.
[142. Azami, Studies, p. 43; Hitu, Wajiz, p.316.]
Sahih, Hasan and Da'if
From the viewpoint of their reliability, the narrators of Hadith have been graded into the following
categories: (1) the Companions who are generally accepted to be reliable; (2.) thiqat thabitun, or those
who rank highest in respect of reliability next to the Companions; (3) thiqat, or trustworthy but of a
lesser degree than the first two; (4) saduq, or truthful, that is one who is not known to have committed a
forgery or serious errors; (5) saduq yahim, that is truthful but committing errors; (6) maqbul or
accepted, which implies that there is no proof to the effect that his report is unreliable; (7) majhul, or a
narrator of unknown identity. These are followed by lower classes of persons who are classified as
sinners (fussaq), those suspected of lying, and outright liars.
[143. Azami, Studies, p. 60.]
Hadith is classified as Sahih or authentic when its narrators belong to the first three categories.
Studies p. 62.]
It is defined as a Hadith with a continuous isnad all the way back to the Prophet consisting of
upright persons who also possess retentive memories and whose narration is free both of obvious and of
subtle defects.
[145. Shawkani, Irshad; p.64; Siba'i, Al-Sunnah, p. 94; Hitu,Wajiz p.321.]
The Hasan Hadith differs from the Sahih in that it may include among its narrators a person or persons
who belong to the fourth, fifth or sixth grades on the foregoing scale. It is a Hadith that falls between
Sahih and Da'if, and although its narrators are known for truthfulness, they have not attained the highest
degree of reliability and prominence.
[146. Siba'i, Al-Sunnah, p. 95; Azami, Studies, p. 62.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 82
The weak, or Daif, is a Hadith whose narrators do not possess the qualifications required in Sahih or
Hasan. It is called weak owing to a weakness that exists in its chain of narrators or in its textual
contents. Its narrator is known to have had a bad memory, or his integrity and piety has been subjected
to serious doubt.
[147. Siba'i, Sunnah, loc.cit.]
There are several varieties of Daif; Mursal is one of them. The
ulema of Hadith, including Imam Muslim, do not consider Mursal to amount to a shar'i proof (hujjah).
There are other categories of Daif, including Shadhdh, Munkar and Mudtarib which need not be
elaborated here. Briefly, Shadhdh is a Hadith with a poor isnad which is at odds with a more reliable
Hadith. Munkar is a Hadith whose narrator cannot be classified to be upright and retentive of memory;
and Mudtarib is a Hadith whose contents are inconsistent with a number of other reports, none of which
can be preferred over the others.
[148. Siba'i, Sunnah, p.96.]
According to the general rule, the overall acceptability of a Hadith is determined on the weakest
element in its proof. Thus the presence of a single weak narrator in the chain of isnad would result in
weakening the Hadith altogether. If one of the narrators is suspected of lying whereas all the rest are
classified as trustworthy (thiqat) and the Hadith is not known through other channels, then it will be
graded as weak. In scrutinising the reliability of Hadith, the ulema of Hadith are guided by the rule that
every Hadith must be traced back to the Prophet through a continuous chain of narrators whose piety
and reputation are beyond reproach. A Hadith which does not fulfill these requirements is not accepted.
A weak or Daif Hadith does not constitute a shar'i proof (hujjah) and is generally rejected.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 83
Chapter Four: Rules of Interpretation I: Deducing the Law from its Sources
Introductory Remarks
To interpret the Qur'an or the Sunnah with a view to deducing legal rules from the indications that they
provide, it is necessary that the language of the Qur'an and the Sunnah be clearly understood. To be able
to utilise these sources, the mujtahid must obtain a firm grasp of the words of the text and their precise
implications. For this purpose, the ulema of usul include the classification of words and their usages in
the methodology of usul al-fiqh. The rules which govern the origin of words, their usages and
classification are primarily determined on linguistic grounds and, as such, they are not an integral part
of the law or religion. But they are instrumental as an aid to the correct understanding of the Shari’ah.
Normally the mujtahid will not resort to interpretation when the text itself is self-evident and clear. But
by far the greater part of fiqh consists of rules which are derived through interpretation and ijtihad. As
will be discussed later, ijtihad can take a variety of forms, and interpretation which aims at the correct
understanding of the words and sentences of a legal text is of crucial significance to all forms of ijtihad.
The function of interpretation is to discover the intention of the Lawgiver - or of any person for that
matter - from his speech and actions. Interpretation is primarily concerned with the discovery of that
which is not self-evident. Thus the object of interpretation in Islamic Law, as in any other law, is to
ascertain the intention of the Lawgiver with regard to what has been left unexpressed as a matter of
necessary inference from the surrounding circumstances.
[1. Cf. Abdur Rahim, Jurisprudence, p. 78.]
From the viewpoints of their clarity, scope, and capacity to convey a certain meaning, words have been
classified into various types. With reference to their conceptual clarity, the ulema of usul have classified
words into the two main categories of 'clear' and 'unclear' words. The main purpose of this division is to
identify the extent to which the meaning of a word is made clear or left ambiguous and doubtful. The
significance of this classification can be readily observed in the linguistic forms and implications of
commands and prohibitions. The task of evaluating the precise purport of a command is greatly
facilitated if one is able to ascertain the degree of clarity (or of ambiguity) in which it is conveyed. Thus
the manifest (Zahir) and explicit (Nass) are 'clear' words, and yet the jurist may abandon their primary
meaning in favour of a different meaning as the context and circumstances may require. Words are also
classified, from the viewpoint of their scope, into homonym, general, specific, absolute and qualified.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 84
This classification basically explains the grammatical application of words to concepts: whether a word
imparts one or more than one meaning, whether a word is of a specific or general import, and whether
the absolute application of a word to its subject matter can be qualified and limited in scope.
From the viewpoint of their actual use, such as whether a word is used in its primary, secondary, literal,
technical or customary sense, words are once again divided into the two main categories of literal
(Haqiqi) and metaphorical (Majazi). The methodology of usul al-fiqh tells us, for example, that
commands and prohibitions may not be issued in metaphorical terms as this would introduce
uncertainty in their application. And yet there are exceptions to this, such as when the metaphorical
becomes the dominant meaning of a word to the point that the literal or original meaning is no longer in
use.
The strength of a legal rule is to a large extent determined by the language in which it is communicated.
To distinguish the clear from the ambiguous and to determine the degrees of clarity/ambiguity in word
also helps the jurist in his efforts at resolving instances of conflict in the law. When the mujtahid is
engaged in the deduction of rules from indications which often amount to no more than probabilities,
some of his conclusions may turn out to be at odds with others. Ijtihad is therefore not only in need of
comprehending the language of the law, but also needs a methodology and guidelines with which to
resolve instance of conflict in its conclusions.
We shall be taking up each of these topics in the following pages, but it will be useful to start this
section with a discussion of ta'wil.
Ta'wil (Allegorical Interpretation)
It should be noted at the outset that in Arabic there are two common words for 'interpretation', namely
tafsir and ta'wil. The latter is perhaps closer to 'interpretation', whereas tafsir literally means
'explanation'. The English equivalents of these terms do not convey the same difference between them
which is indicated in their Arabic usage. 'Allegorical interpretation' is an acceptable equivalent of ta'wil,
but I prefer the original Arabic to its English equivalent. I propose therefore to explain the difference
between tafsir and ta'wil and then to use 'ta'wil' as it is.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 85
Tafsir basically aims at explaining the meaning of a given text and deducing a hukm from it within the
confines of its words and sentences.
[2. Badran, Bayan, p. 124 ff.]
The explanation so provided is, in other words,
borne out by the content and linguistic composition of the text.
Ta'wil, on the other hand, goes beyond the literal meaning of words and sentences and reads into them a
hidden meaning which is often based on speculative reasoning and Ijtihad. The norm in regard to words
is that they impart their obvious meaning. Ta'wil is a departure from this norm, and is presumed to be
absent unless there is reason to justify its application.
[3. Khallaf, 'Ilm, pp. 167-68.]
Ta'wil may operate in various
capacities, such as specifying the general, or qualifying the absolute terms of a given text. All words are
presumed to convey their absolute, general, and unqualified meanings unless there is reason to warrant
a departure to an alternative meaning.
From a juridical perspective, ta'wil and tafsir share the same basic purpose, which is to clarify the law
and to discover the intention of the Lawgiver in the light of the indications, some of which may be
definite and others more remote. Both are primarily concerned with speech that is not self-evident and
requires clarification. Sometimes the Lawgiver or the proper legislative authority provides the
necessary explanation to a legal text. This variety of explanation, known as tafsir tashri'i, is an integral
part of the law. To this may be added tafsir which is based on definitive indications in the text and
constitutes a necessary and logical part of it. Beyond this, all other explanations, whether in the form of
tafsir or of ta'wil, partake in the nature of opinion and ijtihad and as such do not constitute an integral
part of the law. The distinction between tafsir and ta'wil is not always clear-cut and obvious. An
explanation or commentary on a legal text may partake in both, and the two may converge at certain
points. It is nevertheless useful to be aware of the basic distinction between tafsir and ta'wil. We should
also bear in mind that in the context of usul al-fiqh, especially in our discussion of the rules of
interpretation, it is ta'wil rather than tafsir with which we are primarily concerned.
The ulema of usul have defined ta'wil as departure from the manifest (Zahir) meaning of a text in
favour of another meaning where there is evidence to justify the departure.
400.]
[4. Amidi, Ihkam, III, 53; Badran, Usul, p.
Ta'wil which is attempted in accordance with the conditions that ensure its propriety is generally
accepted, and the ulema of all ages, including the Companions, have applied it in their efforts at
deducing legal rules from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Ta'wil which is properly constructed constitutes a
valid basis for judicial decisions. But to ensure the propriety of ta'wil, it must fulfil certain conditions,
which are as follows: (1) That there is some evidence to warrant the application of ta'wil, and that it is
not founded on mere inclination or personal opinion. (2) That the word or words of a given text are
amenable to ta'wil. In this way only certain types of words, including for example the manifest (Zahir)
and explicit (Nass), are open to ta'wil, but not the unequivocal (Mufassar) and the perspicuous
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 86
(Muhkam). Similarly, the general ('Amm) and the absolute (Mutlaq) are susceptible to ta'wil but not the
specific (Khass) and the qualified (Muqayyad), although there are cases where these too have been
subjected to ta'wil. (3) That the word which is given an allegorical interpretation has a propensity, even
if only a weak one, in favour of that interpretation. This condition would preclude a far-fetched
interpretation that goes beyond the capacity of the words of a given text. (4) That the person who
attempts ta'wil is qualified to do so and that his interpretation is in harmony with the rules of the
language and customary or juridical usage. Thus it would be unacceptable if the word qur' in the
Qur'anic text (al-Baqarah, 2:228) were to be given a meaning other than the two meanings which it
bears, namely menstruation (hayd) and the clean period between menstruations (tuhr). For qur' cannot
carry an additional meaning, and any attempt to give it one would violate the rules of the language. But
ta'wil in the sense of a shift from the literal to the metaphorical and from the general to the specific is
not a peculiarity of Arabic, in that words in any language are, in fact, amenable to these possibilities.
Amidi, Ihkam, III, 54; Badran, Usul, pp. 400-401.]
There are two types of ta'wil, namely ta'wil which is remote and far-fetched, and 'relevant' ta'wil which
is within the scope of what might be thought of as correct understanding. An example of the first type is
the Hanafi interpretation of a Hadith which instructed a Companion, Firuz al-Daylami, who professed
Islam while he was married to two sisters, to 'retain [amsik] one of the two, whichever you wish, and
separate from the other'.
[6. Tabrizi, Mishkat, III, 948, Hadith no. 3178; Amidi, Ihkam, II, 54; Badran, Usul, p. 401.]
The Hanafis have interpreted this Hadith to the effect that al-Daylami was asked to contract a new
marriage with one of the sisters, if they happened to have been married in a single contract of marriage,
but that if they had been married in two separate contracts, to retain the one whom he married first,
without a contract. The Hanafis have resorted to this ta'wil apparently because of the Shari'ah rule
which does not permit two women to be married in a single contract. If this were to be the case, then a
new contract would be necessary with the one who is to be retained.
But this is regarded as a remote interpretation, one which is not supported by the wording of the Hadith.
Besides, al-Daylami was a new convert to Islam who could not be presumed to be knowledgeable of the
rules of Shari'ah. Had the Prophet intended the meaning that the Hanafis have given to the Hadith, the
Prophet would have clarified it himself. As it is, the Hanafi interpretation cannot be sustained by the
contents of the Hadith, which is why it is regarded as far-fetched.
more examples of far-fetched interpretation, Amidi, Ihkam, III, 55-64.]
[7. Amidi, Ihkam, III, 56; Badran, Usul, p. 401. See for
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence
Kamali 87
Ta'wil is relevant and correct if it can be accepted without recourse to forced and far-fetched arguments.
The interpretation, for example, which the majority of ulema have given to the phrase 'idha qumtum
ila'l-salah' ('when you stand for prayers') in the Qur'anic text concerning the requirement of ablution for
salah (al-Ma'idah, 5:7) to mean 'when you intend to pray' is relevant and correct; for without it, there
would be some irregularity in the understanding of the text. The passage under discussion reads, in the
relevant part: 'O believers, when you stand for salah, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows.
. . ' 'When you stand for salah' here is understood to mean 'when you intend to perform salah'. The fact
that ablution is required before entering the salah is the proper interpretation of the text, as the
Lawgiver could not be said to have required the faithful to perform the ablution after having started the
salah.
[8. Badran, Usul, p. 402.]
To set a total ban on ta'wil, and always to try to follow the literal meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah,
which is what the Zahiris have tended to do, is likely to lead to a departure from the spirit of the law
and its general purpose. It is, on the other hand, equally valid to say that interpretation must be
attempted carefully and only when it is necessary and justified, for otherwise the law could be subjected
to arbitrariness and abuse. A correct interpretation is one for which support could be found in the nusus,
in analogy (qiyas), or in the general principles of the law. Normally a correct interpretation does not
conflict with the explicit injunction of the law, and its accuracy is borne out by the contents of the text
itself.
[9. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
Classification I: Clear and Unclear Words
From the viewpoint of clarity (wuduh), words are divided into the two main categories of clear and
unclear words. A clear word conveys a concept which is intelligible without recourse to interpretation.
A ruling which is communicated in clear words constitutes the basis of obligation, without any recourse
to ta'wil. A word is unclear, on the other hand, when it lacks the foregoing qualities: the meaning which
it conveys is ambiguous/incomplete, and requires clarification. An ambiguous text which is in need of
clarification cannot constitute the basis of action. The clarification so required can only be supplied
through extraneous evidence, for the text itself is deficient and fails to convey a complete meaning
without recourse to evidence outside its contents. A clear text, on the other hand, is self-contained, and
needs no recourse to extraneous evidence.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 88
From the viewpoint of the degree of clarity and conceptual strength, clear words are divided into four
types in a ranking which starts with the least clear, namely the manifest (Zahir) and then the explicit
(Nass), which commands greater clarity than the Zahir. This is followed by the unequivocal (Mufassar)
and finally the perspicuous (Muhkam), which ranks highest in respect of clarity. And then from the
viewpoint of the degree of ambiguity in their meaning, words are classified, once again, into four types
which start with the least ambiguous and end by the most ambiguous in the range. We shall begin with
an exposition of the clear words.
I. 1 & 2 The Zahir and the Nass
The manifest (Zahir) is a word which has a clear meaning and yet is open to ta'wil, primarily because
the meaning that it conveys is not in harmony with the context in which it occurs. It is a word which has
a literal original meaning of its own but which leaves open the possibility of an alternative
interpretation. For example, the word 'lion' in the sentence 'I saw a lion' is clear enough, but it is
possible, although less likely, that the speaker might have meant a brave man. Zahir has been defined as
a word or words which convey a clear meaning, while this meaning is not the principal theme of the
text in which they appear.
[10. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.161; Badran, Usul, p. 403; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 93.]
When a word conveys a clear meaning that is also in harmony with the context in which it appears, and
yet is still open to ta'wil, it is classified as Nass. The distinction between the Zahir and Nass mainly
depends on their relationship with the context in which they occur. Zahir and Nass both denote clear
words, but the two differ in that the former does not constitute the dominant theme of the text whereas
the Nass does. These may be illustrated in the Qur,anic text concerning polygamy, as follows:
And if you fear that you cannot treat the orphans justly, then marry the women who
seem good to you, two, three or four (al-Nisa, 4:3)
Two points constitute the principal theme of this ayah, one of which is that polygamy is permissible,
and the other that it must be limited to the maximum of four. We may therefore say that these are the
explicit rulings (Nass) of this text. But this text also establishes the legality of marriage between men
and women, especially in the part where it reads 'marry of the women who seem good to you'.
However, legalising marriage is not the principal theme of this text, but only a subsidiary point. The
main theme is the Nass and the incidental point is the Zahir.
[11. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 93; Badran, Usul, p. 402.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 89
The effect of the Zahir and the Nass is that their obvious meanings must be followed and action upon
them is obligatory unless there is evidence to warrant recourse to ta'wil, that is, to a different
interpretation which might be in greater harmony with the intention of the Lawgiver. For the basic rules
of interpretation require that the obvious meaning of words should be accepted and followed unless
there is a compelling reason for abandoning the obvious meaning. When we say that the Zahir is open
to ta'wil, it means that when the Zahir is general, it may be specified, and when it is absolute, it may be
restricted and qualified. Similarly the literal meaning of the Zahir may be abandoned in favour of a
metaphorical meaning. And finally, the Zahir is susceptible to abrogation which, in the case of the
Qur'an and Sunnah, could only occur during the lifetime of the Prophet. An example of the Zahir which
is initially conveyed in absolute terms but has subsequently been qualified is the Qur'anic text (al-Nisa',
4:24) which spells out the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage. The text then continues, 'and
lawful to you are women other than these, provided you seek them by means of your wealth and marry
them properly. . .' The passage preceding this ayah refers to a number of female relatives with whom
marriage is forbidden, but there is no reference anywhere in this passage either to polygamy or to
marriage with the paternal and maternal aunt of one's wife. The apparent or Zahir meaning of this
passage, especially in the part where it reads 'and lawful to you are women other than these' would seem
to validate polygamy beyond the limit of four, and also marriage to the paternal and maternal aunt of
one's wife. However, the absolute terms of this ayah have been qualified by another ruling of the Qur'an
(al-Nisa', 4:3) quoted earlier which limits polygamy to four. The other qualification to the text under
discussion is provided by the Mashhur Hadith which forbids simultaneous marriage with the maternal
and paternal aunt of one's wife.
[12. Abu Dawud, Sunan (Hasan's trans.), II, 551, Hadith no. 2060; Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 163; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 94.]
This illustration also serves to show an instance of conflict between the Zahir and the Nass. Since the
second of the two ayat under discussion is a Nass, it is one degree stronger than the Zahir and would
therefore prevail. This question of conflicts between the Zahir and Nass will be further discussed later.
It will be noted that Nass, in addition to the technical meaning which we shall presently elaborate, has a
more general meaning which is commonly used by the fuqaha'. In the terminology of fiqh, Nass means
a definitive text or ruling of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Thus it is said that this or that ruling is a Nass,
which means that it is a definitive injunction of the Qur'an or Sunnah. But Nass as opposed to Zahir
denotes a word or words that convey a clear meaning, and also represents the principal theme of the text
in which it occurs. An example of Nass in the Qur'an is the Qur'anic text on the priority of debts and
bequests over inheritance in the administration of an estate. The relevant ayah assigns specific shares to
a number of heirs and then provides that the distribution of shares in all cases is to take place 'after the
payment of legacies and debts' (al-Nisa', 4:11). Similarly, the Qur'anic text which provides that
'unlawful to you are the dead carcass and blood' (al-Ma'idah, 5:3), is a Nass on the prohibition of these
items for human consumption.
[13. Badran, Usul, p. 403; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 94.]
As already stated, the Nass, like the
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 90
relied on it.
Fifthly, that the transmitter of Mursal has a reputation not to have reported weak and doubtful Hadith.
For instance the Mursal transmitted by Said b. al-Musayyib or any one of the prominent Successors
mentioned above is normally acceptable.'
[139. Badran, Usul, p. 100; Khudari, Usul, p.231; Khin, Athar, p.399.]
When a Mursal is strengthened in any of these ways, especially when the Successor who has reported it
is a leading figure and has met with the Companions, Imam Shafi'i would accept it. But even so, if the
Mursal in question is contradicted by another Hadith which is more reliable, the latter will take priority.
The foregoing basically explains al-Shafi'i's approach to the Mursal. Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam
Malik, on the other hand, are less stringent in their acceptance of the Mursal. They accept not only the
Mursal which is transmitted by a Successor, but also one which is transmitted by the second generation
of Followers, known as tabi' al-tabi'i. In support of this they quote the Hadith in which the Prophet is
reported to have said, 'Honour my Companions, for they are the best among you, then those who follow
them and then the next generation; and then lying will proliferate.'
Tabrizi, Mishkat, III, 1695, Hadith no. 6003.]
[140. Shafi'i, Risalah, p. 904; Isnawi, Nihayah, II, 223;
However, both Imams Abu Hanifah and Malik add the proviso that the narrator of a Mursal must be a
leading transmitter of Hadith, failing which his report will be unacceptable. They rely on it only when
they are assured of the trustworthiness of the narrator. They have held the view that when an upright
and learned man is convinced about the truth and reliability of a report, he tends to link it directly to the
Prophet, saying that the Prophet said such-and-such, but when he is not so convinced, he refers to the
person from whom he received it. Examples of such Mursals are those that are transmitted by
Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybani who is a tabi' al-tabi'i but considered to be reliable. The majority of
ulema are of the view that acting upon a Mursal Hadith is not obligatory.
p. 87; Khin, Athar, p. 401.]
[141. Shafi'i, Risalah, p. 64; Abu Zahrah, Usul,
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 81
The differential approaches that the leading Imams have taken toward the reliability of the Mursal may
be partially explained by the fact that Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal lived at a time when the distance to
the Prophet was further extended. Hence they felt the need of continuity in transmission more strongly
than their predecessors, Abu Hanifah and Malik.
The remaining two varieties of disconnected Hadith that need only briefly to be mentioned are the
Munqati' and the Mu'dal. The former refers to a Hadith whose chain of narrators has a single missing
link somewhere in the middle. The Mu'dal on the other hand is a Hadith in which two consecutive links
are missing in the chain of its narrators. Neither of them are acceptable; and the ulema are in agreement
on this.
[142. Azami, Studies, p. 43; Hitu, Wajiz, p.316.]
Sahih, Hasan and Da'if
From the viewpoint of their reliability, the narrators of Hadith have been graded into the following
categories: (1) the Companions who are generally accepted to be reliable; (2.) thiqat thabitun, or those
who rank highest in respect of reliability next to the Companions; (3) thiqat, or trustworthy but of a
lesser degree than the first two; (4) saduq, or truthful, that is one who is not known to have committed a
forgery or serious errors; (5) saduq yahim, that is truthful but committing errors; (6) maqbul or
accepted, which implies that there is no proof to the effect that his report is unreliable; (7) majhul, or a
narrator of unknown identity. These are followed by lower classes of persons who are classified as
sinners (fussaq), those suspected of lying, and outright liars.
[143. Azami, Studies, p. 60.]
Hadith is classified as Sahih or authentic when its narrators belong to the first three categories.
Studies p. 62.]
It is defined as a Hadith with a continuous isnad all the way back to the Prophet consisting of
upright persons who also possess retentive memories and whose narration is free both of obvious and of
subtle defects.
[145. Shawkani, Irshad; p.64; Siba'i, Al-Sunnah, p. 94; Hitu,Wajiz p.321.]
The Hasan Hadith differs from the Sahih in that it may include among its narrators a person or persons
who belong to the fourth, fifth or sixth grades on the foregoing scale. It is a Hadith that falls between
Sahih and Da'if, and although its narrators are known for truthfulness, they have not attained the highest
degree of reliability and prominence.
[146. Siba'i, Al-Sunnah, p. 95; Azami, Studies, p. 62.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 82
The weak, or Daif, is a Hadith whose narrators do not possess the qualifications required in Sahih or
Hasan. It is called weak owing to a weakness that exists in its chain of narrators or in its textual
contents. Its narrator is known to have had a bad memory, or his integrity and piety has been subjected
to serious doubt.
[147. Siba'i, Sunnah, loc.cit.]
There are several varieties of Daif; Mursal is one of them. The
ulema of Hadith, including Imam Muslim, do not consider Mursal to amount to a shar'i proof (hujjah).
There are other categories of Daif, including Shadhdh, Munkar and Mudtarib which need not be
elaborated here. Briefly, Shadhdh is a Hadith with a poor isnad which is at odds with a more reliable
Hadith. Munkar is a Hadith whose narrator cannot be classified to be upright and retentive of memory;
and Mudtarib is a Hadith whose contents are inconsistent with a number of other reports, none of which
can be preferred over the others.
[148. Siba'i, Sunnah, p.96.]
According to the general rule, the overall acceptability of a Hadith is determined on the weakest
element in its proof. Thus the presence of a single weak narrator in the chain of isnad would result in
weakening the Hadith altogether. If one of the narrators is suspected of lying whereas all the rest are
classified as trustworthy (thiqat) and the Hadith is not known through other channels, then it will be
graded as weak. In scrutinising the reliability of Hadith, the ulema of Hadith are guided by the rule that
every Hadith must be traced back to the Prophet through a continuous chain of narrators whose piety
and reputation are beyond reproach. A Hadith which does not fulfill these requirements is not accepted.
A weak or Daif Hadith does not constitute a shar'i proof (hujjah) and is generally rejected.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 83
Chapter Four: Rules of Interpretation I: Deducing the Law from its Sources
Introductory Remarks
To interpret the Qur'an or the Sunnah with a view to deducing legal rules from the indications that they
provide, it is necessary that the language of the Qur'an and the Sunnah be clearly understood. To be able
to utilise these sources, the mujtahid must obtain a firm grasp of the words of the text and their precise
implications. For this purpose, the ulema of usul include the classification of words and their usages in
the methodology of usul al-fiqh. The rules which govern the origin of words, their usages and
classification are primarily determined on linguistic grounds and, as such, they are not an integral part
of the law or religion. But they are instrumental as an aid to the correct understanding of the Shari’ah.
Normally the mujtahid will not resort to interpretation when the text itself is self-evident and clear. But
by far the greater part of fiqh consists of rules which are derived through interpretation and ijtihad. As
will be discussed later, ijtihad can take a variety of forms, and interpretation which aims at the correct
understanding of the words and sentences of a legal text is of crucial significance to all forms of ijtihad.
The function of interpretation is to discover the intention of the Lawgiver - or of any person for that
matter - from his speech and actions. Interpretation is primarily concerned with the discovery of that
which is not self-evident. Thus the object of interpretation in Islamic Law, as in any other law, is to
ascertain the intention of the Lawgiver with regard to what has been left unexpressed as a matter of
necessary inference from the surrounding circumstances.
[1. Cf. Abdur Rahim, Jurisprudence, p. 78.]
From the viewpoints of their clarity, scope, and capacity to convey a certain meaning, words have been
classified into various types. With reference to their conceptual clarity, the ulema of usul have classified
words into the two main categories of 'clear' and 'unclear' words. The main purpose of this division is to
identify the extent to which the meaning of a word is made clear or left ambiguous and doubtful. The
significance of this classification can be readily observed in the linguistic forms and implications of
commands and prohibitions. The task of evaluating the precise purport of a command is greatly
facilitated if one is able to ascertain the degree of clarity (or of ambiguity) in which it is conveyed. Thus
the manifest (Zahir) and explicit (Nass) are 'clear' words, and yet the jurist may abandon their primary
meaning in favour of a different meaning as the context and circumstances may require. Words are also
classified, from the viewpoint of their scope, into homonym, general, specific, absolute and qualified.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 84
This classification basically explains the grammatical application of words to concepts: whether a word
imparts one or more than one meaning, whether a word is of a specific or general import, and whether
the absolute application of a word to its subject matter can be qualified and limited in scope.
From the viewpoint of their actual use, such as whether a word is used in its primary, secondary, literal,
technical or customary sense, words are once again divided into the two main categories of literal
(Haqiqi) and metaphorical (Majazi). The methodology of usul al-fiqh tells us, for example, that
commands and prohibitions may not be issued in metaphorical terms as this would introduce
uncertainty in their application. And yet there are exceptions to this, such as when the metaphorical
becomes the dominant meaning of a word to the point that the literal or original meaning is no longer in
use.
The strength of a legal rule is to a large extent determined by the language in which it is communicated.
To distinguish the clear from the ambiguous and to determine the degrees of clarity/ambiguity in word
also helps the jurist in his efforts at resolving instances of conflict in the law. When the mujtahid is
engaged in the deduction of rules from indications which often amount to no more than probabilities,
some of his conclusions may turn out to be at odds with others. Ijtihad is therefore not only in need of
comprehending the language of the law, but also needs a methodology and guidelines with which to
resolve instance of conflict in its conclusions.
We shall be taking up each of these topics in the following pages, but it will be useful to start this
section with a discussion of ta'wil.
Ta'wil (Allegorical Interpretation)
It should be noted at the outset that in Arabic there are two common words for 'interpretation', namely
tafsir and ta'wil. The latter is perhaps closer to 'interpretation', whereas tafsir literally means
'explanation'. The English equivalents of these terms do not convey the same difference between them
which is indicated in their Arabic usage. 'Allegorical interpretation' is an acceptable equivalent of ta'wil,
but I prefer the original Arabic to its English equivalent. I propose therefore to explain the difference
between tafsir and ta'wil and then to use 'ta'wil' as it is.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 85
Tafsir basically aims at explaining the meaning of a given text and deducing a hukm from it within the
confines of its words and sentences.
[2. Badran, Bayan, p. 124 ff.]
The explanation so provided is, in other words,
borne out by the content and linguistic composition of the text.
Ta'wil, on the other hand, goes beyond the literal meaning of words and sentences and reads into them a
hidden meaning which is often based on speculative reasoning and Ijtihad. The norm in regard to words
is that they impart their obvious meaning. Ta'wil is a departure from this norm, and is presumed to be
absent unless there is reason to justify its application.
[3. Khallaf, 'Ilm, pp. 167-68.]
Ta'wil may operate in various
capacities, such as specifying the general, or qualifying the absolute terms of a given text. All words are
presumed to convey their absolute, general, and unqualified meanings unless there is reason to warrant
a departure to an alternative meaning.
From a juridical perspective, ta'wil and tafsir share the same basic purpose, which is to clarify the law
and to discover the intention of the Lawgiver in the light of the indications, some of which may be
definite and others more remote. Both are primarily concerned with speech that is not self-evident and
requires clarification. Sometimes the Lawgiver or the proper legislative authority provides the
necessary explanation to a legal text. This variety of explanation, known as tafsir tashri'i, is an integral
part of the law. To this may be added tafsir which is based on definitive indications in the text and
constitutes a necessary and logical part of it. Beyond this, all other explanations, whether in the form of
tafsir or of ta'wil, partake in the nature of opinion and ijtihad and as such do not constitute an integral
part of the law. The distinction between tafsir and ta'wil is not always clear-cut and obvious. An
explanation or commentary on a legal text may partake in both, and the two may converge at certain
points. It is nevertheless useful to be aware of the basic distinction between tafsir and ta'wil. We should
also bear in mind that in the context of usul al-fiqh, especially in our discussion of the rules of
interpretation, it is ta'wil rather than tafsir with which we are primarily concerned.
The ulema of usul have defined ta'wil as departure from the manifest (Zahir) meaning of a text in
favour of another meaning where there is evidence to justify the departure.
400.]
[4. Amidi, Ihkam, III, 53; Badran, Usul, p.
Ta'wil which is attempted in accordance with the conditions that ensure its propriety is generally
accepted, and the ulema of all ages, including the Companions, have applied it in their efforts at
deducing legal rules from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Ta'wil which is properly constructed constitutes a
valid basis for judicial decisions. But to ensure the propriety of ta'wil, it must fulfil certain conditions,
which are as follows: (1) That there is some evidence to warrant the application of ta'wil, and that it is
not founded on mere inclination or personal opinion. (2) That the word or words of a given text are
amenable to ta'wil. In this way only certain types of words, including for example the manifest (Zahir)
and explicit (Nass), are open to ta'wil, but not the unequivocal (Mufassar) and the perspicuous
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 86
(Muhkam). Similarly, the general ('Amm) and the absolute (Mutlaq) are susceptible to ta'wil but not the
specific (Khass) and the qualified (Muqayyad), although there are cases where these too have been
subjected to ta'wil. (3) That the word which is given an allegorical interpretation has a propensity, even
if only a weak one, in favour of that interpretation. This condition would preclude a far-fetched
interpretation that goes beyond the capacity of the words of a given text. (4) That the person who
attempts ta'wil is qualified to do so and that his interpretation is in harmony with the rules of the
language and customary or juridical usage. Thus it would be unacceptable if the word qur' in the
Qur'anic text (al-Baqarah, 2:228) were to be given a meaning other than the two meanings which it
bears, namely menstruation (hayd) and the clean period between menstruations (tuhr). For qur' cannot
carry an additional meaning, and any attempt to give it one would violate the rules of the language. But
ta'wil in the sense of a shift from the literal to the metaphorical and from the general to the specific is
not a peculiarity of Arabic, in that words in any language are, in fact, amenable to these possibilities.
Amidi, Ihkam, III, 54; Badran, Usul, pp. 400-401.]
There are two types of ta'wil, namely ta'wil which is remote and far-fetched, and 'relevant' ta'wil which
is within the scope of what might be thought of as correct understanding. An example of the first type is
the Hanafi interpretation of a Hadith which instructed a Companion, Firuz al-Daylami, who professed
Islam while he was married to two sisters, to 'retain [amsik] one of the two, whichever you wish, and
separate from the other'.
[6. Tabrizi, Mishkat, III, 948, Hadith no. 3178; Amidi, Ihkam, II, 54; Badran, Usul, p. 401.]
The Hanafis have interpreted this Hadith to the effect that al-Daylami was asked to contract a new
marriage with one of the sisters, if they happened to have been married in a single contract of marriage,
but that if they had been married in two separate contracts, to retain the one whom he married first,
without a contract. The Hanafis have resorted to this ta'wil apparently because of the Shari'ah rule
which does not permit two women to be married in a single contract. If this were to be the case, then a
new contract would be necessary with the one who is to be retained.
But this is regarded as a remote interpretation, one which is not supported by the wording of the Hadith.
Besides, al-Daylami was a new convert to Islam who could not be presumed to be knowledgeable of the
rules of Shari'ah. Had the Prophet intended the meaning that the Hanafis have given to the Hadith, the
Prophet would have clarified it himself. As it is, the Hanafi interpretation cannot be sustained by the
contents of the Hadith, which is why it is regarded as far-fetched.
more examples of far-fetched interpretation, Amidi, Ihkam, III, 55-64.]
[7. Amidi, Ihkam, III, 56; Badran, Usul, p. 401. See for
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence
Kamali 87
Ta'wil is relevant and correct if it can be accepted without recourse to forced and far-fetched arguments.
The interpretation, for example, which the majority of ulema have given to the phrase 'idha qumtum
ila'l-salah' ('when you stand for prayers') in the Qur'anic text concerning the requirement of ablution for
salah (al-Ma'idah, 5:7) to mean 'when you intend to pray' is relevant and correct; for without it, there
would be some irregularity in the understanding of the text. The passage under discussion reads, in the
relevant part: 'O believers, when you stand for salah, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows.
. . ' 'When you stand for salah' here is understood to mean 'when you intend to perform salah'. The fact
that ablution is required before entering the salah is the proper interpretation of the text, as the
Lawgiver could not be said to have required the faithful to perform the ablution after having started the
salah.
[8. Badran, Usul, p. 402.]
To set a total ban on ta'wil, and always to try to follow the literal meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah,
which is what the Zahiris have tended to do, is likely to lead to a departure from the spirit of the law
and its general purpose. It is, on the other hand, equally valid to say that interpretation must be
attempted carefully and only when it is necessary and justified, for otherwise the law could be subjected
to arbitrariness and abuse. A correct interpretation is one for which support could be found in the nusus,
in analogy (qiyas), or in the general principles of the law. Normally a correct interpretation does not
conflict with the explicit injunction of the law, and its accuracy is borne out by the contents of the text
itself.
[9. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 166.]
Classification I: Clear and Unclear Words
From the viewpoint of clarity (wuduh), words are divided into the two main categories of clear and
unclear words. A clear word conveys a concept which is intelligible without recourse to interpretation.
A ruling which is communicated in clear words constitutes the basis of obligation, without any recourse
to ta'wil. A word is unclear, on the other hand, when it lacks the foregoing qualities: the meaning which
it conveys is ambiguous/incomplete, and requires clarification. An ambiguous text which is in need of
clarification cannot constitute the basis of action. The clarification so required can only be supplied
through extraneous evidence, for the text itself is deficient and fails to convey a complete meaning
without recourse to evidence outside its contents. A clear text, on the other hand, is self-contained, and
needs no recourse to extraneous evidence.
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 88
From the viewpoint of the degree of clarity and conceptual strength, clear words are divided into four
types in a ranking which starts with the least clear, namely the manifest (Zahir) and then the explicit
(Nass), which commands greater clarity than the Zahir. This is followed by the unequivocal (Mufassar)
and finally the perspicuous (Muhkam), which ranks highest in respect of clarity. And then from the
viewpoint of the degree of ambiguity in their meaning, words are classified, once again, into four types
which start with the least ambiguous and end by the most ambiguous in the range. We shall begin with
an exposition of the clear words.
I. 1 & 2 The Zahir and the Nass
The manifest (Zahir) is a word which has a clear meaning and yet is open to ta'wil, primarily because
the meaning that it conveys is not in harmony with the context in which it occurs. It is a word which has
a literal original meaning of its own but which leaves open the possibility of an alternative
interpretation. For example, the word 'lion' in the sentence 'I saw a lion' is clear enough, but it is
possible, although less likely, that the speaker might have meant a brave man. Zahir has been defined as
a word or words which convey a clear meaning, while this meaning is not the principal theme of the
text in which they appear.
[10. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p.161; Badran, Usul, p. 403; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 93.]
When a word conveys a clear meaning that is also in harmony with the context in which it appears, and
yet is still open to ta'wil, it is classified as Nass. The distinction between the Zahir and Nass mainly
depends on their relationship with the context in which they occur. Zahir and Nass both denote clear
words, but the two differ in that the former does not constitute the dominant theme of the text whereas
the Nass does. These may be illustrated in the Qur,anic text concerning polygamy, as follows:
And if you fear that you cannot treat the orphans justly, then marry the women who
seem good to you, two, three or four (al-Nisa, 4:3)
Two points constitute the principal theme of this ayah, one of which is that polygamy is permissible,
and the other that it must be limited to the maximum of four. We may therefore say that these are the
explicit rulings (Nass) of this text. But this text also establishes the legality of marriage between men
and women, especially in the part where it reads 'marry of the women who seem good to you'.
However, legalising marriage is not the principal theme of this text, but only a subsidiary point. The
main theme is the Nass and the incidental point is the Zahir.
[11. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 93; Badran, Usul, p. 402.]
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 89
The effect of the Zahir and the Nass is that their obvious meanings must be followed and action upon
them is obligatory unless there is evidence to warrant recourse to ta'wil, that is, to a different
interpretation which might be in greater harmony with the intention of the Lawgiver. For the basic rules
of interpretation require that the obvious meaning of words should be accepted and followed unless
there is a compelling reason for abandoning the obvious meaning. When we say that the Zahir is open
to ta'wil, it means that when the Zahir is general, it may be specified, and when it is absolute, it may be
restricted and qualified. Similarly the literal meaning of the Zahir may be abandoned in favour of a
metaphorical meaning. And finally, the Zahir is susceptible to abrogation which, in the case of the
Qur'an and Sunnah, could only occur during the lifetime of the Prophet. An example of the Zahir which
is initially conveyed in absolute terms but has subsequently been qualified is the Qur'anic text (al-Nisa',
4:24) which spells out the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage. The text then continues, 'and
lawful to you are women other than these, provided you seek them by means of your wealth and marry
them properly. . .' The passage preceding this ayah refers to a number of female relatives with whom
marriage is forbidden, but there is no reference anywhere in this passage either to polygamy or to
marriage with the paternal and maternal aunt of one's wife. The apparent or Zahir meaning of this
passage, especially in the part where it reads 'and lawful to you are women other than these' would seem
to validate polygamy beyond the limit of four, and also marriage to the paternal and maternal aunt of
one's wife. However, the absolute terms of this ayah have been qualified by another ruling of the Qur'an
(al-Nisa', 4:3) quoted earlier which limits polygamy to four. The other qualification to the text under
discussion is provided by the Mashhur Hadith which forbids simultaneous marriage with the maternal
and paternal aunt of one's wife.
[12. Abu Dawud, Sunan (Hasan's trans.), II, 551, Hadith no. 2060; Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 163; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 94.]
This illustration also serves to show an instance of conflict between the Zahir and the Nass. Since the
second of the two ayat under discussion is a Nass, it is one degree stronger than the Zahir and would
therefore prevail. This question of conflicts between the Zahir and Nass will be further discussed later.
It will be noted that Nass, in addition to the technical meaning which we shall presently elaborate, has a
more general meaning which is commonly used by the fuqaha'. In the terminology of fiqh, Nass means
a definitive text or ruling of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Thus it is said that this or that ruling is a Nass,
which means that it is a definitive injunction of the Qur'an or Sunnah. But Nass as opposed to Zahir
denotes a word or words that convey a clear meaning, and also represents the principal theme of the text
in which it occurs. An example of Nass in the Qur'an is the Qur'anic text on the priority of debts and
bequests over inheritance in the administration of an estate. The relevant ayah assigns specific shares to
a number of heirs and then provides that the distribution of shares in all cases is to take place 'after the
payment of legacies and debts' (al-Nisa', 4:11). Similarly, the Qur'anic text which provides that
'unlawful to you are the dead carcass and blood' (al-Ma'idah, 5:3), is a Nass on the prohibition of these
items for human consumption.
[13. Badran, Usul, p. 403; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 94.]
As already stated, the Nass, like the
Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~
Kamali 90
No comments:
Post a Comment