Chapter 18: The Relationship Between the Qur’an and Hadith

Agreement and Disagreement with Imam Shafi’i

While reading Imam Shafi’i’s book “Al-Risala,” Ustadh. A Dialogue Between the Esteemed Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and the Author

(5)

Question: In the previous session, the concept of bayan you explained referred to its application to individuals of a word that exist within or are connected to it at the time of its inception. This principle is understood in general, but how can the directive from the Prophet (PBUH) to face the Qibla while praying be seen as bayan? Moreover, it would be helpful if the nature of agreement and disagreement between Imam Shafi’i’s stance and yours could be clarified with an example for better understanding.

Answer: Consider this, Imam Shafi’i states that bayan is a comprehensive term used for meanings that are unified in principles but vary in branches. These meanings are implicit within the original ruling. Sometimes they manifest in detail, sometimes as branches, and sometimes as explanations. Although these manifestations may differ, since they emerge from the original ruling, they are considered part of it. For example, when the Qur’an mentions performing prayer, it is evident that the prayer is a concept that must have a specific reference. Anything included within this reference is considered ‘bayan’. Thus, if after reading in the Qur’an to establish prayer, the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) directive to face the qibla while praying reaches you, this instruction is considered bayan because it is entirely within the scope of the directive to “establish prayer.” In other words,

when the term ‘prayer’ is mentioned, all its necessary elements and conditions are inherently included. These necessary elements and conditions are technically referred to as the components of that ruling. Hence, when the essence of the original is present within the branch like a spirit, the branch is fundamentally a bayan of the original. In other words, if the original maintains its existence within the branches, then these branches are considered bayan. Similarly, if a branch maintains its comprehensive relation with the original, it is recognized as bayan.

Understand this from our point of view as well. Regarding the command to establish prayer in the Qur’an, we say that when this command was given, its reference was well-known and recognized in Arab society as part of the Abrahamic tradition. It was akin to the way we say to our son today, “Perform the prayer.” Imam Shafi’i states that when this command was given, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself was present to explain its reference. Now observe that in both these scenarios, the source of ‘explanation’ is different, but there is no difference in the relationship between the original command and its ‘explanation.’

Imam Shafi’i has provided examples in his book and clarified that what the Prophet (PBUH) has stated regarding the commands of the Qur’an is solely ‘explanation’. And since it is an explanation of the Qur’an, its intention cannot be different from the Qur’an, therefore, its adherence is as obligatory as that of the Qur’an. This is Imam’s position, which is absolutely correct, and about which I have written, “What can be truer than this statement of Imam Shafi’i!”

It should be clear here that this is a very elementary definition of ‘Bayan’, given that the art had just begun. We present the same idea in another way. We say that ‘Bayan’ is the expression of those implications that are inherent in a discourse at the time of its creation. Therefore, something cannot be considered ‘Bayan’ if it was developed after the creation of the discourse.

The core discussion here is that when a directive from the Qur’an is already present and a narration comes attributed to the Prophet

Muhammad (PBUH), there can be two possibilities: either it explains the Qur’anic directive or it abrogates it, meaning it changes it wholly or partially. Now, if it is an explanation, then it is merely clarifying the intent and thus there is no hesitation in accepting it. However, if it abrogates, then how should it be dealt with? Imam Shafi’i argues that in such a case, it would not be acceptable, because the Messenger of Allah cannot abrogate the divine scripture. The Hanafi scholars suggest that (if the chain of transmission is certain, i.e., it is well-known or widely transmitted), it would be acceptable, because if Allah can directly alter the Qur’an, then it can also be altered through the same Messenger through whom the Qur’an was revealed.

In principle, we agree with Imam Shafi’i’s view that whatever is mentioned in the hadiths attributing to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is an explanation of the Qur’an; therefore, nothing in them can be contrary to the Qur’an. Allah’s messenger is subservient to the divine book. He elucidates and explicates it but does not alter or amend it. While agreeing with Imam Shafi’i on this matter, we go a step further by asserting that not only any hidden revelation but even an apparent revelation outside the Qur’an cannot amend or alter its injunctions. The reason for this is that Allah has declared about the Qur’an that it is the “Mizan” and “Furqan” and possesses ultimate authority.

After establishing this principle agreement, let us now understand our disagreement with Imam Shafi’i. We assert that some narrations which Imam Shafi’i has categorized as ‘explanation’ cannot actually be considered as such. The reason is that the relationship between these narrations and the Qur’an in terms of words, meanings, essence, and subsidiary, or ruling and application, does not meet the criteria for categorization as ‘explanation.’ For instance, Imam Shafi’i has considered the narrations related to stoning to death (rajm) of adulterers who are married as the ‘explanation’ of the verse Al-zāniyatu wa al-zānī fa-jlidū kulla wāhidin minhumā mi’ata jaldah (A man or a woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a

hundred lashes)¹ we contend that this is not correct because the words Al-zāniyatu wa al-zānī do not specifically exclude the unmarried, nor do they exclude the married from their reference. Had this specification existed in the reference of Al-zāniyatu wa al-zānī we would have no hesitation in accepting this narration as an explanation of the aforementioned verse.

However, this does not mean that we reject the punishment of stoning mentioned in these narrations. We relate them to a different context within the Qur’an. In our view, these narrations explain the enforcement of the punishment for rebellion and corruption on earth mentioned in the verses of Surah Al-Maidah.² That is, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) decreed the punishment of stoning for certain criminals of depravity under the ruling an yuqattalū (to be executed in an exemplary manner) stated in those verses.

Similarly, if someone asks us how the exemption of slaves mentioned in Surah An-Nisa from the command Al-zāniyatu wa al-zānī fa-jlidū kulla wāhidin minhumā mi’ata jaldah can be an ‘explanation’ of that command,³ we would say that this exemption is a part of the criterion for the application of the punishment that existed from its inception. Whenever a punishment is prescribed, it is implicitly understood that it will not be applied to those excused, as the excuse of minority or insanity is accepted in the case of capital punishment. Since this specification is rational, there is no need to state it explicitly. Thus, when Allah Almighty decreed that the adulterer be flogged, it was implicitly understood at the time of the decree’s inception that this punishment would not be applied to those with excuses or may be reduced due to a valid reason. Therefore, it is the condition of slavery that provides an excuse for a reduction in their punishment.

On this basis, you can say that in principle, we agree with Imam Shafi’i, but in application, we differ from him.

It is important to clarify here that the understanding and explanation of religion through the words, actions, approvals, and disapprovals of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and considering these as sources of religion are two separate discussions. The discussion of ‘explanation’ is distinct from the discussion of whether the Prophet (PBUH) is authorized to provide anything beyond the Qur’an. In my view, the Prophet (PBUH) not only has the right to provide beyond the Qur’an, but what he has delivered outside of the Qur’an constitutes an independent and inherent part of religious directives and commandments, which must be accepted in the same manner as the Qur’an. Therefore, these two discussions should not be confused or mixed with one another.

[January 2019]

The Mutual Relationship Between

the Discourses of ‘Bayaan’ and

‘Aam wa Khaas’

While reading Imam Shafi’i’s book “Al-Risala,” Ustadh… A Dialogue of the Author with the Honorable Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

(6)

Question: In your article titled “Aam o Khaas” (General and Specific), you mentioned Imam Shafi’i’s stance that whatever the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, stated regarding the commands of the Qur’an is ‘Bayan’ (explanation). This point has become clear, but it is still not understood what the relationship is between the discussion of ‘Bayan’ and the discussion of ‘Aam o Khaas.’ Furthermore, how is the discussion of Aam o Khaas linked to the explanatory directives (Hadith) of the Prophet, peace be upon him?

Answer: To summarize the subject in a few sentences, it is that like every language, the language of the Qur’an is also multi-meaningful, i.e., its words indicate multiple meanings. When we attempt to derive meaning from these words by determining one meaning out of these multiple meanings, the issue of general and specific arises. At such times, we are compelled to make judgments based on the composition of the sentence, context, coherence, the conventions of the speaker, and other such indicators. This is precisely the service the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) rendered for the Qur’an. Hence, if any elucidation of the Qur’an comes forth attributed to him, it should be considered in light of this linguistic issue that it is multi-meaningful, and one should not hastily reject this elucidation.

The classification of words into general and specific based on their

meanings is a type of ‘explanation’. When I say that a particular word is general, another is specific, one is ambiguous, one is detailed, one is an original term, and another is a derivative, I am essentially discussing different forms of explanation. The point here is that language requires clarification.

Question: The determination of the general and specific is not done by any external factor; rather, the discourse itself determines it. That is, the discourse, through its context or other internal clues, clarifies whether general or specific meanings should be intended for words like ‘al-mushrikun,’ ‘al-naas,’ or ‘al-insaan.’ There is no involvement of any external factor in their determination, whereas from your article, it seems you are incorporating the words of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) (hadith) into the discourse, which appears to be external to the discourse. As a result, does it not happen that the meaning of the discourse diverges from its original intent?

Answer: Your question suggests that you consider ‘statement’ to be outside the domain of word or discourse. This is not correct. ‘statement’ will only be considered a statement if it falls within the domain of word or discourse. Otherwise, it cannot be termed as a ‘statement.’ For instance, I considered the word ‘المشرکون’ as generally applicable to all polytheists in the world. If the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) informed me that this refers specifically to the polytheists of Bani Ismail, then how has your statement become external to the discourse?

Question: Essentially, when you were interpreting ‘al-Mushrikoon’ to mean the polytheists all over the world, you were doing so by overlooking certain things such as the terminology of the book, the context of the speech, and some aspects of language and expression. Had this mistake not been made, you would have also interpreted it to mean the descendants of Ismael. Is it not the case that as soon as we turn the direction of understanding the speech under the heading of explanation towards the Prophet (PBUH), we are actually introducing an external idea into the discourse?

Answer: Dear, when an exegete tells you that this is the meaning of a

particular verse of the Qur’an, do you incorporate his opinion or statement into the text? Obviously, you do not. Similarly, the statement of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is not incorporated into the text of the Qur’an; it remains an explanation of it. Essentially, Imam Shafi’i is saying that the Prophet (PBUH) was also a scholar. As a scholar, if he has explained something, then pause and consider his words; they do not exceed explanation. Therefore, the Prophet’s statements are not being inserted from outside because once they are inserted from outside, it would not remain an ‘explanation.’ Look, when the Qur’an mentions ‘salah,’ it implies everything related to ‘salah.’ When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) clarifies something related to ‘salah,’ he is not bringing anything from outside; rather, he is elucidating what is inherently encompassed within the scope of the term. This is what constitutes explanation.

Question: So, should your statement be understood to mean that the explanation provided by the Prophet (PBUH) is of the same nature as that given by a scholar or commentator of the Qur’an?

Answer: There is no doubt about this. I have written on this subject and explained that the mistake people make is considering the Hadith as an explanation of the prophetic office, whereas it is actually an explanation of the office of knowledge. In addition to the prophetic office, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) also held another position, which is that he was the foremost scholar of religion. The prophetic status rendered his knowledge infallible. Therefore, we read the Hadith as statements from the first, greatest, most elevated, and infallible scholar of religion.

[January 2019]