While reading Imam Shafi’s book “Al-Risala”, the teacher… A Dialogue Between the Esteemed Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and the Author
(3)
Question: The previous discussions were comprehensive, yet the issue remains unresolved as to why the discourse on sources in our scholarly history has become so complex. Even after fourteen centuries, these debates continue. In contrast, the way you have presented this discussion makes it seem very straightforward, without any apparent complications.
Answer: To understand someone’s point, the first thing to consider is the source of their confusion. If you ask what the intellectual dilemma is for Muslims from Imam Shafi’i to Maulana Maududi, the answer lies in the emergence of solitary reports (akhbar al-ahad). This refers to certain reports attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through individual sources, which reason and intellect suggest could indeed be from him. After acknowledging this intellectual and rational testimony, ignoring these reports is not feasible. So, what should be done with them? These reports are impacting both the divine scripture and the content of religion. They must be accommodated and cannot be disregarded. This is Imam Shafi’i’s dilemma. He implies that if he does not accept them, his intellect and reason suggest he would be making a mistake.
Look, one aspect is the logical certainty or uncertainty of something, and another aspect is the psychological certainty or uncertainty you attribute to it. Our scholars describe this as being surrounded by
circumstantial evidence. That is, it is indeed a singular narration, but it has been encircled by so much supporting evidence that it elevates it to a place where, logically, I cannot declare it certain, but psychologically, there is no deficiency in my conviction. This is the dilemma.
In the context of this confusion, when you read Al-Risalah, you will better understand their perspective, and then you will realize that Al-Risalah primarily aims to establish the authority of solitary reports (Akhbar-e-Ahad). You will find that all its discussions revolve around this central theme. This is the objective that figures from Imam Shafi’i to Maulana Maududi establish concerning the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) emphasizing his God-appointed status and authority. They delve into these discussions because certain things have reached us from the Prophet (PBUH), whose denial is sheer obstinacy. The pious predecessors or orthodox scholars justifiably feel in their conscience that rejecting the solitary reports is evidently against knowledge and reason. They do not descend into such obstinacy, as argued by Aslam Jairajpuri and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, who claim it is a non-Arab conspiracy. Then, the lengthy argument begins, pointing out that it was a few centuries later that Imam Bukhari emerged, who was not from Arabia but from Bukhara, and so on. This line of reasoning does not assert that all solitary reports are false, but rather argues that the manner in which they have reached us strips them of any capacity to influence or alter the Qur’an or religion in any way.
It should be understood that one method was to consider the contents of solitary reports as unreliable and thereby isolate the Qur’an and religion from them. This approach was adopted by individuals such as Ghulam Ahmed Parvez, Aslam Jairajpuri, Abdullah Chakralvi, and some others like them. The second approach was to affirm these solitary reports to the highest degree based on the status of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), and simultaneously demonstrate the Qur’an’s reliance on them, making it clear that it does not even specify from where a thief’s hand is to be cut. This is the method adopted by scholars from Imam Shafi’i to Maulana Maududi. In between stands a significant figure, Ibn Hazm, who chose yet another approach,
differing from theirs. He claimed that God’s protection is extended to solitary reports in the same manner as it is to the Qur’an.
In this context, I have adopted an approach to articulate the reality of the situation. I have explained that the knowledge derived from solitary reports is confined within the interpretation and elucidation of religion based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore, it neither influences the Qur’an nor adds to the content of the religion. Given this true nature, there is no need for me to refute it, nor is it necessary to prove it as indispensable. What is required is to fully clarify how this is interpreting and elucidating the religion confined within the Qur’an and Sunnah.
It should be clear that I have not found any way to solve the issue, but have instead determined the true reality of the incident.
[November 2018]
Attaining the Level of Certainty from a Solitary Reports in Religion
While reading Imam Shafi’i’s book “Al-Risala”, Ustadh. A Dialogue of the Author with the Respected Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
(4)
The Status and Rank of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)
Question: In the previous session, the discussion you provided greatly helped in understanding the sources of religion. It also became clear how our esteemed scholars perceive the issue of solitary reports (Akhbar-e-Ahad). However, as far as the question of a solitary report reaching a level of certainty when surrounded by indications is concerned, my mind is not at ease. The question is, how can something be deemed correct based solely on psychological satisfaction without rational certainty? In other words, how has it happened that our scholars consider conjectural evidence to be parallel to, or even superior to, definitive evidence? Moreover, during the times of our Imams, the science of Hadith had not yet been fully developed. The issues related to investigation, deception, fabrication, narrative by meaning, and contradictions were extraordinary. In light of these circumstances, how was it possible to elevate a solitary report to the level of certainty based merely on indications and psychological satisfaction, either intellectually or practically?
Answer: If you overlook the original incident, it will become difficult to understand the matter. The incident is such that certain things have been narrated with reference to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). The attribution of these things is to a personality who is the sole source of religion, whose knowledge is infallible, and about whom it is entirely appropriate to say that his words are the words of Allah. Furthermore,
the words of these sayings, their knowledge, their wisdom, their eloquence, their scholarly height, their conformity with the Qur’an and Sunnah, all testify that they can only be attributed to him. Now, should they be rejected merely because they have reached us through individual sources? Every person of sound nature will say that doing so would be clearly against knowledge and reason.
The Nature of Psychological Assurance
When a person does not have a clear solution to a problem or cannot resolve it, they have two paths: one is to stand on the simple logical principle of acceptance and rejection. The second is to rely on their psychological strength to make a decision. Most people choose this second path. Behind this psychological strength, generally, there are arguments for which the term mahfuf bil-qarā’in (surrounded by contextual indicators) is used in our context. You see, there are many incidents that cannot be proven in court, yet we have complete certainty of their occurrence. In countless matters, we are making decisions based on psychological conviction. Such a decision can be right or wrong in terms of reality. However, when we are making this decision, we do so without hesitation and with certainty of its correctness. For instance, when I read the narratives of the Prophet’s (PBUH) ablution, I become elated. No mental hesitation arises; even if they are not authentic, my psychology, my conscience, and my intellect spontaneously affirm that the Prophet (PBUH) must have performed ablution in this manner.
Psychological Assurance: A Double-Edged Sword
However, it should also be kept in mind that psychological satisfaction is a double-edged sword. Sometimes, it becomes the greatest obstacle in the path of knowledge, and often it happens that logical reasoning does not provide the same satisfaction as psychological satisfaction does. Keeping both aspects in view, one should also review prior knowledge and continually examine one’s own mind.
If you would like to see examples of this psychological conviction, for instance, in the works of Maulana Maududi, studying two specific
places would be insightful.
There is a section in Rasa’il wa Masa’il Volume 3 where someone asked the question about how it can be said that not a single particle of the Qur’an has changed, given the differences among various readings. Maulana Maududi responded by explaining that the Qur’an was initially without diacritical marks and vowel signs. In such a form, a single verse could have multiple meanings, and the scope for interpretive differences would be very broad. However, consider it a mercy of God that He designated a few readings, thereby significantly limiting these differences. Another discussion can be found in Tafhim al-Qur’an regarding the issue of stoning. Please read the two or three paragraphs he has written on it as well.
The point is that when you fundamentally accept something as correct and become generally satisfied with it, even if you later observe any inconsistencies or gaps, you dismiss them in the light of your conviction. The mental structure you have developed makes this dismissal entirely legitimate. Human psychology operates in this manner.
For a long time, I studied the verse from Surah Al-Nahl in which Allah grants the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the authority of elucidation,1 according to Imam Shafi’i, Al-Shatibi, Al-Amidi, and Maududi. I never had any doubts. In fact, I even wrote an article with full conviction based on this verse. However, when I examined it closely within the context of the Qur’an, I realized that this was not its meaning at all. For twenty-five to thirty years, I never actually scrutinized it. The reverence for such great scholars never even allowed the thought to occur that they could be mistaken in understanding it. In such moments, a person feels their own humility and helplessness, but that is human nature. There are countless things like this, where sometimes trust in an error is ingrained within a person. When someone else brings it to attention, the true path becomes apparent.
Consider this from another perspective as well. Sometimes it happens
that I am completely satisfied with the meaning of a verse, but I am unable to figure out how to convey to the questioner that this is the meaning. In essence, I have become intuitively satisfied based on my knowledge of the Qur’an and language, and I do not have the slightest doubt about it, but I am unable to explain it because my satisfaction has not yet taken shape in the logic of expression.
Imam Shafi’i’s Perspective on Akhbar al-Ahad (Isolated Reports)
Now, observe how Imam Shafi’i approaches this matter. He does not accept that anything has occurred. According to him, the solitary reports have neither abrogated, nor added, nor changed anything. He firmly insists that these are explanations of the Qur’an. This same premise was later adopted by his student, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Now, when you ask them how these are explanations, they will present you with established examples of Qur’anic verses and argue that when you accept these verses as explanations, why do you reject the solitary reports? The main discourse of Al-Risalah revolves around this. When Imam Shatibi also addressed this issue and described the knowledge derived from solitary reports as originating from the Qur’an itself, in essence, he adopted more or less the same argumentative approach as Imam Shafi’i.
The reasoning of Imam Shafi’i is quite straightforward. To understand it, one might say that he asserts when I read in Surah An-Nur, 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),2 I understood that the punishment for adulterous men and women is a hundred lashes. However, when I looked at Surah An-Nisa (4:25), I realized that this command does not apply to slave women. This undermined my certainty to make an absolute ruling. Consequently, when a narration conveyed that this ruling is not for the married individuals as well, how could I deny it? Therefore, if the verse in Surah An-Nisa granting an exception for
slaves can be an elaboration of the ruling in Surah An-Nur, then why can’t the narration that prescribes stoning for married adulterers be its explanation as well?
The Hanafi Perspective on Solitary Reports
The Hanafis adopted a different approach. It should be noted that the Hanafis are more rational, meaning they are more sensitive to logical and rational propositions. They argued that considering what you regard as an explanation, the intellect does not accept it as such. In reality, this is abrogation, which you are describing as an explanation. However, we accept this status of Hadith that it can abrogate a ruling of the Qur’an. But we accept this abrogation in certain instances and not in others. We accept it where it is through a Mutawatir or Mashhur tradition, because then it reaches the level of certainty, and where it is through solitary reports, we do not accept it, because in that case, its status is of conjecture compared to certainty. I once commented on this that in principle, Imam Shafi’i’s stance is correct, but in practice, the stance of the Hanafis is.
This makes it clear that the reasoning of knowledgeable individuals follows a certain order. It progresses in a linear fashion. Generally, it begins with psychological satisfaction, and once the evidence is provided, rational satisfaction is also achieved. In any case, every knowledgeable person should strive to attain both psychological and rational satisfaction regarding their knowledge. That is, we should continually endeavor for our psychological satisfaction and rational satisfaction to align. This is a struggle. In this, a person should be honest enough to highlight any differences if psychological satisfaction does not transform into rational satisfaction. This will encourage others, and they will also join you in the journey of knowledge.
[December 2018]
- Al-Nahl 16:44.
- Al-Noor 24:2.