Chapter 16: The discussion of the sources of religion in Al-Risalah

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

(2)

Advancement and Delay in the Qur’an and Sunnah

Question: In Imam Shafi’i’s book Al-Risalah, under the section titled Fajima’u Ma Abana Allahu Li Khalqihi Fi Kitabihi (What Allah has collectively explained to His creation in His Book), it appears that Imam Shafi’i considers the rulings not originally mentioned in the Qur’an but issued by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as based on the Qur’an itself. He uses the texts Atii’u Al-Rasul (Obey the Messenger)¹ and Yu’allimuhum Al-Kitaba Wal-Hikmah (He teaches them the Book and wisdom)² as the foundation for this. Is it correct to deduce from this that Imam Shafi’i, in terms of priority, considers the Qur’an to be given precedence over the Prophet (PBUH)? If this is correct, does this not raise the objection that he has based his argument on something contrary to reality?

Answer: When Imam Shafi’i and other scholars of Islamic jurisprudence have made the Qur’an the foundation of deriving religious understanding, it does not in any way mean that they regard the holy book as superior to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or are unaware of the fact that the Prophet was sent first and then the Qur’an was revealed. Instead of this interpretation, it should be

understood that this is their way of presentation. In the scenario where the religion is present both within the Qur’an and outside of it, they adopted this approach: that firstly, there is the Qur’an, and whatever exists outside of it in the form of Sunnah, the justification for accepting that too is itself provided by the Qur’an.

Question: But the question is, why did they feel the need for this counterfactual presentation? They could have adopted the real and factual order in which the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) stands prior to the Book of Allah?

Answer: The response to this is that those who stood against them (such as the Kharijites, etc.) were asserting that this is Kitab Allah (the Book of Allah), Ma anzala Allah (that which Allah has revealed), Tafsīlan li-kulli shay (a detailed explanation of everything)³ and therefore, there is no need to go beyond it. In this context, Imam Shafi’i used the Qur’an itself as evidence to establish the authority of the Sunnah. It is as if he conveyed to his addressees that the very book you acknowledge is also granting the same religious status to the words and actions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) that we are insisting upon.

The Relationship Between the Sources of Religion and Faith in Prophethood

Question: The debate on prioritizing sources has created confusion regarding the precedence of faith in prophethood and faith in the scripture. This prompts the question: Do we acknowledge the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) based on the Qur’an, or do we accept the Qur’an on the basis of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)?

Answer: Your question is based on the fallacy of relationship and should always be avoided. The Imam is not discussing faith in prophethood here. Instead, he is discussing the derivation of religious law. Beliefs are not the subject of this book. When other scholars discuss in this context, they are not talking about beliefs but about the

sources of religion. By their very nature, these discussions are what I have addressed under the title “Principles and Fundamentals” in my book Meezan.

Why do we consider Muhammad (PBUH) as the Messenger of Allah and how do we accept him as such? These are not discussions on the sources of religion, but rather on matters of faith. It should also be noted that there cannot be a specific logical sequence for belief in prophethood. The Companions of the Prophet believed directly, we have believed based on the testimony of our parents, while a non-Muslim might come to faith upon reading the Qur’an.

Question: With all due respect, I have not been able to separate the discussions of belief in prophethood and the sources of religion. Both discussions still seem inextricably linked to me. In my opinion, the purpose of accepting a prophet is to obtain religion and, based on that acquired religion, to determine the commandments of faith and action. I am actually unable to differentiate between the process of deriving religion and the process of believing, because both seem to result in the same outcome to me.

Answer: You are actually confusing two distinct concepts: knowing an event and having faith in it. Knowing the event means understanding that Muhammad bin Abdullah was a figure who declared prophethood in Arabia, presented the Qur’an, and established the Sunnah. This is not the same as having faith. Having faith means that we accept Muhammad bin Abdullah, who declared prophethood in Arabia, presented the Qur’an, and established the Sunnah, as the messenger and prophet of Allah and, in this capacity, we submit to him. These are two separate things. The difference between knowing an event and having faith in it becomes particularly evident in the example of an orientalist. He fully believes in the occurrence of the event but does not have faith in the Muhammad (PBUH) as a prophet and does not submit to him.

This incident is known to us through consensus and repetition. Consensus and repetition are secular means of transmitting any knowledge or news. This means necessitates certainty in the event, but

does not necessitate faith. It is as if consensus and repetition are sources of information for me, not reasons for argumentation. In other words, through consensus and repetition, I gain certainty about the event, not faith.

I began Meezan with this account of the event and clarified that this event has been known to me through consensus and continuous transmission. Keep in mind that when I, in Meezan, or Imam Shafi’i in Al-Risalah, or any other scholar describes the sources of religion in their book, they are deducing from the event, not from faith. That is, we are explaining how we derive the religion, not why and how we have come to believe in certain things. Therefore, it should be clear that for the extraction from the event, faith is not indispensable.

The Difference in Perspective between Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and the Scholars of Usul

Question: The distinction between matters of faith and the derivation of religion has become completely clear, but the issue of the precedence and sequence of the sources of religion is still in need of clarification. To resolve this, I present the question: What is the divinely ordained sequence of the sources of religion?

Answer: The sequence from Allah is the one I have described in “Principles and Fundamentals,” which states that the sole source of religion is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, and the religion received from him is found in the Qur’an and Sunnah. If considered in terms of reality, this order will be the same; if considered in terms of knowledge, it will also be the same. However, along with this, it is also a fact that I will cite a verse from the Qur’an as support for this, because it is available to us in the most authentic form. The Sunnah requires searching to be understood, but the Qur’an is available in a definitive form. It is also important to note here that scholars of principles consider the Qur’an as the primary source because it is beyond dispute.

Question: Then why have you arranged your structure differently from that of the jurists, and why have you started the discussion of

sources with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) instead of starting with the Holy Qur’an?

Answer: In reality, our scholars approach the principles of religion starting with the Qur’an. If the Qur’an contained detailed explanations of everything, then this approach would have been appropriate. In that case, there would be no need to refer back to earlier sources. We would then say that the Qur’an has come at the end, but it encompasses all previous knowledge. However, in reality, this is not the case. For example, the prayer — which is greatly emphasized — is not detailed in the Qur’an. The existence of the Qur’an in this form necessitates looking back. Not understanding this reality from the correct perspective is the fundamental error of our scholars. They are making the mistake of beginning the Qur’an with Prophet Adam. As for my view, the foundational issue is not the sources of religion, but rather the religious continuity that has existed before the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the content that results in the Qur’an appearing not as the first, but as the final book.

Consider the issue in such a way that for the past 14 centuries, our scholars have faced the question of why there is a need to look beyond the Qur’an when the most authentic and defined source of religion is available in the form of the Qur’an. Our scholars respond to this by stating that the need is created by the Qur’an itself, because it commands Muslims to obey the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and imposes the responsibility of the explanation of the Qur’an on the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). This is the scholars’ answer. In response to this, I state the factual matter that the Qur’an does not present the complete content of the religion.

[November 2018]