Apologies for the delay since the last post - I don't have internet at my new place! Anyway, we have so far discussed in brief, the largest and most important basis for relying on khabar wahid narrations (the verse of Naba in Surah Hujurat). It is very much based on using the maf-hum. However, there are two main reasons to object to interpreting this verse in that way:
1. This is a linguistic discussion, which considers the verse to be similar to the phrase: “if you have a boy as a child, then circumcise him”, which does not have a mafhum because you cannot infer from this phrase that if you don’t have a boy, then you don’t circumcise him, as the circumcision is reliant on the condition being fulfilled i.e. from the verse, we cannot make the inference above. The best way to understand this further is to consider the various possible meanings of the verse:
a. A report – if a fasiq comes with it – you have to look into it
b. The report of a fasiq – if a fasiq comes with it – you have to look into it
c. The person who comes with a report/narration – if he (or she) is a fasiq – you have to look into it
The objection (likening the verse to the circumcision phrase) makes sense if we consider the second meaning of the verse, but this seems least likely, as the verse does not really imply that the report has to be the report of a fasiq. Therefore, this objection is not a valid objection.
2. At the end of the verse, the reason (ta’lil – تعليل) is provided for the ruling i.e. “lest you harm a people, whilst in ignorance”. Therefore, every narration that does not result in certain knowledge, requires clarification and research. This includes narrations coming from just individuals.
This can be explained by considering the phrase: “don’t eat this pomegranate because it is sour”. This order not to eat the pomegranate is qualified by it being sour, and it can be inferred from this that you should not eat all sour things, even if it is not a pomegranate. Similarly, from the verse, you can infer that anything that might harm others because you are not resulting in certain knowledge, is not authoritative, and requires clarification/investigation.
There are two main answers to this point that the reason for the verse (ta’lil) seems to contradict what is understood above (mafhum):
A. This assumes that the ta’lil (reason of the verse) should be understood over the mafhum (the implication of the verse). However, it could be argued that the mafhum is a special case of the general ta’lil. The response would be that there is no mafhum at all because of the ta’lil. And therefore, this answer is not correct.
B. The ta’lil (reason of the verse) does not actually contradict the mafhum because of the meaning of جهالة. Above, it has been translated as ignorance, meaning the lack of knowledge but this is the meaning of جهل, and جهالة actually has the meaning of doing something silly. Therefore, although taking a narration from a just person may be something that is without complete knowledge, it is not something silly, and the argument does not apply!
Therefore, Shahid al-Sadr considers this verse to be a complete and valid basis for using narrations transmitted by a trustworthy person even if it does not make you completely confident in it being correct.
In the next blog, we will look at other pieces of evidence (one other verse of the Qur`an, and then perhaps some narrations/other disucssions).
If you shouldn't eat a pomegranite because it is sour does it really imply you shouldn't eat lemons? Logically they may at first seem equivalent if we don't consider the function or intent of eating a pomegranite. the sournees per se isn't the reason, but the combination of the two which results in a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteThe example here, perhaps is not as clear as it should be...
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant here is that in situations where the language implies causation:
If X, then Y
From this we assume that in every case where there is X, there is Y i.e. we assume the meaning of the above is:
If X, then ALWAYS Y.
This understanding comes from the language and the causal meaning of "if".
Now, the discussion here is about the term "lest" or "because". In the case of pomegranate, let us assume this is a prophetic narration/Quranic verse saying:
"Don't eat pomegranates BECAUSE they are sour".
Now, we are moving onto a type of logic termed in fiqh as qiyas mansus al-illa. If there is NO other evidence (qarina), which might imply otherwise, the only thing we can infer(ceteris paribus) is that the only reason for the prohibition is the sourness.
If there is NO other evidence that suggests lemons are different, then we can use qiyas mansus al-illa, to infer that lemons are also prohibited because we have understood:
"If sour, then prohibited." from the above.
If you would like further discussion on qiyas (or tanqih al-manat)...etc., we can discuss this in further detail either via email or in future blogs...