Ijtihad
Due to the intellectual decline that has affected
the Muslims throughout the last few centuries the subject of Ijtihad has become
vague in the minds of many unfortunately including some thinkers and Ulema.
Different extremes exist, some believe the doors of Ijtihad are closed whereas
others have broken the doors of Ijtihad altogether. The following are some of
the key misconceptions that have crept into the minds:
a) The doors of Ijtihad are closed i.e. it is
impossible and not permitted to undertake Ijtihad today.
b) To undertake Ijtihad one has to be similar in
knowledge to Imam Malik and it is not permissible or possible for someone with
less knowledge than him.
c) The scope of Ijtihad includes most things
including definitive matters such as the prohibition of Riba (usury) and the
prohibition of having nation states with a multiplicity of rulers in the Muslim
world. It allows Islam to be reformed in order to apply to the modern age.
d) Ijtihad is only personal reasoning and not the
hukm of Allah i.e. it is the reasoning of an individual and therefore cannot be
a shariah rule.
e) Ijtihad only occurs in those areas where the
Islamic evidences have not discussed directly i.e. upon new issues.
f) Ijtihad is an individual obligation (Fard Ayn)
and therefore Taqleed (following an opinion of a Mujtahid) is prohibited
(haram).
In order to clarify these misnomers we must
understand the subject of Ijtihad from its root, this means its definition and
then understand its scope, evidences, reality and limitations.
Definition and scope of Ijtihad
Linguistically Ijtihad in the Arabic language
means to make the utmost effort to realise a matter that entails a measure of
discomfort and difficulty. It comes from the root word jahada (stuggle).
The scholars of Usul ul Fiqh gave it a specific
definition as the linguistic meaning alone is not accurate when discussing the
shariah rules. The great scholars of Usul such as Abu al-Husayn 'Ali otherwise
known as al-Amidi (d. 631 A.H.) and Mohammad bn Ali Al-Shawkani (d.1255A.H.)
defined it as the total expenditure of effort made by a jurist in order to
infer, with a degree of probability, the rules of Shari'ah from their detailed
evidence in the sources. [Amidi, Ihkam, IV, 162; Shawkani, Irshad, p. 250.]
Others add, ‘in a manner the Mujtahid feels unable
to exert any more effort’ to this definition.
This Usuli definition of Ijtihad was derived from
the evidences which discuss ijtihad and establish its obligation, these will be
elaborated in a following chapter. Unfortunately some today believe that
Ijtihad is a mere personal reasoning of an individual and have abandoned this
definition of the Usuli scholars which has been established for centuries. The
consequence of this is that people mistakenly think that Islam doesn’t contain
a process to derive rules for modern problems. Therefore when talking about
Ijtihad it is paramount that we refer to the established Usuli definition
rather than how the term is used today.
In order to understand the scope of Ijtihad it is
necessary to understand the types of ahkam shariah (divine rules) in order to
ascertain to which area it applies.
It is unanimously agreed that there are two types
of ahkam shariah:
1. Qati (definitive), such as the obligation of
the five times daily Salah (prayer), the prohibition of Riba (usury) and the
obligation of ruling by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed. These types of rules
are definitive as they are established by Qati Thuboot (definitive
transmission) and Qati Dalalah (definitive meaning).
2. Zanni (speculative), either they are
established from Zanni Thuboot (speculative transmission), Zanni Dalalah
(speculative meaning) or both. These include rules such as whether intention is
a condition for Wudhu, whether it is conditional for the Khalifah to be from
the lineage of the Quraish and whether leasing agricultural land is prohibited.
A text which is definitive text in meaning is one
which is clear and specific; it has only one meaning and admits of no other
interpretations. An example of this is the text on the entitlement of the
husband in the estate of his deceased wife, as follows: “In what your wives
leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child" [TMQ al-Nisa', 4:12].
Other examples are:
“The adulterer, whether a man or a woman, flog
them each a hundred stripes” [TMQ al-Nur, 24:2]
“Those who accuse chaste women of adultery and
fail to bring four witnesses [to prove it], flog them eighty stripes” [TMQ
al-Nur, 24:4]
The quantitative aspects of these rulings, namely
one half, one hundred, and eighty are self-evident and therefore not open to
interpretation.
The second type of ahkam shariah are those which
are considered speculative (Zanni), as either they are established from Zanni
Thuboot (speculative transmission), Zanni Dalalah (speculative meaning) or both.
Ijtihad does not occur except in the ahkaam
shariah whose daleel is speculative (Zanni) and not when the rule is decisive
(qat’i). [Shawkani, Irshad, p. 250; Zuhayr, Usul, IV, 223-25; Badran, Usul, p.
471.] Therefore there can be no Ijtihad the definitive rules such as those
mentioned. To reject these ahkam or any others established through Qati thuboot
(definitive narration) and Qati dalalah (definitive meaning) is Kufr
(disbelief) as it would be a rejection of the definitive revealed rule from
Allah (swt). Thus those who reject that the five times daily prayer (Salah) is
fard (obligation) or that ruling by whatever Allah is revealed is obligatory
undoubtedly become Kuffar (disbelievers) even if they were great ulema who had
committed the entire Quran and all the ahadith (narrations) to memory.
An example of a text with a Zanni meaning is the
verse 'God will not call you to account for what is futile (al-laghw) in your
oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths . . .' [TMQ
al-Ma’idah, 5:92]. The text then continues to spell out the expiation, or
kaffarah, for deliberate oaths, which consists of either feeding ten hungry
persons who are in need, or setting a slave free, or fasting for three days.
The ulema have differed on the definition of
futile, as opposed to deliberate, oaths, which occur are mentioned in the
verse. According to the Hanafis, a futile oath is one which is taken on the
truth of something that is suspected to be true but the opposite emerges to be
the case. The majority have, on the other hand, held it to mean taking an oath
which is not intended, that is, when taken in jest without any intention.
Similar differences have arisen concerning the precise definition of what may
be considered as a deliberate oath (yamin al-mu'aqqadah). There is also
disagreement as to whether the three days of fasting should be consecutive or
could be three separate days. Hence the text of this ayah, although definitive
on the basic requirement of kaffarah for futile oaths, is speculative as to the
precise terms of the kaffarah and the manner of its implementation.
A Qur’anic injunction may simultaneously possess a
definitive and a speculative meaning, in which case each of the two meanings
will convey a ruling independently of the other. An example of this is the
injunction concerning the requirement of ablution for prayers which reads in
part “ … and wipe your heads” [TMQ al-Ma’idah, 5:6]. This text is definitive on
the requirement of wiping (mash) of the head in wudu', but since it does not
specify the precise area of the head to be wiped, it is speculative in regard
to this point. Hence we find that the jurists are unanimous in regard to the
first, but have differed in regard to the second aspect of this injunction.
[Badran, Usul, p. 66.]
When it comes the area in which Ijtihad is
permitted it is important to realise that it does not occur after a brief look
at the shari’ah texts, rather it means that the Mujtahid struggles to his
utmost such a manner that the jurist feels an inability to exert himself
further in order to derive the hukm of Allah. If the jurist has failed to
discover the evidence which he was capable of discovering, his opinion is void.
[Ghazali, Mustasfa, II, 102; Amidi, Ihkam, IV, 162.]
Therefore if one claimed to have made Ijtihad upon
an issue after only studying one text related to it and ignored all other
relavent texts even though they were readily available, this would not be
considered legitimate Ijtihad.
The definition of Ijtihad itself clarifies a
misconception that it is only a personal reasoning and not the hukm of Allah.
Often Western thinkers refer to Ijtihad in this manner as if it is only a
product of the mind and nothing to do with law of Allah. It is not just a
personal reasoning of a jurist rather it is an extraction of the hukm of Allah
from the sources of shariah. To believe that it is only a personal reasoning is
dangerous as it infers that it is a product of the mind alone like in Western
legislation. For example the rules of divorce in Western legislation completely
differ from the rules of divorce in Islam, as the West believes the mind is a
source of legislation whereas in Islam we apply the mind in order to understand
the revelation of the Creator.
The scope of Ijtihad does not include the matters of
Aqeeda (belief) as it is not allowed to do ijtihad in ‘Aqeedah from the Usuli
meaning. This is because the ‘Aqeeda is definite and decisive and cannot be
taken except from the definite daleel (evidence) and it is prohibited to take
it from the speculative evidence. Therefore there can be no Ijtihad regarding
the belief in angels, the day of judgement, jannah (paradise), jahannum (hell)
and the like.
He (swt) says: “And verily guess is no substitute
for the truth.” [TMQ 53:28]
And He (swt) says: “Verily, those who dispute
about the ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) of Allah, without any authority
having come to them, there is nothing else in their breasts except pride (to
accept you [Muhammad (saw)] as a Messenger of Allah and to obey you) They will
never have it (i.e. the Prophethood which Allah has bestowed upon you).” [TMQ
40:56]
And He (swt) said: “They have no (certain)
knowledge. They follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not
(‘Isa).” [TMQ 4:157]
"Do you have Ilm for that which you claim so
that you provide us with? You follow nothing but conjecture (Zann)." [TMQ
6:148]
"These are nothing but names which you have
devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They
follow nothing but conjecture and what their Nafs desire. Even though there has
already come to them the Guidance from their Rabb" [TMQ 53:23]
Jalaluddin as-Suyuti, a Mujtahid Imam of the Shafi
madhab has commented on this verse, that the people had zann (conjecture) which
is opposed to knowledge (ilm) i.e. certain knowledge. He also stated that Allah
had sent down definitive proof (Burhan Qati) for the truth of the Islamic
Aqeeda. [Tafseer al Jalalayn page 627. It is stated in Reliance of the
Traveller Ahmed ibn Naqib al misri (ra) (769/1368) Book of Qada (Judiciary)]
In all of these and other ayaat (verses) to do
with beliefs Allah (swt) censures those who take the beliefs through conjecture
(Zann) and decisively prohibits them from this.
Since Ijtihad, according to its definition, relates
to Zanni evidences then it does not occur in beliefs.
It is incorrect to say that if the mujtahid makes
a mistake then he gets one reward and hence there is no harm in making ijtihad
in ‘Aqeedah because he will be rewarded if he makes a mistake. This cannot be
said because the one who makes a mistake in ‘Aqeedah is not rewarded or
excused, rather he is sinful and he will be going astray even if he had exerted
all his effort and energy he will not be safe. This is because such effort does
not give him anything (definite) and he will have no excuse to save him from
the punishment of Allah.
The ulema are in agreement that in regard to the
essentials of Aqeeda, such as the oneness of Allah (tawhid), His attributes,
the truth of the Prophethood of Muhammad, the hereafter, and so on, there is
only one truth and anyone, whether a mujtahid or otherwise, who takes a
different view automatically renounces Islam. [Shawkani, Irshad, p. 259]
Therefore people such as the followers of Gulam
Ahmad Mirza Qadian who believe he was a Prophet and Salman Rushdie who defamed
Muhammad (saw) are definitely Kafir (disbelievers) and cannot be called
Mujtahids as all.
No comments:
Post a Comment