Tajdeed

By Faheem Nadeem

Maliki Usul

• Quran:

       Split into Explicit texts (Nass) and Apparent (dhahir) texts.

Nass texts are not open to interpretation whereas dhahir can be interpreted. Shafi’i considered to Nass and Dhahir to be interchangeable, in the Maliki position the Nass is stronger than the dhahir.

A dhahir text can mean one of two or more things and requires further exposition from the Sunna or Quran.

• Sunna

       There are 3 ways the Sunna clarifies and complements the Quran:

It directly confirms the judgements of the Qur’an; in this case it adds nothing new whatsoever, nor does it clarify something unclear or limit something which is unrestricted or specify something referred to in general terms.

The Sunna also casts light on the intention of the Qur’an and limits some things which are unrestricted in the Book and gives detailed form to some matters which are undefined by the Book.

The third way in which the Sunna complements the Qur’an is in judgements about which the Book is silent.

According to Malik, however, if the Sunna is not supported by consensus, the practice of the people of Madina or analogy, the text must be taken literally and any sunna which contradicts that literal text is rejected if it is transmitted via a single tradition. When it comes through multiple transmissions (m u t a w a t i r), the Sunna can be raised to the level of abrogating the Qur’an in Malik’s opinion. So Malik preferred the dhahir text over a single tradition, even one considered sound, if it was not reinforced by consensus or practice.

Ibn Rushd divided the Sunna in the Maliki view into four categories according to the strength of its methods of transmission and its subject matter:

• A Sunna whose rejection is a mark of unbelief. If someone does reject it they are asked to repent. If they do not, they are to be killed as unbelievers. This applies to sunnas which have been transmitted by multiple transmission. Acquiring knowledge of such a sunna is obligatory: like wine being unlawful, the prayers being five, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, commanding the calling of the adhan, and other similar things.

• A Sunna which only people of deviation, error and denial reject and which all the People of the Sunna agree to be sound: such as the hadiths of intercession, the Vision, the punishment in the grave, and similar things connected with faith, even if they are not mutawatir in their isnad.

• A Sunna which it is obligatory to know and to act on, even if some of the opponents of the People of Sunna oppose it, such as wiping over leather socks, because it is known that it is acted upon by the vast majority of the Muslims and its opponents are very few.

• A sunna which it is obligatory to act on, being one which is transmitted by a reliable source from a reliable source. They are numerous in all the categories of law and it is obligatory to act by them. An example of this is judging by the testimony of two witnesses of good character, even if they might lie or be suspect in their testimony.

• Fatwa of the Companions

• Fatwa of the Followers (Tabi’un)

• Ijma (Ahl a-hall wa’l – Aqd)

• The Practice of the People of Madina

• Qiyas

• Istihsan

• Masalih Mursala

• Saad and Fath adh-Dharia (Blocking and opening the means)

• Common Usage (Adat) and Custom (Urf)

Hanafi Usul

• Quran

Fuqaha’ in the Hanafi school reflected on whether the Qur’an constituted text and meaning or meaning alone. Most scholars agree that the Qur’an constitutes text and meaning.

One area of Qur’anic evidence worth mentioning is the force of the ‘amm in the Hanafi school. ‘Amm (general) can be defined as a word which indicates various things with a shared meaning, for instance, as ‘human being’ indicates man, woman, black, white, Zayd, Bakr and Khalid while khass

(particular) applies to a specific aspect of what is alluded to by a general expression, like ‘white’or ‘man’ in relation to ‘human being’. The Hanafis hold that, like the khass, the ‘amm is definitive in its evidence and can abrogate the khass, whether it occurs in the Qur’an or the Sunna. Al-Bazdawi mentioned that this was the view of Abu Hanifa. Accordingly, a particular solitary hadith will not alter the general meaning of the text.

Some ayats of the Qur’an connected to judgements require further clarification. They require some more details, or there is something implicit in them which requires explanation, or they are unrestricted and need to be qualified. Scholars – both fuqaha’ of opinion and fuqaha’ of tradition – agree that this is what the Sunna often does with respect to the Qur’an. Therefore, the fuqaha’ who expounded the principles of the school of Abu Hanifa and its adherents undertook to clarify the Noble Qur’an

The manner in which the Sunna clarifies the Qur’an is divided into three categories:

 – Clarification by confirmation. This is when the Sunna reinforces the meaning of an ayat.

• Clarification by explanation. This is when the Sunna clarifies something implicit in an ayat when the text is general. This would include such things explaining details of the prayer, zakat and hajj, or defining the minimum amount of theft which entails cutting off the hand.

• Clarification by supersession, which is abrogation. Abrogation of the Qur’an by the Qur’an is permitted by the Hanafis, as is abrogation of the Qur’an by the Sunna, if it is confirmed by multiple transmission or well- known transmission.

• The Sunna

It is ranked after the Book because the Book is the foundation, root and primary source of the Shari‘a, while it is clear that the Sunna is one of its secondary sources, coming after it in consideration. It elucidates the Book and what elucidates comes after what is elucidated and serves it.

We also find that the Hanafis differentiate between a matter established by the Qur’an when the evidence is definitive, and a matter established by a confirmed Sunna. Those commands established by Qur’an are obligatory (fard) and what is established in the Sunna is mandatory (wujub). It is the same with prohibitions. Anything forbidden by the Qur’an is haram, if there is no uncertainty in the evidence, and anything forbidden by a confirmed Sunna is makruh (disliked), but makruh in a prohibitive way, whatever the evidence. This is a slightly lesser rank.

Abu Hanifa was one of the first fuqaha ’ to accept single hadiths as evidence and to formulate his views according to them if he found a hadith which contradicted his opinion

Mursal Hadith

The Hanafis say that a Mursal Hadith is accepted from the Companions, Tabi‘un and the third generation, but not from those after them.

Examination of the sources shows that Abu Hanifa used to accept mursal hadiths from the first three generations, but not necessarily subsequent ones. We see that Abu Hanifa accepted mursal hadiths from those he knew and whose method he preferred and trusted.

In fact, mursal hadiths enjoyed widespread acceptance in Abu Hanifa’s time. This was before there was a great deal of forgery of hadiths so that scholars came to require isnads to ensure authenticity. We see that Imam Malik in the Hijaz also accepted Mursal hadiths.

• Fatwa of the Companions

• Ijma

They state that Abu Hanifa and his companions used to accept tacit consensus and thought that opposition to such consensus was only valid if scholars had two different opinions on a matter.

This makes it clear, without a doubt, that he accepted the consensus of the mujtahids in general and was strong in following that. It appears that the consensus which counts as evidence with the fuqaha’ has three pillars:

• The Companions sometimes exercised ijtihad regarding questions which were presented to them. In many cases which arose where public well-being was concerned, ‘Umar would consult them, and opinions would be exchanged. When they agreed, that would be his policy. If they differed, they argued until they reached something on which they agreed.

• In the era of ijtihad, every Imam used to strive not to have divergent positions contrary to those of the other fuqaha’ of his land so that he would not be considered aberrant in his thinking. Abu Hanifa was firm in following that on which there was consensus between the earlier fuqaha’ of Kufa. Malik, likewise, put the consensus of the people of Madina before single traditions.

• There are also traditions which confirm the evidentiary nature of consensus like the words of the Prophet, “My Community will never agree on misguidance,” and “What the Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah.”

• Qiyas
• Istihsan
• Custom (Urf)

Shafi’i Usul

The evidence for judgements according to al-Shafi‘i

• Knowledge of the elite as mentioned below simply means knowledge of the scholars (vs the layman)

Al-Shafi‘i classes knowledge in five categories, ranked as follows in descending order.

First rank : The Book and the firm Sunna. The Sunna and the Book occupy the same rank because the Sunna expounds the Book in many cases. If a hadith is sound, it is put alongside it. If the reports are single ones, they do not have the same rank as the Qur’an since the Qur’an is related by multiple transmission. The Qur’an cannot be contradicted by the Sunna.

Second rank: Consensus on what is in the Book or the Sunna. What is meant by consensus is the agreement of those fuqaha’ who were given knowledge of the elite and who are not confined to the knowledge of the common people. Their consensus is evidence for those after them regarding the questions on which they all agree.

Third rank: The statement of one of the Companions of the Prophet. This is when one of the Companions of the Prophet voiced an opinion about a matter and when it is known that no other Companion opposed him in it. The opinion of a Companion is better for us than our own opinion.

Fourth rank: A question on which the Companions of the Messenger of Allah had differing opinions. In that case a faqih should adopt whichever opinion he considers closest to the Book and Sunna. Their opinions should not be overridden in favour of those of any other people.

Fifth rank: Analogy made on the basis of what is known from the other categories: the Book, the Sunna, and consensus. An analogy should be made on the basis of a textual matter which has a ruling in the Book or the Sunna or whose judgement is known by consensus; or by following the unchallenged position of one of the Companions or a statement of his which another Companion opposes.

• Quran

Al-Shafi‘i considers the Book and the Sunna to have equal rank in the Shari‘a. Indeed, he considers them to constitute a single source of this Shari‘a because all other sources of deduction are based on them, and derived from their spirit if they are not taken from their text. So, all sources of deduction, however numerous and varied, derive from one source which has two branches: the Book and the Sunna. However, we see the Book preferred in some sources after al-Shafi‘i and in the expressions of the fuqaha ’ before him. Indeed, in some of al-Shafi‘i’s writings, he himself does not put the Sunna in the same rank as the Book, but makes it subsidiary to it.

Al-Shafi‘i replies that the Book and Sunna are both from Allah since the Prophet “did not speak from passion. It is only a revelation revealed.” (53:3-4) Thus both of them are from Allah even if their means and causes vary. It is also because the Sunna is knowledge taken from the Book of Allah and so is inextricably connected with it.

The Sunna accompanies the Qur’an, clarifies all the general questions which arise in it, and provides details of matters which are unqualified. It can only clarify it if it enjoys the same rank. Many of the Companions took the same line as al-Shafi‘i in that.

It is related that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud quoted the sound hadith, “Allah curses women who tattoo and are tattooed, women who pluck their eyebrows, and women who file their teeth to make gaps for beauty, altering Allah’s creation.” A woman of Banu Asad who used to recite the Qur’an heard about that and asked ‘Abdullah, “What is the hadith that I heard from you, that you curse such and such?” ‘Abdullah replied, “Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah cursed when it is in the Book of Allah?” The woman said “I have listened to the Book and never heard that.” He said, “If you listened carefully, you would have heard it. Allah says, ‘Take whatever the Messenger gives you take and leave anything He forbids you.’ (59:7)”

In order not to misconstrue al-Shafi‘i’s aim in this matter, three things should be noted of which many people may not be aware:

• Al-Shafi‘i elevated knowledge of the Sunna as a whole to the rank of the Qur’an. That does not mean that everything related from the Messenger, whatever its path of transmission, had the same rank as the definitive ayats. Single hadiths do not have the same rank as the mutawatir, famous and widespread hadiths, let alone that of the ayats of the Qur’an. Al-Shafi‘i noted this since he limited the Sunna which was in the rank of the Qur’an to the established Sunna.

• He gave the Sunna the same rank as the Book in the deduction of rulings in secondary areas. This does not mean that they have the same position in the formulation of the articles of faith. Denying something found in the Sunna is not like denying something which is clearly stated in the Qur’an and in which there is no scope for interpretation. Anyone who denies something stated in the Qur’an is an apostate; but anyone who denies what is found in single hadiths is not outside Islam, since matters of faith must be confirmed with definitive isnads and the reports of single hadiths are not definitive.

• Al-Shafi‘i placed the Sunna at the same rank as the Qur’an in the extrapolation of derivative rulings. That is not to deny that the Qur’an is at the same time the root of this Deen, its support, its proof and the miracle of the Prophet, and that the Sunna is a branch from this root. That is why its strength stems from it. The Sunna simply complements the Book by expounding the rulings it contains, and supports it by making clear the laws that the Shari‘a has brought which are good for people in this life and the Next, and by which the virtuous society will be formed.

• Amm and Khass in the Quran

‘Amm (general) can be defined as a word which indicates various things with a shared meaning, as “human being” indicates man, woman, black, white, Zayd, Bakr and Khalid. These individuals are different but all have the quality of humanity and so the same general word can be applied to them.

Khass (particular) applies to part of what is alluded to by a general expression, like “white” or “man” in relation to “human being”. It is also possible for something particular to be general in itself, like “man”, since that is applicable to many separate individuals who share the quality of manhood. Nonetheless, it is particular in relation to “human being”.

Al-Shafi‘i divided general expressions in the Qur’an into three categories: apparent general expressions by which the general is meant; apparent general expressions by which the general is meant but the particular is included; and apparent general expressions by which the particular is meant.

• How the Qur’an sheds light on the Shari‘a and the position of the Sunna in respect of it

Ibn Hazm the Zahirite said, “None of the areas of fiqh is without a basis in the Book, and the Sunna and the Book is the basis and support of the Sunna, as we shall explain. Allah Almighty says, ‘This Qur’an guides to the most upright Way’ (17:9) and He says, ‘What We send down in the Qur’an is a healing and a mercy to the believers but increases the wrongdoers in nothing but loss.’ (17:82) ‘A’isha observed, ‘If anyone recites the Qur’an, there is no one above him.’

If you read the Risala of al-Shafi‘i from beginning to the end you will be aware that the Qur’an is the axis about which its knowledge revolves because it connects the roots to knowledge of the Shari‘a. Since, however, the Qur’an needs explanation, it must be the Sunna which does that. The Sunna clarifies the details of the Shari‘a while the Qur’an clarifies its universal principles. So, the prayer, zakat, hajj, jihad and fasting are all in the Qur’an and the Sunna elucidates them. It is the same with family and social matters, and punishments which are designed to deter corruption in society. The principles of all this are in the Qur’an and its details are in the Sunna.

• The Sunna

In the case of the Sunna, al-Shafi‘i met some people who denied that the Sunna was a valid epistemic proof. He met people who said worse things than that: some people denied that the Sunna established rulings other than those of the Qur’an, on the grounds that it clarifies but cannot add to it.

There were people who denied the evidence of single reports. Therefore, he had to present evidence to confirm that the Sunna had the authority to establish rulings – even single reports, as long as the report was reliable.

The Risala is the book in which these proofs are set out and al-Umm is the book which contains the discussions between him and his opponents who denied that the Sunna had authority or could add to the Qur’an, or who denied the legislative force of single reports.

• The position of the Sunna in relation to the Book

As we have seen, al-Shafi‘i spent much time defining the position of the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in relation to His Book. He designated five aspects of their relationship.

• The Sunna elucidates what is undefined in the Qur’an such as the obligations which are unspecified in the Qur’an for which it provides the details and times.

• The Sunna shows when the general is meant to be general in the Qur’an and when Allah means a particular category by a general expression.

• The Sunna adds, by Divine inspiration, rulings to obligations confirmed by texts in the Qur’an which are a consequence of them or connected to them.

• The Sunna conveys rulings which are not in the Qur’an and are not additions to Qur’anic texts.

• The Sunna further explains what is abrogating and abrogated in the Qur’an.

• The Sunna elucidating the Quran

Scholars agree that the Book is elucidated, and its goals and rules defined by the Sunna of the Prophet. No one claims to be able to understand the Qur’an and know all its rulings without the help of the Sunna, even though there are some people who reject some of the Sunna.

Since the Qur’an needs the explanation of the Sunna in this way, the question arises: How can it be said that the Qur’an is clear when it needs to be elucidated by the Sunna? The answer is that the clarity of the Qur’an is universal and not partial, general and not detailed, and the Sunna fleshes out the details of the generality of the Qur’an. The knowledge of the particular is only achieved through the Messenger. Allah says, “It is We who have sent down the Reminder and We who shall preserve it.” (15:9)

• Ijma

For al-Shafi‘i consensus is that the scholars of the time all agree on a matter, in which case their consensus is evidence for that about which they agree. He says in the chapter on the invalidity of istihsan: “Neither I nor any of the people of knowledge would say ‘this is agreed on’ except on a matter about which you would never find any scholar who would not repeat it to you and relate it from a predecessor, such as the Dhuhr prayer being four rak‘ats, wine being unlawful, and the like.”

The first consensus which al-Shafi‘i considers is that of the Companions. This did not refer to their having heard a Sunna from the Messenger of Allah which they all agreed on, in which case it is the Sunna which constitutes the proof and not their agreement, but when it was a question of their own ijtihad. The very existence of a Sunna means there is no need for ijtihad. They used their ijtihad only on subjects about which there was no text from the Sunna contrary to their consensus.

*side note paragraph for proof of ijma validity*

The second proof is the words of Allah: “But if anyone splits with the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him, and follows other than the path of the believers, We will hand him over to whatever he has turned to, and We will roast him in Hellfire” (4:115). This is confirmation of the fact that Allah Almighty made following any way other than that of the believers’ equivalent to splitting from Allah and His Messenger and the punishment is also the same. Splitting from Allah and His Messenger is forbidden and so following a way other than that of the believers is forbidden. Thus, it is obligatory to follow their way. This is evidence that consensus is an authority which cannot be opposed, in the same way that it is not permitted to oppose the Book and the Sunna, because Allah juxtaposed following other ways than that of the believers with splitting with the Messenger and He made a terrible threat about the consequences of doing so.

Then another question arises: who are the scholars who form this consensus? There were many discussions about this. The consensus referred to, according to al-Shafi‘i, is that of the Muslim scholars in all the cities and regions of Islam.

Al-Shafi‘i put single hadiths before consensus or opinion, whatever the reason for the consensus, unless it was clear that that consensus was based on transmission and a group of people related it from a group of people back to the Messenger. This is what is called the ‘tradition of the general public’ and so it is put ahead of single traditions.

Before we move on, two further points should be mentioned about consensus. One is that al-Shafi‘i did not take note of tacit consensus, which is when one of the people of ijtihad takes an opinion which is known in his time and to which no one objects. Al-Shafi‘i did not consider that to be consensus and stipulated that for consensus to exist, every scholar must transmit an opinion and then the opinions of all must agree on the matter.

• Statement of the Companions (Rarely)
• Qiyas

Hanbali Usul

• The foundations of deduction in Hanbali fiqh

Ibn al-Qayyim indicated that the principles on which Imam Ahmad based his fatwas are five.

The first is firm texts. If there was a firm text, he gave a fatwa accordingly, and did not pay any attention to what was contrary to it. That is why he put the text before the fatwas of the Companions. Ibn al-Qayyim gives examples of his disregarding fatwas of the Companions in favour of a text. One example was his preferring the hadith of the Aslamite woman and so considering the ‘idda of a pregnant widow to end when she gives birth and not the longer of the two terms, which was the fatwa given by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Ali in one of two transmissions. Nor did he pay any attention to the position of Mu‘adh and Mu‘awiya about Muslims inheriting from non-Muslims, because of the hadith which prohibits it.

The second basis is the undisputed fatwas of the Companions. If one of them had given a fatwa and there was no known opposition to it, he did not follow anything else, but he did not call that consensus. He said out of scrupulousness, “I do not know of anything to refute it.” An example was accepting the testimony of a slave. It is related that Anas said, “I do not know of anyone who rejects the testimony of a slave.” Ibn al-Qayyim said, “If Imam Ahmad found this type of statement from a Companion, he did not prefer opinion or analogy to it.

The third of the five bases mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim is that in the case of a disagreement between the Companions, he would choose the statement which was closest to the Book and Sunna but would not leave their statements for anything else. If it was not clear which of the statements was most in accord, he related the disagreement and did not take a definite position. Ishaq ibn Ibrahim said in his Questions, “Abu ‘Abdullah was asked, ‘What about when a man is among his people and is asked about something about which there is disagreement?’ He said, ‘He gives fatwa according to what agrees with the Book and Sunna and avoids what disagrees with the Book and Sunna.”

The fourth basis is accepting mursal and weak hadiths if there was nothing better on the subject. He preferred that to analogy. What is meant by weak is not the false or munkar, or that about which there is something suspect in the transmission, since that is not allowed. Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that that principle was accepted by many of the fuqaha’. It is also ascribed to Abu Hanifa, Malik, and ash-Shafi‘i.

The fifth basis which Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned is analogy. If Imam Ahmad did not have text on a question, or a statement of one or more of the Companions or a mursal or weak Tradition, he resorted to analogy, using it as a last resort as Ibn al-Qayyim observed. Al-Khallal transmitted that Ahmad said, “I asked ashShafi‘i about analogy and he said, ‘Resort to it if need be.’”

Regarding the first principle, the fact is that the texts in reality contain two bases: the Book and the Sunna, since any text is either from the Book or the S u n n a; but Ahmad did as ash-Shafi‘i had done before him and put them together because the role of the Sunna is to clarify and expound the Book and so they are considered as having the same rank.

The second principle, the fatwas of the Companions, overlaps with third, which is the fatwa of a Companion when he disagreed with another Companion. So the two can in fact be considered as one: the fatwas of the Companions whether they agree or disagree.

The fourth is his acceptance of mursal or weak hadiths, which is in reality part of the science of knowing which texts are fit to be used for derivation, even though Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned it as a distinct and separate principle. It is an implicit judgement of its rank in deduction that he does not give a mursal or weak hadith precedence over the fatwa of one of the Companions. Mutawatir and sound texts come over a fatwa of a Companion. The fact is that Ahmad considers the word “Sunna” to include mutawatir hadiths, sahih hadiths, fatwas of the Companions, and mursal and weak hadiths.

So we consider the principles which Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned to be in reality four: the Book, Sunna, fatwas of the Companions and analogy.

The foundations of Ahmad’s fiqh. They are: the Book and the Sunna, consensus, fatwas of the Companions, analogy (qiyas), istishab, masalih mursala, and dhara’i‘.

• Quran

Ahmad’s position regarding the rank of the Sunna in relation to the Qur’an: is it second or equal to it in respect of the derivation of rulings? No scholars consider the Sunna to have exactly the same status as the Qur’an. Scholars agree that it is less because the Qur’an is the primary proof of Islam and its first source.

The fact that the Sunna ranks below the Qur’an with respect to deduction is not questioned. The question is whether rulings from the Qur’an can only be extrapolated by way of the Sunna, which serves to explain it. The Hanafis and Malikis extrapolated rulings from the Book and compared single hadiths against the Book. They accepted those which agreed with the Book and rejected those which did not. The Hanafis did the same regularly and the Malikis on occasion, as when they rejected the hadith about having to wash seven times any vessel licked by a dog because it contradicts the Qur’an.

The Shafi‘is apply the Sunna to clarify the Qur’an when the literal sense of the Qur’an contradicts the Sunna. The Sunna sometimes makes literal texts of the Qur’an specific and the Qur’an is understood in that way. It acts as clarification and explanation of the Book, so that one of the fuqaha’ stated that the Sunna governs the Qur’an since it is the means of explaining it, detailing it, clarifying what is abrogated of the Qur’an and defining what is undefined. This is why ash-Shafi‘i put them on the same level: because the second clarifies the first. Ahmad held the same view and Ibn al-Qayyim rightly states that Ahmad put Qur’anic texts above Sunna texts in clarification of rulings.

Ahmad was adamant in considering the Sunna of the Prophet a sound explanation of the Noble Qur’an. He did not believe that there could be any conflict between the literal text of the Qur’an and the Sunna, because the Sunna clarifies it and explains the fiqh and rulings the Qur’an contains.

 Firstly, the apparent text of the Qur’an does not have precedence over the Sunna: that is clearly stated.

Secondly, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, explained the Qur’an and after him no one can interpret it or explain it because that is the role of the Sunna alone and it may not be expounded by any other means.

Thirdly, the Companions explained the Qur’an since they transmitted from the Messenger of Allah; they witnessed the Revelation and heard its interpretation and knew the Sunna of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and so their explanation is part of the Sunna.

Thus, Ahmad clearly states that there is no tafsir except through tradition. Ibn Taymiyya stated in his treatise which he wrote on t a f s i r that if there was no t a f s i r on an a y a t from the Companions he took that of the Tabi‘un in some cases. He disliked explaining the Qur’an by opinion in the way az-Zamakhshari did.

The position that the school of Ahmad holds is that the apparent text of the Qur’an can only be explained by the Sunna; and that is also the course followed by ash-Shafi‘i, as he affirms in his Risala. Ahmad may have adopted this from ash-Shafi‘i when listening to him in Makka.

• The Sunna

Those who confine themselves to the Book without seeking the assistance of the Sunna in explaining its laws will be misguided from the Straight Path. There are several reasons for this:

• The text of the Qur’an states that it is obligatory to obey the Messenger, and obedience can only mean following his Sunna and taking judgement from the Messenger in what he did during his life and what was related from him after his death.

• The second reason is the evidence found in the hadiths which affirm the obligation to follow the Sunna and not confine oneself to the Book. These texts indicate that it is mandatory to seek the laws of the deen in the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah and that confining oneself to the Book alone is an innovation.

• The third reason is that many Islamic rulings on which most of the Muslims agree are taken from the Sunna or are greatly reliant on the Sunna. The prohibition of marriage with those related to one by suckling and of marrying a woman and her aunt at the same time are part of the Sunna. The details of the prayer, zakat and hajj are part of the Sunna. The amounts of blood money and other things are detailed in the Sunna. Anyone who ignores fiqh from the Sunna loses nine-tenths of Islamic fiqh or more.

Ahmad was imbued with love of the Prophet and his Companions and so he was content to accept anything which was ascribed to the Prophet.

Malik and Abu Hanifa accepted mursal hadiths to the extent which they thought correct. It is clear from studying the Muwatta’ and the books of Traditions associated with Abu Hanifa that they considered the mursal to have the rank of the single hadith. When there was a conflict between them, they applied the same criteria as when two reports contradicted. Their strength in relation to a single ascription was in their opinion the same. Al-Shafi‘i, however, did not give the mursal the same status in his Musnad.

He did accept mursal hadiths but imposed certain conditions for doing so. Ahmad considered mursal hadiths to be evidence, but put them below the fatwas of the Companions, placing them on a par with weak hadiths, and thus he both differed from his shaykh, al-Shafi‘i, and agreed with him.

He differed by putting mursal hadiths after the fatwas of the Companions because he considered the latter to be part of the Sunna, as we will explain. Where there was nothing else, he accepted mursal hadiths as he accepted weak hadiths because he preferred using them for making rulings to analogy and opinion, which he applied only as a last resort.

But it is clear that Ahmad considered mursal hadiths to be weak reports whose evidence can sometimes be refuted and not accepted, which is why he put the fatwas of the Companions first. He never, however, put a fatwa of a Companion ahead of a sound hadith, so the fact that he did place such fatwas before mursal hadiths is evidence that he considered them to be weak hadiths, not sound hadiths. He used them for making rulings in cases of necessity because he did not want to give any fatwa about the deen on his own accord when there was any tradition he was familiar with.

So, he accepted them as long as he did not have an alternative in the form of a f a t w a from the Companions. Hence we can say that Ahmad’s acceptance of mursal hadiths was certainly no greater than that of his shaykh al-Shafi‘i; it was, if anything, less since he rejected them more on the basis of their being in the category of weak hadiths.

Ahmad also avoided having to use his own opinion by accepting the fatwas of some earlier fuqaha’ who were known for following tradition rather than innovation, such as Malik, al-Shafi‘i, al-Thawri and other jurists who had great knowledge of Tradition. He followed this course when exercising ijtihad.

• Fatwas of the Companions

• Fatwas of the Tabi’un

• Ijma (Only in theory, Ahmad basically denied the existence of true ijma outside the pure basics of deen i.e 5 prayers a day etc)

• Qiyas

• Istishab (Presumption of Continuity)

• Masalih

• Saad al Dharia

By Faheem Nadeem