لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Zayd al‑Shahham reports:
Qatadah ibn Da'amah came to Abu Ja'far (A). The Imam (A) asked him, "Are
you the faqih of the people of Basrah?" "That is what they say,"
replied Qatadah. Abu Ja'far (A) said, "I heard that you expound the
Qur'an" ....(the tradition goes on until where the Imam says to Qatadah).
"Woe to you, O Qatadah! Only those to whom the Qur'an has been addressed
understand it." (Furu al‑Kafi, vol.8, p.312)
Anyhow, it is definite that one
cannot understand a part of Qur'anic meanings and Islamic teachings without
reference to the Awsiya' of the
Prophet (S). No doubt, those who feel it to be unnecessary are bound to fall
into error in regard to the mutashabihat of
the Qur'an, to the extent that instead of referring the mutashabihat to the muhkamat they
may construe the muhkamat in their
minds as mutashabihat. This has led
to deviations in the doctrinal sphere, leading to belief in anthropomorphism (tashbih), determinism (jabr), and absence of the necessity of
Divine Justice, not to speak of the adverse effects on deduction of the laws of
the Shari'ah and its practical rules and the resolution of social problems.
The Qur'an and Khabar al‑Wahid:
One of the controversial issues
relating to inference of ahkam from
the Qur'an is that of the legitimacy of limiting the jurisdiction (takhsis) of the Qur'an's general
statements (amm) by khabar al‑wahid (a non mutawdtir tradition). Difference of
opinion exists in this regard among Islamic scholars. Some consider such a takhsis permissible and others regard it
as impermissible. Of those who favour it, some have put forward the argument
that if the hujjiyyah (authority) of khabar al‑wahid can be
substantiated by definite proofs, its use for the takhsis of the Qur'an's general statements is permissible. It must
be added that a majority of Shiite ulama' believe in the permissibility of
such takhsis. Some, like Isa ibn
Aban, believe that if a certain general statement of the Book has been limited
by a valid proof (dalil qati) other
than a khabar al‑wahid, the
tatter's use for the same purpose becomes permissible. Some others, like al‑Karkhi,
have permitted it in the particular case where the Book's amm has been restricted by a separate proof (dalil munfasil).
Finally, some, like Qadi Abu
Bakr, have refrained from expressing any opinion at all in this connection.
However, those who believe in the
impermissibility of such takhsis (even
when the khabar al‑wahid is sahih and
reliable), who belong to Ahl al‑Sunnah, have advanced arguments in
support of their view. These arguments are briefly stated and evaluated below.
Arguments Against the
Permissibility of the Takhsis
1. Some have said that the Qur'an
enjoys definite authenticity, i.e. it is qat'i
al‑sudur, whereas the authenticity of khabar al‑wahid is not
free from doubt because of probability of error on the narrator's part. That
is, it is zanni al‑sudur. And
it is not reasonable, therefore, that a mukallaf
person should forego something of definite authenticity for something whose
authenticity is only probable.
In answer we might say that the
Qur'an is doubtlessly of certain authenticity; yet it is uncertain (zanni) from the viewpoint of its indicating
the real intent of the Lawgiver, because one cannot be certain of having
completely understood the Lawgiver's intent from his understanding of the
literal meaning of a verse or its general import and be certain that the
general import is not subject to any qualification or restriction.
Furthermore, we should take into
consideration the occurrence in the Qur'an of: (1) muhkam and mutashabih, (2)
mutlaq and muqayyad, (3) nasikh and
mansukh, and (4) mujmal and mubayyin, etc.
On the other hand, although khabar al‑wahid
is zanni al‑sudur, those who uphold the hujjiyyah of khabar al‑wahid
do not consider every such tradition as authentic and reliable. They have
laid down certain requirements which a khabar
al‑wahid should fulfil in order to be considered reliable.
Accordingly, in the event a khabar al‑wahid that has already
been proved to be reliable and valid conflicts with a general rule (amm) deducible from the Book's literal
meanings, there are two alternatives in front of us:
(i) Setting aside and ignoring
the khabar al‑wahid, despite
its fulfilling the criteria of validity, and acting in accordance with the
general rule understandable from the Qur'an's literal meanings.
(ii) Adopting the valid khabar al‑wahid as well as acting
upon the verse by limiting the Book's general rule by applying the reliable khabar al‑wahid. In this case we
have neither gone against the khabar al‑wahid
nor set aside the Qur'anic verse.
The scholars have selected the
second alternative because they believe that the khabar al‑wahid is indicatory of the absence of a general
intent.
In other words, since on the one
hand the Qur'an is zanni al‑dalalah
from the viewpoint of one's subjective understanding and inference, and on
the other hand the khabar al‑wahid is ,zanni al‑sudur, it is inevitable that we should give
precedence to one of these two. In the event the khabar al‑wahid satisfies the criteria of validity, the same
fact would justify giving priority to it over the presumed general import of
the Qur'anic verse, and this will not give rise to any difficulty. However,
when we act in a contrary fashion and give precedence to the Book's amm over the khabar al‑wahid, the question will arise as to on what basis
precedence is being given to something which is zanni aldalalah over something which is zanni al‑sanad but of proved reliability. This is a question
to which a satisfactory answer cannot be given.
2. Some have pointed out that
there are traditions relating to the resolution of conflict between traditions
(ilaj al‑taarud bayn al‑
akhbar). According to these traditions if the content of one of two
contradictory narrations happens to agree with the Qur'an, then that narration
should be accepted and the other one should be discarded.
The aforementioned traditions
doubtlessly apply to any conflict between a khabar
al‑wahid and the Book's general statement as well. Those traditions
make it all the more clear and definite that the khabar should be discarded and the Qur'an's general statement
should be acted upon, for a tradition can never be construed as strong evidence
to the extent of opposing the Book.
In reply we may say that without
denying the above‑mentioned traditions and their applicability in the
appropriate context, it is necessary first to identify the area of their
applicability. It is to be seen whether or not they are relevant to the topic
of our discussion.
In fact, the above traditions are
not relevant to the subject of our present discussion. This is because
contradiction between the Book and a hadith can possibly exist only when the
two are mutually exclusive, blocking any possibility of a reconciliation, so
that acting upon or believing in both would constitute a contradiction.
In other words, in some cases
there may be a conflict between a tradition and the essential import of the
Qur'anic text. In other in stances there may be an incompatibility between a
tradition and the general import of the Qur'anic text. In the latter case, a
reconciliation is possible, and the tradition can be regarded as one that
elucidates the Qur'anic text. This will not constitute a case of contradiction
between the tradition and the Qur'anic verse.
3. Some have argued that those
who favour the permissibility of the takhsis
of a Qur'anic amm through a khabar
al‑wahid are permitting a special kind of naskh (abrogation), for naskh
is also a kind of takhsis. If the
possibility of naskh on the basis of khabar al‑wahid is not acceptable,
then the protagonists of takhsis ought
to disallow the takhsis of the Qur'an
by khabar al‑wahid.
In reply, we may point out that,
firstly, naskh means the restriction
of the jurisdiction of a law in regard to time, whereas takhsis is its
limitation in regard to individual cases.
Secondly, the impermissibility of
naskh through khabar al‑wahid is based on ijma (consensus). There is no such consensus regarding the
impermissibility of takhs'is through khabar al‑wahid.
Thirdly, naskh is not something that can be proven or substantiated by a khabar al‑wahid, for the Qur'anic
verses expound the principles and foundations of the Divine ahkam and, as such, they ought to enjoy
especial stability and security. From this point of view, should any naskh occur therein, the importance of
the matter requires that the naskh be
widely reflected and reported by several narrators through mutawatir traditions.
Qur'anic Exegesis Through
Khabar al‑Wahid:
Having made a cursory appraisal
of the topic of takhsis through khabar al‑wahid, that of
interpreting the Qur'an through khabar alwahid
too may be discussed here. Some believe that such tafsir is not permissible. They reason that the authority and
reliability of khabar al wahid is confined
to the deduction of the practical laws of the Shari'ah. But whenever a khabar al‑wahid concerns doctrinal
issues or pertains to the historical events and anecdotes (qisas) mentioned in the Qur'an, or concerns matter of social or
moral significance, the grounds justifying reliance on khabar al‑wahid are not valid in such cases.
Since many Qur'anic verses
pertain to issues other than those concerning the ahkam, many traditions relating to tafsir pertain to such issues.
Accordingly, it can be concluded that, on the whole, Qur'anic exegesis through khabar al‑wahid is not lawful,
except in the case of Ayat al‑'ahkam,
which constitute nearly one‑sixth of all the verses.
In contrast, many of those who
accept the hujjiyyah of khabar al-wahid also accept its general
applicability for the purpose of interpreting the Qur'an as well. In this
regard, they do not make a distinction between ayat al‑ ahkam and other verses. According to their
reasoning, the practice of rational people (sirat
al‑uqala) can be the best testimony for the support of this
viewpoint. This is because in the same way as rational people accept definite
proofs and mutawatir reports, they
also accept reliable proofs creating probability (dalil zanni). Of course, if a khabar
al-wahid is not reliable, it cannot be used for interpreting the Qur'an.
This is because, firstly, following a dalil
zanni of an unreliable kind is not permissible. Secondly, to ascribe
something to God without any justification is tantamount to ascribing a
falsehood to Him, which is reckoned as an unforgivable sin. Thirdly, there are
many ahadith which forbid tafsir based on subjective opinion (ray), and
those who indulge in it have been threatened with chastisement.
In view of the foregoing, Qur'anic
tafsir is lawful only when it is carried out with reference to traditions which
are mutawatir, or in accordance with
a definite proof or a khabar al‑wahid
of established reliability.
Qur'anic exegesis through unreliable traditions amounts to interpreting
it in accordance with one's subjective judgement and ascribing a falsehood to
God, and this is prohibited. The point around which all these judgements
revolve is the essential need for safeguarding the Qur'an as the source of all
religious knowledge and teachings. Just as the Qur'an has sanctity and
credibility, its exposition and explanation too should bear a seal of
reliability.
Role of Exegesis in Legal
Deduction:
No doubt, the difference of
viewpoint regarding Qur'anic tafsir has a significant effect upon the process
of a jurisprudent's deduction of ahkam from
the Qur'an. Hence a mujtahid cannot
afford to be unfamiliar, in the course of his work, with tafsir and its
historical development (to the extent that it has a bearing on legal
deduction).
Researchers in the field of
Qur'anic studies have identified three separate areas for the sake of
classifying and systematizing these studies:
1. Ilm al‑tajwid, dealing
with phonetics and the pronunciation of consonants and vowels.
