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.
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.
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.
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.