11. THE FATWA OF A COMPANION
The Sunni ulema are in agreement that the consensus (ijma`) of the Companions of the Prophet is a binding proof, and represents the most authoritative form of ijma’. The question arises, however, as to whether the saying or fatwa of a single Companion should also be recognised as a proof, and given precedence over evidence such as qiyas or the fatwas of other mujtahidun. A number of leading jurists from various schools have answered this question in the affirmative, and have held the view that the fatwa of a Companion is a proof (hujjah) which must be followed. Then argument is that following the demise of the Prophet, the leadership of the Muslim community fell upon their shoulders, and a number of learned Companions, with then intimate knowledge of the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet were able to formulate fatwas and issue decisions on a wide range of issues. The direct access to the Prophet that the Companions enjoyed during his lifetime, and their knowledge of the problems and circumstances surrounding the revelation of the Qur’an, known as the asbab al-nuzul, put them in a unique position to formulate ijtihad and to issue fatwas on the problems that they encountered. Some ulema and transmitters of Hadith have even equated the fatwa of a Companion with the Sunnah of the Prophet The most learned Companions, especially the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, are particularly noted for their contributions and the impact they made to the determination of the detailed rules of fiqhregarding the issues that confronted them. This is perhaps attested by the fact that the views of the Companions were occasionally upheld and confirmed by the Qur’an. Reference may be made in this context to the Qur’anic ayah which was revealed concerning the treatment that was to be accorded to the prisoners of war following the battle of Badr. This ayah (al-Anfal, 8:67 is known to have confirmed the view which `Umar b. al-Khattab had earlier expressed on the issue. The question arises, nevertheless, as to whether the fatwa of a Companion should be regarded as a proof of Shari’ah or a mere ijtihad, which may or may not be accepted by the subsequent generations of mujtahidun and the rest of the community as a whole. No uniform response has been given to this question, but before we attempt to explore the different responses which the ulema have given, it will be useful to identify who exactly a Companion is.
According to the majority (jumhur) of ulema, anyone who met the Prophet, while believing in him, even for a moment and died as a believer, is a Companion (sahabi) regardless of whether he or she narrated any Hadith from the Prophet or not. Others have held that the very word sahabi, which derives from suhbah, that is ‘companionship’, implies continuity of contact with the Prophet and narration of Hadith from him. It is thus maintained that one or the other of these criteria, namely prolonged company, or frequent narration of Hadith, must be fulfilled in order to qualify a person as a sahabi specified periods such as one or two years, or that he participated with the Prophet in at least one of the battles. But notwithstanding the literal implication of the word sahabi, the majority view is to be preferred, namely that continuity or duration of contact with the Prophet is not a requirement. Some ulema have held that the encounter with the Prophet must have occurred at a time when the person had attained the age of majority, but this too is a weak opinion as it would exclude many who met the Prophet and narrated Hadith from him and attained majority only after his death. Similarly, actual eye-witnessing is not required, as there were persons among the Companions like Ibn Umm Maktum, who were blind but were still regarded as sahabi.
The fact of being a Companion may be established by means of continuous testimony, or tawatur, which is the case with regard to the most prominent Companions such as the Khulafa’ Rashidun and many others. To be a sahabi may even be established by a reputation which falls short of amounting to tawatur. Similarly, it may be established by the affirmation of another well-known Companion. According to some ulema, including al-Baqillani, we may also accept the Companion’s own affirmation in evidence, as they are all deemed to be upright (‘udul), and this precludes the attribution of lying to them. There is, however, a difference of opinion on this point. The preferred view is that reference should be made to corroborating evidence, which may affirm or refute a person’s claim concerning himself. This precaution is taken with a view to preventing false allegations and the admittance of self-styled individuals into the ranks of the Companions.
The saying of a Companion, referred to both as qawl al-sahabi, and fatwa al-sahabi, normally means an opinion that the Companion had arrived at by way of ijtihad. If may be a saying, a considered opinion (fatwa), or a judicial decision that the Companion had taken on a matter in the absence of a ruling in the Qur’an, Sunnah and ijma`. For in the face of a ruling in these sources, the fatwa of a Companion would not be the first authority on that matter. If the fatwa is related to the Qur’an and Sunnah, then it must be on a point that is not self-evident in the source. There would, in other words, be a gap in our understanding of the matter at issue had the Companion not expressed an opinion on it.
As stated earlier, there is no disagreement among the jurists that the saying of a Companion is a proof which commands obedience when it is not opposed by other Companions. Rulings on which the Companions are known to be in agreement are binding. An example of this is the grandmother’s share of one-sixth in inheritance on which the Companions have agreed, and it represents their authoritative ijma`. The ulema are, however, in disagreement with regard to rulings which are based in opinion (ra’y) and ijtihad, and in regard to matters on which the Companions differed among themselves.
There is general agreement among the ulema of usul on the point that the ruling of one Companion is not a binding proof over another, regardless as to whether the ruling in question was issued by one of the caliphs, a judge, or a leading mujtahid among their number. For the Companions were themselves allowed to disagree with one another in matters of ijtihad. Had the ruling of one Companion been a proof over another, disagreement among them would not have been tolerated. But as already noted, the ulema of usul have differed as to whether the ruling of a Companion constitutes a proof as regards the Successors (tabi’un) and the succeeding generations of mujtahidun. There are three views on this, which may be summarised as follows:
1. That the fatwa of a Companion is a proof absolutely, and takes priority over qiyas regardless of whether it is in agreement with the qiyas in question or otherwise. This is the view of Imam Malik, one of the two views of Imam Shafi’i, one of the two views of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal and some Hanafi jurists. The proponents of this view have referred to the Qur’anic text which provides in a reference to the Companions: ‘the first and foremost among the Emigrants and Helpers and those who followed them in good deeds, God is well-pleased with them, as they are with Him’ (al-Tawbah, 9:100). In this text, God has praised ‘those who followed the Companions’. It is suggested that this manner of praise for those who followed the opinion and judgment of the Companions warrants the conclusion that everyone should do the same . The fatwa of a sahabi, in other words, is a proof of Shari’ah. Another Qur’anic ayah which is quoted by the proponents of this view also occurs in the form of a commendation, as it reads in an address to the Companions: ‘You are the best community that has been raised for mankind; you enjoin right and you forbid evil’ (Al-`Imran, 3:109). Their active and rigorous involvement in the propagation of Islam under the leadership of the Prophet is the main feature of the amr bi’l-ma’ruf (enjoining right) which the Companions pursued. The Qur’an praises them as `the best community’ and as such their example commands authority and respect.
It has, however, been suggested that the Qur’anic references to the Companions are all in the plural, which would imply that their individual views do not necessarily constitute a proof. But in response to this, it is argued that the Shari’ah establishes their uprightness (‘adalah) as individuals, and those who follow them in good deeds have been praised because they followed their opinion and judgment both as individuals and groups. It is further pointed out that those who followed the Companions are praised because they followed the personal opinion of the Companions and not because the latter themselves followed the Qur’an and Sunnah. For if this were to be the case, then the Qur’anic praise would be of no special significance as it would apply to everyone who followed the Qur’an and Sunnah, whether a Companion or otherwise. If there is any point, in other words, in praising those who followed the Companions, then it must be because they followed the personal views of the Companions. It is thus concluded that following the fatwa of Companions is obligatory otherwise the Qur’an would not praise those who followed it in such terms.
The proponents of this view have also referred to several ahadith, one of which provides; ‘My Companions are like stars; whoever you follow will lead you to the right path.’ Another Hadith which is also quoted frequently in this context reads: ‘Honour my Companions, for they are the best among you, and then those who follow them and then the next generation, and then lying will proliferate after that [. . .]’
It is thus argued that according to these ahadith, following the way of the Companions is equated with correct guidance, which would imply that their sayings, teachings and fatwas constitute a proof that commands adherence.
It is, however, contended that these ahadith refer to the dignified status of the Companions in general, and are not categorical to the effect that their decisions must be followed. In addition, since these ahadith are conveyed in absolute terms in that they identify all the Companions as a source of guidance, it is possible that the Prophet had meant only those who transmitted the Hadith and disseminated the Prophetic teachings, in which case the reference would be to the authority of the Prophet himself. The Companions in this sense would be viewed as mere transmitters and propagators of the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Furthermore, the foregoing references to the Companions, as al-Ghazali points out, are in the nature of praise, which indicates their piety and propriety of conduct in the eyes of God, but does not render adherence to their views an obligation. Al-Ghazali also quotes a number of other ahadith in which the Prophet praises individual Companions by name, all of which consist of commendation and praise; they do not necessarily man that the saying of that companion is a binding proof (hujjah).
2. The second view is that the ijtihad of a Companion is not a proof and does not bind the succeeding generations of mujtahidun or any one else. This view is held by the Ash’arites, the Mu`tazilah, Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (according to one of his two views), and the Hanafi jurist Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi. The proponents of this view have quoted in support the Qur’anic ayah (al-Hashr, 59:2) which provides: `Consider, O you who have vision.’ It is argued that this ayah makes ijtihad the obligation of everyone who is competent to exercise it, and makes no distinction over whether the mujtahid is a Companion or anyone else. What is obligatory is ijtihad itself, not adhering to the ijtihad of anyone in particular. This ayah also indicates that the mujtahid must rely directly on the sources and not imitate anyone, including the Companions. The proponents of this view also refer to the ijma’ of the Companions, referred to above, to the effect that the views of one mujtahid among them did not bind the rest of the companions.
Al-Ghazali and al-Amidi both consider this to be the preferred view, saying that those who have held otherwise have resorted to evidence which is generally weak. Al-Shawkani has also held that the fatwa of a Companion is not a proof, as he explains that the ummah is required to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Shari`ah only renders the Sunnah of the Prophet binding on the believers, and no other individual, whether a Companion or otherwise, has been accorded a status similar to that of the Prophet. Abu Zahrah has, however, criticised al-Shawkani’s conclusion, and explains that when we say that the saying of a Companion is an authoritative proof, it does not mean that we create a rival to the Prophet. On the contrary, the Companions were most diligent in observing the Qur’an and Sunnah, and it is because of this and their closeness to the Prophet that their fatwa carries greater authority than that of the generality of other mujtahidun.
There is yet another view which maintains that only the rulings of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs command authority. This view quotes in support of the Hadith in which the Prophet ordered the believers, ‘You are to follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Khulafa’ Rashidun after me’ This is even further narrowed down, according to another Hadith, to include the first two caliphs only. The Hadith in question reads: `Among those who succeed me, follow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’. The authenticity of this second Hadith has, however, been called into question, and in any case, it is suggested that the purpose of these ahadith is merely to praise the loyalty and devotion of these luminaries to Islam, and to commend their excellence of conduct.
Imam Shafi’i is on record as having stated that he follows the fatwa of a Companion in the absence of a ruling in the Qur’an, Sunnah and ijma’. Al-Shafi’i’s view on this point is, however, somewhat ambivalent, which is perhaps why it has been variously interpreted by the jurists. In a conversation with al-Rabi’, al-Shafi’i has stated: ‘We find that the ulema have sometimes followed the fatwa of a Companion and have abandoned it at other times; and even those who have followed it are not consistent in doing so.’ At this point the interlocutor asks the Imam, ‘What should I turn to, then?’ To this al-Shafi’i replies: ‘I follow the ruling of the Companion when I find nothing in the Qur’an, Sunnah or ijma’, or anything which carries through the implications of these sources.’ Al-Shafi’i has further stated that he prefers the rulings of the first three caliphs over those of the other Companions, but that when the Companions are in disagreement, we should look into their reasons and also try to ascertain the view which might have been adopted by the majority of the Companions. Furthermore, when the ruling of the Companion is in agreement with qiyas, then that qiyas, according to al-Shafi`i, is given priority over a variant qiyas which is not so supported.
Imam Abu Hanifah is also on record as having said, `When I find nothing in the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet, I resort to the saying of the Companions. I may follow the ruling which appeals to me and abandon that which does not, but I do not abandon their views altogether and do it not give preference to others over them: It thus appears that Abu Hanifah would give priority to the ruling of a Companion over qiyas, and although he does not consider it a binding proof, it is obvious that he regards the fatwa of a sahabi to be preferable to the ijtihad of others.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal has distinguished the fatwas of Companions into two types, one being a fatwa which is not opposed by any other Companion, or where no variant ijtihad has been advanced on the same point. Ibn Hanbal regards this variety of fatwa as authoritative. An example of this is the admissibility of the testimony of slaves, on which the Imam has followed the fatwa of the Companion, Anas b. Malik. Ibn Hanbal is quoted to the effect that he had not known of anyone who rejected the testimony of a slave; it is therefore admissible. The second variety of fatwa that Ibn Hanbal distinguishes is one on which the Companions disagreed, and issued two or three different rulings concerning the same problem. In this situation, Imam Ibn Hanbal considers them all to be valid and equally authoritative, unless it is known that the Khulafa’ Rashidun adopted one in preference to the others, in which case the Imam would do likewise. An example of such disagreement is the case of the allotment of a share in inheritance to germane brothers in the presence of the father’s father. According to Abut Bakr, the father’s father in this case is accounted like the father who would in turn exclude the germane brothers altogether. Zayd b. Thabit, on the other hand, counted the father’s father as one of the brothers and would give him a minimum of one-third, whereas `Ali b. Abi Talib counted the father’s father as one of the brothers whose entitlement must not be less than one-sixth. Imam Ibn Hanbal is reported to have accepted all the three views as equally valid, for they each reflect the light and guidance that their authors received from the Prophet, and they all merit priority over the ijtihad of others.
The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah quotes Imam al-Shafi’i as having said, `It is better for us to follow the ra’y of a Companion rather than our own opinion,’ Ibn al-Qayyim accepts this without reservation, and produces evidence in its support. He then continues to explain that the fatwa of a Companion may fall into any of six categories. Firstly, it may be based on what the Companion might have heard from the Prophet. Ibn al-Qayyim explains that the Companions knew more about the teachings of the Prophet than what has come down to us in the form of Hadith narrated by the Companions. Note, for example, that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq transmitted no more than one hundred ahadith from the Prophet notwithstanding the fact that he was deeply knowledgeable of the Sunnah and was closely associated with the Prophet not only after the Prophetic mission began, but even before. Secondly, the fatwa of a Companion may be based on what he might have heard from a fellow Companion, Thirdly, it may be based on his own understanding of the Qur’an in such a way that the matter would not be obvious to us had the Companion not issued a fatwa on it. Fourthly, the Companion may have based his view on the collective agreement of the Companions, although we have received it through one Companion only. Fifthly, the fatwa of a Companion may be based on the learned opinion and general knowledge that he acquired through long experience. And Sixthly, the fatwa of a Companion may be based on an understanding of his which is not a result of direct observation but of information that he received indirectly, and it is possible that his opinion is incorrect, in which case his fatwa is not a proof and need not be followed by others.
And lastly, it will be noted that Imam Malik has not only upheld the fatwas of Companions but has almost equated it with the Sunnah of the Prophet. This is borne out by the fact, as already stated in our discussion of the Sunnah, that in his Muwatta’, he has recorded over 1,700 ahadith, of which over half are the sayings and fatwas of Companions.
On a similar note, Abu Zahrah has reached the conclusion that the four Imams of Jurisprudence have all, in principle, upheld and followed the fatwas of Companions and all considered them to be authoritative, although some of their followers have held views which differ with those of their leading Imams. The author then quotes al-Shawkani at some length to the effect that the fatwa of a Companion is not a proof. Having quoted al-Shawkani, Abu Zahrah refutes his view by saying that it is ‘not free of exaggeration’. (We have already given a brief outline of Abu Zahrah’s critique of al-Shawkani.) Abu Zahrah then quotes Ibn al-Qayyim’s view on this matter which we have already discussed, and supports it to the effect that the fatwa of a Companion is authoritative. But it is obvious from the tenor of his discussion and the nature of the subject as a whole that the fatwa of a Companion is a speculative proof only. Although the leading Imams of jurisprudence are in agreement on the point that the fatwa of a Companion is authoritative, none has categorically stated that it is a binding proof. Nonetheless, the four leading Imams consider the fatwa of a Companion to be a persuasive source of guidance in that it carries a measure of authority which merits careful consideration, and commands priority over the ijtihad of other mujtahidun.
by M. H. Kamali.
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.