4. RULES OF INTERPRETATION I: DEDUCING THE LAW FROM ITS SOURCES
Introductory Remarks
To interpret the Qur’an or the Sunnah with a view to deducing legal rules from the indications that they provide, it is necessary that the language of the Qur’an and the Sunnah be clearly understood. To be able to utilise these sources, the mujtahid must obtain a firm grasp of the words of the text and their precise implications. For this purpose, the ulema of usul include the classification of words and their usages in the methodology of usul al-fiqh. The rules which govern the origin of words, their usages and classification are primarily determined on linguistic grounds and, as such, they are not an integral part of the law or religion. But they are instrumental as an aid to the correct understanding of the Shari’ah.
Normally the mujtahid will not resort to interpretation when the text itself is self-evident and clear. But by far the greater part of fiqh consists of rules which are derived through interpretation and ijtihad. As will be discussed later, ijtihad can take a variety of forms, and interpretation which aims at the correct understanding of the words and sentences of a legal text is of crucial significance to all forms of ijtihad.
The function of interpretation is to discover the intention of the Lawgiver – or of any person for that matter – from his speech and actions. Interpretation is primarily concerned with the discovery of that which is not self-evident. Thus the object of interpretation in Islamic Law, as in any other law, is to ascertain the intention of the Lawgiver with regard to what has been left unexpressed as a matter of necessary inference from the surrounding circumstances.
From the viewpoints of their clarity, scope, and capacity to convey a certain meaning, words have been classified into various types. With reference to their conceptual clarity, the ulema of usul have classified words into the two main categories of ‘clear’ and ‘unclear’ words. The main purpose of this division is to identify the extent to which the meaning of a word is made clear or left ambiguous and doubtful. The significance of this classification can be readily observed in the linguistic forms and implications of commands and prohibitions. The task of evaluating the precise purport of a command is greatly facilitated if one is able to ascertain the degree of clarity (or of ambiguity) in which it is conveyed. Thus the manifest (Zahir) and explicit (Nass) are ‘clear’ words, and yet the jurist may abandon their primary meaning in favour of a different meaning as the context and circumstances may require. Words are also classified, from the viewpoint of their scope, into homonyms, general, specific, absolute and qualified.
This classification basically explains the grammatical application of words to concepts: whether a word imparts one or more than one meaning, whether a word is of a specific or general import, and whether the absolute application of a word to its subject matter can be qualified and limited in scope.
From the viewpoint of their actual use, such as whether a word is used in its primary, secondary, literal, technical or customary sense, words are once again divided into the two main categories of literal (Haqiqi) and metaphorical (Majazi). The methodology of usul al-fiqh tells us, for example, that commands and prohibitions may not be issued in metaphorical terms as this would introduce uncertainty in their application. And yet there are exceptions to this, such as when the metaphorical becomes the dominant meaning of a word to the point that the literal or original meaning is no longer in use.
The strength of a legal rule is to a large extent determined by the language in which it is communicated. To distinguish the clear from the ambiguous and to determine the degrees of clarity/ambiguity in word also helps the jurist in his efforts at resolving instances of conflict in the law. When the mujtahid is engaged in the deduction of rules from indications which often amount to no more than probabilities, some of his conclusions may turn out to be at odds with others. Ijtihad is therefore not only in need of comprehending the language of the law, but also needs a methodology and guidelines with which to resolve instances of conflict in its conclusions. We shall be taking up each of these topics in the following pages, but it will be useful to start this section with a discussion of ta’wil.
Ta’wil (Allegorical Interpretation)
It should be noted at the outset that in Arabic there are two common words for ‘interpretation’, namely tafsir and ta’wil. The latter is perhaps closer to ‘interpretation’, whereas tafsir literally means ‘explanation’. The English equivalents of these terms do not convey the same difference between them which is indicated in their Arabic usage. ‘Allegorical interpretation’ is an acceptable equivalent of ta’wil, but I prefer the original Arabic to its English equivalent. I propose therefore to explain the difference between tafsir and ta’wil and then to use ‘ta’wil‘ as it is. Tafsir basically aims at explaining the meaning of a given text and deducing a hukm from it within the confines of its words and sentences. The explanation so provided is, in other words, borne out b y the content and linguistic composition of the text.
Ta’wil, on the other hand, goes beyond the literal meaning of words and sentences and reads into them a hidden meaning which is often based on speculative reasoning and Ijtihad. The norm in regard to words is that they impart their obvious meaning. Ta’wil is a departure from this norm, and is presumed to be absent unless there is reason to justify its application. Tawi may operate in various capacities, such as specifying the general, or qualifying the absolute terms of a given text. All words are presumed to convey their absolute, general, and unqualified meanings unless there is reason to warrant a departure to an alternative meaning.
From a juridical perspective, ta’wil and tafsir share the same basic purpose, which is to clarify the law and to discover the intention of the Lawgiver in the light of the indications, some of which may be definite and others more remote. Both are primarily concerned with speech that is not self-evident and requires clarification. Sometimes the Lawgiver or the proper legislative authority provides the necessary explanation to a legal text. This variety of explanation, known as tafsir tashri’i, is an integral part of the law. To this may be added tafsir which is based on definitive indications in the text and constitutes a necessary and logical part of it. Beyond this, all other explanations, whether in the form of tafsir or of ta’wil, partake in the nature of opinion and ijtihad and as such do not constitute an integral part of the law. The distinction between tafsir and ta’wil is not always clear-cut and obvious. An explanation or commentary on a legal text may partake in both, and the two may converge at certain points. It is nevertheless useful to be aware of the basic distinction between tafsir and ta’wil. We should also bear in mind that in the context of usul al-fiqh, especially in our discussion of the rules of interpretation, it is ta’wil rather than tafsir with which we are primarily concerned.
The ulema of usul have defined ta’wil as departure from the manifest (Zahir) meaning of a text in favour of another meaning where there is evidence to justify the departure. Ta’wil which is attempted in accordance with the conditions that ensure its propriety is generally accepted, and the ulema of all ages, including the Companions, have applied it in their efforts at reducing legal rules from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Ta’wil which is properly constructed constitutes a valid basis for judicial decisions. But to ensure the propriety of ta’wil, it must fulfil certain conditions, which are as follows: (1) That there is some evidence to warrant the application of ta’wil, and that it is not founded on mere inclination or personal opinion. (2) That the word or words of a given text are amenable to ta’wil. In this way only certain types of words, including for example the manifest (Zahir) and explicit (Nass), are open to ta’wil, but not the unequivocal (Mufassar) and the perspicuous (Muhkam). Similarly, the general (‘Amm) and the absolute (Mutlaq) are susceptible to ta’wil but not the specific (Khass) and the qualified (Muqayyad), although there are cases where these too have been subjected to ta’wil. (3) That the word which is given an allegorical interpretation has a propensity, even if only a weak one, in favour of that interpretation. This condition would preclude a far-fetched interpretation that goes beyond the capacity of the words of a given text. (4) That the person who attempts ta’wil is qualified to do so and that his interpretation is in harmony with the rules of the language and customary or juridical usage. Thus it would be unacceptable if the word qur’ in the Qur’anic text (al-Baqarah, 2:228) were to be given a meaning other than the two meanings which it bears, namely menstruation (hayd) and the clean period between menstruations (tuhr). For qur’ cannot carry an additional meaning, and any attempt to give it one would violate the rules of the language. But ta’wil in the sense of a shift from the literal to the metaphorical and from the general to the specific is not a peculiarity of Arabic, in that words in any language are, in fact, amenable to these possibilities.
There are two types of ta’wil, namely ta’wil which is remote and far-fetched, and ‘relevant’ ta’wil which is within the scope of what might be thought of as correct understanding. An example of the first type is the Hanafi interpretation of a Hadith which instructed a Companion, Firuz al-Daylami, who professed Islam while he was married to two sisters, to ‘retain [amsik] one of the two, whichever you wish, and separate from the other’.
The Hanafis have interpreted this Hadith to the effect that al-Daylami was asked to contract a new marriage with one of the sisters, if they happened to have been married in a single contract of marriage, but that if they had been married in two separate contracts, to retain the one whom he married first, without a contract. The Hanafis have resorted to this ta’wil apparently because of the Shari’ah rule which does not permit two women to be married in a single contract. If this were to be the case, then a new contract would be necessary with the one who is to be retained.
But this is regarded as a remote interpretation, one which is not supported by the wording of the Hadith. Besides, al-Daylami was a new convert to Islam who could not be presumed to be knowledgeable of the rules of Shari’ah. Had the Prophet intended the meaning that the Hanafis have given to the Hadith, the Prophet would have clarified it himself. As it is, the Hanafi interpretation cannot be sustained by the contents of the Hadith, which is why it is regarded as far-fetched.
Ta’wil is relevant and correct if it can be accepted without recourse to forced and far-fetched arguments.The interpretation, for example, which the majority of ulema have given to the phrase ‘idha qumtum ila’l-salah’ (‘when you stand for prayers’) in the Qur’anic text concerning the requirement of ablution for salah (al-Ma’idah, 5:7) to mean ‘when you intend to pray’ is relevant and correct; for without it, there would be some irregularity in the understanding of the text. The passage under discussion reads, in the relevant part: ‘O believers, when you stand for salah, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows.. . ‘ ‘When you stand for salah‘ here is understood to mean ‘when you intend to perform salah‘. The fact that ablution is required before entering the salah is the proper interpretation of the text, as the Lawgiver could not be said to have required the faithful to perform the ablution after having started the itself.
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.