Ikhtilaf – I

June 6, 2011 – 9:21 am

In the previous post, we introduced the topic of Differences of Opinions. We listed the four ways of categorizing these differences. In this post, we will look at the first category: Differences due to interpretation of word meanings and grammatical constructions.

Within this category, we have several sub categories:

Shared literal meanings/Equivocality/Homonym (Ishtirak):

An example of this would be the word “qur” which means menses as well as the time of purity between menses. This word occurs in 2:228. The scholars thus arrived at two different rulings for the waiting period of divorce. According to those who considered  Qur’ to be the period of purity, the divorce becomes finalized as soon as her third menses have started, while according to those who viewed Qur’ as the actual menses, it is not finalized until her third menses have ended. You can read the details here.

Another example, would be the use of word “nakaha” in surah al-Nisa, verse 4:22, which reads “and marry not women whom your fathers have married”.  Can you find how the word “nakaha” is interpreted differently and the different rulings from it. Post in comments!

Literal and figurative meanings:

An example of this would be the word “lams” that occurs in 4:43. The word is literally used to indicate touching by the hand or the coming in contact of two objects, and figuratively to indicate intimate relation. Hence scholars differed in their interpertation of what does it mean that ablution is nullified on “touching” women as per the verse. Some scholars took the literal meaning while others took figurative meaning. Read the details of the issue here.

Sometimes, the switch between literal and figurative meaning results  from an implied omission or addition (example) of words.

Grammatical meanings:

Certain grammatical constructions may have more than one possible meaning. An example of this would be the verse of whudoo in Surah Maida, where Allah describes washing of hands as “wash your faces and your forearms to( illa ) the elbows”. The word illa in this context, could mean upto and not including elbows or it could include the elbows.  See the details here

These then are the different examples for this category. In the upcoming post, we will Inshallah look at the differences occurring due to hadith narrations.

Action Item:

Find more examples for each category listed above. Post in the comments

References:

May Allah make this series beneficial for us.

By Student of Knowledge | Posted in Islam, Usool ul-Fiqh | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Mcdonald, KFC, Moon Sighting…

May 3, 2011 – 6:17 pm

Muslims, living in the Muslim Countries, generally tend to have limited exposure to Fiqh and its rulings. There is usually one dominant madhab and that’s all people know about. Rarely, if ever, people are exposed to other madahibs. However, the situation for many of us living in west, like Canada, is quite different.

Because of the diversity of muslims, from various countries, cultures and backgrounds, we are exposed to many madhabs. We find many different opinions on a given issue. We see people praying little differently in mosque. When Ramadhan comes, the whole moon sighting debate starts and not to mention the zabiha meat issues.

The question then arises, why do scholars differ? This then would be the topic of these series of posts Inshallah. So let’s get started.  To make it easy for us to understand these difference, scholars usually divide the reasons of differences into various categories and aspects. Here is one such categorization. The differences exists, due to:

  1. Interpretation of word meanings and grammatical constructions
  2. Hadith narrations
  3. Admissibility  of  certain principles
  4. Methods of Qiyas

In the next few posts, we will look at each category one by one.

Action Item:

  1. To get the feeling of some of these difference, skim though some of the fiqh issues in the following books:
  2. Post in the comments, evidences that show that the differences of opinions existed in the time of the Messenger (SAW) and that the differences are inherently bad or evil. (Hint: there is a post on this website, that talks about this)

References:

  • The Evolution of Fiqh by Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

May Allah make this series beneficial for us.

By Student of Knowledge | Posted in Ibadah, Islam, Usool ul-Fiqh | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)

What is a Mursal Hadith?

January 7, 2009 – 1:47 pm

In the sciences of hadith, there’s something called a “mursal” hadith. What exactly is a mursal hadith? What is it’s status? What are the fiqh rulings on mursal ahadith? And why does it matter?

(Ok, for the answer to the last question, read and learn about the science of hadith. In a sentence: Scholars have devised an extremely rigorous process to determine which hadith are authentic, and which are not. You wouldn’t want to spend your whole life following a “hadith,” only to find out it really wasn’t legit, do you?)

A mursal hadith is a hadith where the chain only goes up to a tabi’ee. (So the hadith goes: X narrated, from Y, from Z, … from such-and-such a tabi’een.) Tabi’een are the generation after the companions–they are the sons and daughters and followers of Islam who came after the sahaba. Most hadith continue–the tabi’ee will narrate from a sahaba, who will narrate directly from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

So mursal ahadith are ahadith where the chain cuts off at the tab’iee level; it doesn’t go directly to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

And why is this important? Because a tabi’ee can narrate from another tabi’ee! It doesn’t necessarily mean that they heard it directly from a sahaba, who heard it from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

So the ruling on mursal ahadith? They are considered as da’eef ahadith. All the same rulings apply.

For example, in the issue of “does laughing in salaah break your wudoo?,” imam Abu Hanifa says yes, and cites a mursal hadith as his proof. The majority of scholars disagree, and insha’Allah this is the correct opinion–why?

Because the hadith is mursal (i.e. da’eef), and it contradicts shari’ah principles–why would it break your wudoo inside salaah, but not if you laugh outside salaah? (And these are not the only proofs; only a taste of the discussion.)

Wallahu ‘alam.

References

Abdul-Bary Yahya. Lecture. AlMaghrib. The Purification Act. University of Toronto, Toronto. November 2006.

By Ilm Seeker | Posted in Aqeeda, Hadith, Islam, Salaah, Tahara | Tagged , , , | Comments (6)