The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

Fiqh is one of the most important Islamic disciplines having the greatest effect on society. It is one of the most important branches of the Islamic culture. That is because the Islamic culture is the Qur’ān and Sunnah and whatever is relied upon and laid down in order to understand the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Even though the Islamic culture includes the sciences of the Arabic language, hadīth and tafsīr, the most prominent thing that appears from it are the thoughts which relate to the viewpoint about life and the solutions which treat the problems of life. In other words, it appears in the beliefs (‘aqaid) and Sharī’ah rules because they are a practical culture adopted to face lifes problems which, in most cases, contains thoughts about beliefs and solutions i.e, the rules. Fiqh is nothing other than the knowledge of these rules.

The Islamic culture and the learning of Sharī’ah rules began from the time the Messenger  was sent. The Messenger  was the only reference point for the Sharī’ah rules because he was sent to teach people Allah’s deen. He  said:

He  said:

With the exception of the Messenger  no Muslim has the right to independently put forward an opinion regarding any viewpoint or ruling. Due to the Messenger’s  presence among them referring to him regarding anything they came across was easy, It was still not permitted for any of them to give his personal opinion regarding any event. That is why, when they came across an event or a dispute arose or one of them had an idea they would refer to the Messenger . And he  would give an opinion, settle their disputes and answer their questions, sometimes with an ayah and sometimes with a hadīth. As for what has been reported that certain Sahabah exercised Ijtihād in the time of the Messenger  and pronounced judgements according to their own Ijtihād in certain disputes or that they deduced the rule regarding certain events through their own Ijtihād. This does not make these Ijtihāds a source for Sharī’ah rules. Rather they constitute an understanding of the Sharī’ah in accordance with the order of the Messenger . They constitute the application of the Sharī’ah, relying on the Qur’ān and Sunnah as understood by those mujtahidin. This is demonstrated by the circumstance in which these Ijtihāds took place. It has been reported that the Prophet  sent ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib  to Yemen as a judge. He  told him:

It has been reported that the Prophet  sent Mu’az ibn Jabal to Yemen and he  said to him:

It is reported that some people were disputing over a hut between themselves so Hudhayfa was sent to judge between them. Bukhari & Muslim report on the authority of ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas that he heard the prophet  say:

All of these reports and other such examples indicate that the Ijtihādat that the Muslims performed during the days of the Messenger  were in accordance with his  order. Therefore, he was their source. Thus, the time of the Messenger  was a time in which the source of the entire Islamic culture existed. That continued from the time he was sent until his death, in a period of time not exceeding twenty two years and a few months in which the whole Qur’ān was revealed and the sublime Sunnah was completed. These are the only texts considered as the source of thoughts, rules and culture in Islam.

With the death of the Messenger  in the eleventh year of the Hijra began the age of the Sahabah. It is an age of tafsīr and the opening of the doors of deduction (istinbat) for issues that did not possess a (clear) text. The Sahabah saw that not all of the texts of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah were disseminated widely amongst the people such that they were accessible to each and every person because the texts of the Qur’ān were written down on special parchments preserved in the house of the Messenger  and preserved in the houses of certain Sahabah and the Sunnah had not been written down yet. They found that the texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah legislated rules for events and issues which took place at the time of legislation. Rules were not legislated for events and issues that only had a possibility of taking place. Needs, events and issues took place amidst the Muslims which did not take place during the time of the Messenger , there were no texts for the the problems arising later which would state their ruling. Likewise, they saw that not every Muslim was qualified to refer to the texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah by himself and understand the ruling indicated by them, since the masses cannot understand the texts except by means of someone who will make them understand the rules of Islam. Therefore, they realised that it was incumbent on them to disseminate the Noble Qur’ān and the ahadīth of the Messenger  among the Muslims. So they undertook the responsibility of compiling the Qur’ān and from this compilation they made many copies which they circulated amongst the Muslims and they took precautions ensuring the trustworthiness of the narration of the Sunnah and the trust in the scrutiny of the narrators. They also realised that it was incumbent on them to demonstrate to the Muslims the necessary clarification and explanation of the texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah. So they began to teach people the deen, then they took the view that they should provide people with legal verdicts for the events and issues happening to them for which there was no (clear) text. Thus, they began to deduce rules which were necessary for the issues that took place. Due to this they undertook the obligation of the deen in the best manner possible.

The methodology according to which the Sahabah proceeded in the Sharī’ah rules is that when they found a text (nass) in the Qur’ān or Sunnah which indicated the ruling on an incident that has happened they stopped at the limit of this text and they confined their efforts to understanding the text and becoming acquainted with what is intended in it in order to attain its correct application on the reality. If they did not find a text in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah indicating the ruling on incidents that they are confronted with, they performed Ijtihād to deduce its ruling. In their Ijtihād they used to rely on their own understanding of the texts of the Sharī’ah and their knowledge of the Sharī’ah that they obtained by directly speaking to the Messenger  and witnessing the revelation of the verses and their application on incidents. By studying the incidents for which they made Ijtihād one will notice that they used to make analogy between (an incident) which had a text with one that did not have a text and they did not consider the acquisition of a benefit (maslaha) and repulsion of a harm (mafsada) as an ‘illah (legal cause) for rulings rather they used to consider the benefit (maslaha) indicated by the Sharī’ah as the true benefit (maslaha). They used to make analogy between the benefit (maslaha) (for which no text was mentioned) with a benefit for which a text was mentioned. They did not hold their own opinion about a maslaha (benefit) because holding an opinion (which is from oneself) is forbidden. The historians, muhaddithin and fuqaha (jurists) transmitted many Ijtihādat of the Sahabah. By studying these Ijtihādat the extent of their adherence to the Sharī’ah and the extent of their advancement in understanding the Sharī’ah becomes clear. A story was brought to the attention of ‘Umar about a man who was killed by his stepmother and her lover.

Similarly when they disagreed about the question of joint share, when a woman died leaving a husband, mother, uterine brothers and full brothers. ‘Umar used to give the husband half, the mother a sixth, and the uterine brothers a third. So nothing remained for the full brothers. It was said to him: Suppose our father was a donkey. Are we not from one mother? So he changed his view and gave them a share. They used to acquaint themselves with the maslaha (benefit) for which the text came, if it was understood from the text. Another example is when Allah  said:

So Allah  made those whose hearts have to be a reconciled (towards Islâm) an expenditure from the sources of zakat. It has been established that the Prophet  used to give money to people whose hearts had been reconciled with Islam. After the death of the Messenger  it is narrated about ‘Umar that he forbade the payment of those whose hearts had been reconciled (al-mu’allaftu qulubuhum). He told them:

Umar was of the view that the reconcilings of hearts towards Islam was there because the state was weak because the expression, for the expression ‘reconciling hearts’ (ta’leeful al-qulub) indicates this. For when do you reconcile hearts except when you are in a state of need for them (the people) ? Umar took the opinion that the need to reconcile hearts ended when Islam became strong, without the need to reconcile hearts, the ‘illah (legal cause) does not apply and due to this the hukm also does not apply.

The Sahabah used to investigate and ask the people about the Sharī’ah texts regarding matters they did not know and they (may Allah be pleased with them) used to be all gathered together in the Hijaz, discussing the Qur’ān and Sunnah. If they did not find a hukm in the Qur’ān and Sunnah for the issue they were looking for they would ask Muslims if any of them knew what the Messenger of Allah  passed as a judgement for the issue. That is why they used to refer to each other and get together to discuss the issues and give an opinion for it. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar used to deduce rules and refer to the people. Al-Baghawi has narrated in his Masabih al-Sunnah:

If he failed to find a Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah  he gathered the heads of people and the best amongst them and consulted them. If they had a consensus on a matter he would judge with that. It has been reported that ‘Umar used to consult the Sahabah despite his knowledge of fiqh to the extent that when an incident would be refered to him he would say: Call ‘Ali for me, call Zayd. He used to consult them and settle the dispute with whatever they were agreed upon. Due to the Sahabah’s reference to each other differences of opinion between them were rare because each Sahābi expressed to another Sahābi his own perspective and the evidences he educed. Their view on the whole was true and correct and each one referred to the other. And even though their views differed in certain rules but their differences were rare and it was in their understanding and not in the method of understanding.

When the conquests expanded and the Sahabah became separated in various cities and it became difficult for these Sahabah to meet, every time an incident occurred which had no text, each Sahabah gave his own opinion without expressing it to others or referring to others due to the difficulty in meeting since the cities were distant from each other and also due to the need of giving an opinion on an incident occurring in the city in order pass judgement by it. In every Muslim city there was one or more Sahabah. They were the reference point for rulings. They used to deduce rules which had no text and assume the task of clarifying and explaining the text just as they took the responsibility of teaching the people the Qur’ān and Sunnah. The Sunnah had still not been written down, therefore the opinions of Sahabah differed about a single incident and each one had an evidence for the opinion he had educed and gave legal verdicts with. However, all of these opinions were Sharī’ah rules and were acceptable to all of them since their disagreement was only in their understanding. As for their method of Ijtihād it was one which is to consider the text of the Qur’ān and hadīth and examine the texts, and ensure that the accredited maslahas (benefit) are the ones only indicated by the Sharī’ah and make analogy to issues and maslahas. The unity of the methodology in Ijtihād did not allow the difference in understanding to have any effect. On the contrary it was one of the reasons for the growth and expansion of fiqh. Their legal verdicts (fatwas) were according to the incidents and issues that took place. The range of their disagreement did not widen and nor did it overstep the furu’ (branches of fiqh). The disagreement of the Sahabah in furu’ is attributable to two reasons:

First: That most of the texts of the Qur’ān and Sunnah are not definite in indicating what is meant rather they are of speculative meaning (zanniyya al-dalāla). Also they are liable to indicate this or that meaning due to the text sharing two or more linguistic meanings or the text being general such that it is open to specification. Each Mujtahid attempted to understand the text according to what was preponderant from the qara’in (indications).

Second: The Sunnah had not yet been recorded in the written form. There was no unanimity on the body of hadīth which had spread among Muslims so as to be a common reference. Rather, the hadīth was circulated via transmission and memory. Perhaps a mujtahid in Egypt would know a hadīth but a mujtahid in Damascus did not know it. Many a times certain mujtahidin would retract from another mujtahid’s fatwa when they came to know that someone else knew of a Sunnah that they did not know. This led to disagreements in furu’ (branches of fiqh) but the evidences and principles concerning them did not differ therefore their method of Ijtihād did not differ.

In short, the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were scholars of the Sharī’ah. They learnt the Qur’ān and acquired the hadīth and took it upon themselves to implement the rules of Islam by mixing with the one responsible for the Message, our master Muhammad . They used to rule the people, judge between them and teach them their deen. They used to be a light for the inhabitants of the country who lived there and trustees of the Sharī’ah and in calling people to Islam they were true believers. They would recite the Qur’ān to the people and teach them the laws and rules. In teaching people Islam they use to follow a practical course. So they taught the people Islam and its rules and the method by which they would benefit in solving the problems of life with those rules. They were rulers and at the same time they were teachers. The people approached the Sahabah and recieved the culture from them, taking Islam and understanding the rules. The opinions in ahkām that they clarified were termed as ‘legal verdicts’ (fatawa). The fatwa of about one hundred and thirty companions of the Messenger of Allah  (among which there are men and women) have been preserved. Seven of them were the most knowledgeable and gave the most opinions. They have been called the al-mukaththirun (those who were prolific in giving opinions). And they are: ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, ‘A’isha, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar. The Khalifahs, Walis and the rest of the rulers were fuqaha in ahkām, scholars of the Sharī’ah and busy in passing fatwa (legal verdicts), that is why Islam was embodied in them. Their minds were filled with its culture and their thoughts originated from this culture and the concepts they believed in emanated from these thoughts. They are the ones who implemented these orders, prohibition and rules. So the Khalifah and the Wali were the same people who thought, acted, understood and ruled. That is why their actions used to be correct and their affairs were on the right path and their lives were elevated and their manner of speaking with the people was honest and their rules adherent to the path of Islam with extreme precision. A group from the Tabi’in stuck to the Sahabah and learnt Qur’ān from them, reported the Sunnah from them, memorised their legal verdicts and underwent their methods of deduction of ahkām. There were those who used to give legal verdicts in the lifetime of the Sahabah like Said ibn al Musayyab in Madinah and Sa’id ibn Jubayr in Kufa. Thus, we find after all the Sahabah had passed away, the Tabi’in succeeded them in fiqh and istinbat (inference of rules). They used to deduce rules according to their own Ijtihād. They used to first look at the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah , if they did not find anything there then they would study the fatwa (legal verdicts) of the Sahabah. They used to have opinions concerning the Fatwas of Sahabah from a jurisprudential perspective and they used to outweigh one statement over another. They used to take the opinions of some of them or sometimes they even differed with the Sahabah. The Tabi’ins method of inferring rules was the same method of the Sahabah. That is why their fatwas were according to the incidents and issues that took place without the presence of any assumptions. Rather it is according to the incident that you will find the fatwas. The range of disagreement did not become wide between them and nor did the reasons for disagreement on which the Sahabah disagreed overstep the mark which used to relate to the understanding of the text and not to the Sharī’ah evidences. Therefore, there were no disagreements amongst Muslims which affected life.