The Islamic Personality 

Volume 1

Taqiuddin 
an-Nabhani

1 The Islamic Personality (Volume 1)	4
1.1 The Islamic Personality	5
1.2 The Formation of Personality	8
1.3 Gaps in Conduct	9
2 The Islamic Aqeedah	12
2.1 The Meaning of Believing (having imaan) in the Day of Judgement	19
2.2 The Emergence of Muslim Scholastics and Their Approach	20
2.3 The Fallacy of the Methodology of the Muslim Scholastics	24
2.4 Al-Qada p.81	28
2.5 Al-Qada wa al-Qadar   p.83	29
2.6 How the Issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar Evolved	34
2.7 Guidance and Misguidance  p.94	39
2.8 The termination of life-span (ajal) is the only cause of death    p99	41
2.9 Rizq is in the hands of Allah (swt) only	45
2.10 The Attributes (sifat) of Allah   p.112	47
2.11 The Muslim Philosophers   p.121	51
2.12 The Prophets (ambiya) and Messengers (rusul)	54
2.13 The Infallibility of the Prophets	54
2.14 The Revelation  p133	54
2.14.1 The Noble Qur'an   p.151	63
2.14.2 The Compilation of the Qur'an   p.156	65
2.14.3 The Quranic Script   p.163	68
2.14.4 The Miracle of the Qur'an   p.166	69
2.14.5 The Sunnah   p.173	75
2.14.6 The Sunnah is a Shari'a Evidence like the Qur'an   p.179	78
2.14.7 Educing proofs using the Sunnah/Educing Sunnah as proof    p.182	79
2.14.8 The solitary report (khabar al-ahad) is not a proof for beliefs   p.186	81
2.14.9 The difference between the 'Aqeeda and the Shari'a rule (hukm Shar'i)   p.191	83
3 Ijtihad and Taqleed	85
3.1 Ijtihad    p.197	86
3.1.1 The Conditions (shurut) of Ijtihad   p.207	90
3.2 Taqleed  p.217	94
3.2.1 The reality of Taqleed  p.221	96
3.2.2 The states of muqallidin and their preponderant qualifications p.229	100
3.2.3 Moving (tanaqqul) from one mujtahid to another p.232	101
3.3 Learning the Shari’a Rule	102
3.4 The strength of the Evidence (quwwa al-daleel)	104
3.5 al-Shura : The adoption of an opinion in Islam	107
4 Science and Culture	116
4.1 The Islamic Culture	117
4.2 The Method of Study in Islam	117
4.3 Acquisition of Culture and Sciences	119
4.4 The Cultural Movement	120
4.5 The position of Muslims with regards to non- Muslim cultures	120
5 The Islamic Disciplines   p.287	127
5.1 Tafseer (Quranic Exegesis)  p.290	128
5.1.1 The Exegetical Approaches of Mufassirun   p.294	129
5.1.2 Sources of Tafseer  p.300	132
5.1.3 The Ummah's need today for Mufassirun p306     (incomplete)	134
5.2 The Science of Hadith p.325	142
5.2.1 The Hadith p.326	142
5.2.2 The Transmitters of Hadith p.328	143
5.2.3 The one whose narration is accepted and the one whose narration is not accepted:	143
5.2.4 Narrations of the Muslim Sects p.333	145
5.2.5 Narration by meaning and abridgement of the hadith p.335	145
5.2.6 Divisions/categories of hadith p.336	146
5.2.7 Categories of the Khabar al-Ahad p.340	147
5.2.8 The accepted hadith (maqbul) and the rejected hadith (mardud) p.343	148
5.2.9 The Mursal Hadith  p.347	150
5.2.10 The hadith Qudsi p.349	151
5.2.11 Consideration of the hadith as an evidence in the Shari'a Rules p.352	152
5.3 Sira and History  p.358	154
5.4 The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh)	157
5.4.1 Fiqh (jurisprudence)	160
5.4.2 The Development of Fiqh	161
5.4.3 The effect of disputes and debates on Islamic jurisprudence	165
5.4.4 The Flourishing of Islamic Jurisprudence	170
5.4.5 The Decline of Islamic Jurisprudence	172
5.4.6 The fallacy/myth of the influence of Roman Law on Islamic Jurisprudence	173
1 The Islamic Personality (Volume 1)
Personality in every man consists of his mentality and his disposition (nafsiyyah). His outward appearance, body, tidiness and all other aspects are irrelevant to his personality. These are only superficial appearances. It would be superfluous for anyone to think that any of them are a factor of personality or that they affect personality. This is because man is distinguished with his mind, and it is his conduct that is indicative of his elevation or degradation. Since the conduct of man in this life is in accordance with his concepts, his conduct is thus inevitably entwined with his concepts beyond separation. Conduct is the actions of man, which he performs in order to satisfy his instincts and organic needs. He inevitably acts in accordance with the inclinations that he has towards satisfaction. Consequently, his concepts and his inclinations are the backbone of his personality. With regard to the questions " What are these concepts? What makes them? What are their results? What are these inclinations? What causes them, and what effect do they have?" here is the explanation:

Concepts are the meanings of thoughts, not the meanings of statements. A statement denotes a meaning that may or may not exist in reality, For example when the poet says, "There is amongst men some who, when attacked, are found to be robust and sturdy, but when you throw a truthful argument at one of them, he instantly flees the fight worn out." The meaning conveyed by the poet does exist in reality and is comprehended through sensory perception, though comprehending it demands enlightenment in thinking. But when the poet says: "They wondered does he indeed penetrate two horsemen with one strike of his spear and find this not a grand act?" I answered them, "If his spear was one whole mile long, the same length of horsemen he would penetrate with his strike".

The denotation of these lines is absolutely non-existent in reality. The warrior praised here never penetrated two horsemen with his spear in one strike; no one asked the question answered by the poet, and the warrior is incapable of penetrating a mile of horsemen with a strike of his spear. The meaning of these sentences and their component words are explained. On the other hand, the meaning of thought is as follows: if the meaning denoted by the statement exists in reality and is accessible by sensory perception or if it is perceived by the mind as something that is sensed and thus believed, then we can say that this meaning is a concept of the person who senses it or the person who visualises it and believes it. It is not a concept of anyone who does not sense it or visualise it, although such a person may understand the meaning of the sentence that has been said or that he has read. Accordingly, a person must perceive discourse in an intellectual manner, whether it be written or spoken discourse. That is, he must understand the meaning of sentences just as those sentences express that meaning, not as the producer of these sentences or he himself wants that meaning to be. At the same time, the person must comprehend the reality of that meaning in such a manner that the reality of the meaning is identified to him, so that the meaning becomes a concept. Concepts are the meanings whose reality is comprehended by the mind, whether it be a tangible reality existent outside the mind or a reality that is accepted as existent outside it, provided this acceptance is based on tangible reality. Apart from this, the meanings of words and sentences are not called concepts; they are mere information.

The formation of concepts occurs as the result of associating reality with information or information with reality, and as the result of the crystallisation of this formation according to the basis or bases against which information and reality are measured when their association takes place, i.e. according to the person’s understanding of the reality and the information when he associates them, i.e. according to his comprehension of them. Thus, a person acquires a mentality that understands words and sentences and comprehends meanings and their identified reality, and then it makes its judgement on this reality. So, mentality is the mode of comprehending things or understanding them. In other words, it is the mode in which the reality is associated with information, or in which information is associated with reality by measuring it against one basis or a number of specific bases. From this stem the discrepancies between mentalities, such as the Islamic mentality, the communist mentality, the capitalist mentality, the anarchist mentality and the monotonous mentality. As regards their results, these concepts determine the conduct of man towards the comprehended reality. They also determine his position in terms of inclination towards the reality turning towards it or away from it. In addition they provide him with a particular inclination and a specific taste.

The inclinations are the drives, which motivate man to seek satisfaction, entwined with concepts he has about the things that are assumed to provide satisfaction. These inclinations are the outcome of the vital energy that pushes him to satisfy his instincts and organic needs, and the association between this energy and the concepts. These inclinations alone, i.e. the drives entwined with the concepts about life constitute man’s  nafsiyyah (disposition). Nafsiyyah is the mode of satisfying instincts and organic needs. In other words, it is the mode in which the drives for satisfaction are entwined with concepts. Thus it is a combination of the inevitable association that takes place naturally within man between his drives and the concepts he has about things entwined with his concepts about life.

It is of this mentality and this nafsiyyah that personality consists. Although cognition or comprehension is innate in man and is definitely existent within every human, the formation of mentality is performed by man. Although inclinations are innate in man and are definitely existent within every man, but the formation of disposition (nafsiyyah) is performed by man. Since the existence of a basis or a number of bases against which information and reality are measured in the process of association is what crystallises the meaning so that is becomes a concept; and since the combination that occurs between the drives and the concepts is what crystallises the drive so that it becomes an inclination. Thus the basis or bases against which man measures information and reality in the process of association has the most important influence in effecting a specific formation of personality. If this basis or bases according to which mentality is formed is the same basis or bases according to which nafsiyyah (disposition) is formed, man achieves a personality that is distinguished with a specific colour. But if the basis or bases according to which mentality is formed is other than the basis or bases according to which disposition is formed, one’s mentality will be different from his disposition. Because he would then be measuring his inclinations against a basis or bases that are deep rooted in him. Thus he would be entwining his drives with concepts other than those which formed his mentality. The result is that he becomes a personality that lacks distinctiveness, a personality with variance and discrepancy, one whose thoughts are different from his inclinations. Because he understands words and sentences and comprehends events in a mode different to his inclination.

Consequently, the treatment of personality and its formation can only be achieved through the establishment of one basis for both man’s mentality and disposition. That is, the basis against which he measures information and reality when he associates them should become the same basis according to which drives and concepts are associated. Thus, personality is formed according to one basis and one criterion, and as a result becomes a distinctive personality.
1.1 The Islamic Personality
Islam has provided a complete treatment for man to form for him a specific personality which is distinct from all others. With aqeedah (creed), it treated his thoughts, making it an intellectual basis on which his thoughts are built and according to which his concepts are formed. He distinguishes true thought from false when he measures it against the Islamic aqeedah and builds it on the aqeedah in its capacity as an intellectual basis. So his mentality is formed over this aqeedah. This intellectual basis, the aqeedah thus provides him with a distinct mentality and a true criterion for thoughts. It thus safeguards him against erroneous thought; he expels false thought and remains honest in his thought and sound in his comprehension.

At the same time, man’s actions, which stem from his instincts and organic needs were properly treated by Islam with Shari’a rules, which emanate from the aqeedah itself. The sharia rules regulate but do not suppress instincts, they harmonise between them, not leaving them free without restriction. They enable him to satisfy all his needs in a harmonious manner that leads to tranquillity and stability. Islam has made the Islamic aqeedah an intellectual one, thus making it suitable as an intellectual basis against which thoughts can be measured. It also made its aqeedah a comprehensive idea about man, life, and the universe. This comprehensive idea has solved for him all of his complexities whether internal or external. This made it suitable as a general concept, i.e. a criterion that is used naturally when the association between drives and concepts occurs, that is a criterion according to which inclinations are formed. So, Islam provided man with a definite basis, which represented a definite criterion for both concepts and inclinations, that is for mentality and disposition at the same time. Thus Islam formed the personality in such a special way so that it is distinct from other personalities.

We conclude that Islam forms the personality by means of the Islamic creed. By this Islamic aqeedah both his mentality and disposition are formed. Accordingly, the Islamic mentality is the one that thinks on the basis of Islam, i.e. that takes Islam and only Islam as the general criterion for thoughts related to life. It is not the mentality that is merely knowledgeable or pensive. Rather, the mere fact that a person actually and practically takes Islam as the criterion for all thoughts makes his mentality Islamic.

The Islamic nafsiyyah (disposition) is the one that makes all its inclinations based on Islam, i.e. that makes Islam the only general criterion for all satisfactions. It is not the one,  which is merely ascetical or stringent. Rather, the mere fact that a person actually and practically makes Islam the criterion for all satisfactions makes his disposition Islamic. A person with this mentality and this disposition thus becomes an Islamic personality, irrespective of whether he is knowledgeable or ignorant, and irrespective of whether he confines himself to observing the obligatory (fard) and recommended (mandoub) rules and to refraining from haram (prohibited action), or he observes besides this other   recommended acts of obedience and avoidance of suspicious acts. In both cases, a person is an Islamic personality because anyone who thinks on the basis of Islam and makes his desires conform to Islam is an Islamic personality.

Yes, indeed Islam did order the Muslim to learn more Islamic culture, so that this mentality grows and becomes capable of measuring any thought. Islam also demanded performing matters beyond the (fard) and demanded the avoidance of matters more than the haram (prohibited actions) in order that this disposition is strengthened, so that it becomes capable of deterring any inclination that is incompatible with Islam. But all this is intended to enhance this personality and to set it to proceed towards a sublime pinnacle. Yet this does not intended to classify as non-Islamic personalities those, which are inferior to this one. Rather, this is an Islamic personality and those inferior to it of the common knowledgeable who act in accordance with Islam and the educated who confine themselves to performing out the fards (compulsory rules) and refraining from the harams (prohibited actions) are also Islamic personalities. These types of personality only vary in strength but are all Islamic personalities. What matters when judging whether someone is an Islamic personality is whether he takes Islam as the basis for his thinking and inclinations. It is according to this that Islamic personalities, mentalities, and nafsiyyahs (dispositions) become disparate. So those who envisage an Islamic personality as an angel commit a grave misjudgement. Their harm in society is enormous, because they look for angels amongst people and never find them; they do not find an angel even in their own selves. They thus despair and give up hope for Muslims. Those idealistic people verily serve as proof that Islam is utopian, impossible to implement, and is a host of admirable ideals that man cannot implement or endure. Consequently, they repulse people from Islam and render many people too paralysed to act; although Islam came in order to be implemented in practice. Islam is realistic, i.e. it deals with realities and it is not difficult to implement. It is within the potential of every man, no matter how weak his thinking is and how strong his instincts and needs are. Such a man can implement Islam upon himself smoothly and easily after he has comprehended the Islamic aqeedah and become an Islamic personality. This is because he definitely becomes an Islamic personality merely by making the Islamic aqeedah the basis for his concepts and inclinations and maintaining this criterion. The only task that he has to perform afterwards, is to strengthen his personality with the Islamic culture in order for his mentality to grow, and with recommended acts of obedience to strengthen his nafsiyyah, so that he is on the path to a sublime pinnacle, which he would not only reach but also surpass towards ever-elevating peaks. This is due to the fact that Islam has treated man’s mentality with its aqeedah when it made this aqeedah the intellectual basis on which to build his thoughts about life. So, he distinguishes true from false thought when he measures thoughts against the Islamic aqeedah and builds them on it because it is an intellectual basis. Thus, he safeguards himself against erroneous thought, avoids false thought and remains true in his thought and sound in his comprehension. Islam has treated man’s inclinations with Shari’a rules when it treated his actions, which emanate from his instincts and organic needs. This treatment is sensitive; it regulates instincts but does not harm them by attempting to destroy them. It does not leave them free unrestricted but puts them in harmony. It enables man to satisfy all his needs in a harmonious manner that leads to tranquillity and stability. So, a Muslim who embraces Islam through ration and evidence and fully implements Islam upon himself and understands correctly the rules of Allah (swt), this Muslim is an Islamic personality distinct from all others. He achieves the Islamic mentality when he makes the Islamic aqeedah the basis for his thinking. And he achieves the Islamic nafsiyyah when he makes this aqeedah the basis for his inclinations. Hence, the Islamic personality is characterised with special attributes that distinguish the Muslim and mark him amongst people; he is as outstanding amongst them as a mole on the face. These attributes that characterise him are an inevitable result of his observance of Allah’s commands and prohibitions and of performing his actions in accordance with these commands and prohibitions as a result of his awareness of his relationship with Allah (swt). Thus, his aim from observing the Shari’a is nothing but to please Allah (swt).

After a Muslim has achieved Islamic mentality and nafsiyyah, he becomes qualified for cadetship and leadership simultaneously. He combines mercy and toughness, luxury and asceticism. He truly understands life, so he seizes this worldly life, allocating for it only its due significance, and he gains the hereafter by striving for it. Accordingly, he is not dominated by any of the attributes of worldly life worshippers. He does not drift with religious monomania or Indian asceticism. Simultaneously, he is a hero of jihad and a resident of a prayer chamber. He humbles himself when he is a master. He combines within him leadership and jurisprudence, trade and politics. His most sublime attribute is that he is a servant of Allah’s, his Creator. Therefore, you see him humble in his prayer; he refrains from futile talk; he pays his zakaah; he lowers his gaze; he observes his trusts; he honours his pledge; he keeps his promise; and he performs jihad. Thus is the Muslim. Thus is the believer. Thus is the Islamic personality, which Islam forms and by which it makes a person most righteous amongst people. Allah (swt) described this personality in the Holy Quran with a number of ayahs (verses) when He described the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and when he described the servants of Allah Most Gracious and when He described those who perform jihad . Allah Almighty says, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, but compassionate amongst each other,"[29:48]. And He says, " The vanguard (of Islam), the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid , and (also) those who follow them in all good deeds, well-pleased is Allah with them as are they with Him," [100:10]. And He says, "The believers must (eventually) win through. Those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity"[1-4:23]. And He says, "and the servants of Allah Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!" Those who spend the night in adoration of their Lord, prostate and standing." [63-64:25] And He says, "But the messenger, and those who believe with him strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper. Allah has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein: that is the supreme felicity," [88-89:9]. And He said, "Those that turn to Allah in repentance; that serve Him and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of Allah; that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; they enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limits set by Allah; these do rejoice. So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers." [112:9]
1.2 The Formation of Personality
When man cognises or comprehends things, i.e. when he comprehends them, in a specific mode, he achieves a specific mentality. When the drives for satisfaction, which have crystallised through their inevitable association with the concepts about things, are entwined by man with specific concepts about life, he achieves a specific nafsiyyah. When his concepts about life unite in controlling him when he cognises things and when he inclines to things as well, he achieves a specific personality. Therefore, personality is making the direction one has in cognising things and in inclining to them as one direction built on one basis. Thus the formation of personality is the establishment of one basis for both thinking and inclinations in man. Such a basis may be one or multiple, when it is multiple, that is if multiple guidelines were made bases for thinking and inclinations, one would have a personality, but it would be colourless . If the basis were one, that is if one principle was made the basis for thinking and inclination, one would have a specific personality of a specific colour. This is how man should be and this also should be targeted in the process of culturing individuals.

Although every general idea could be a basis for thinking and inclination, but such an idea could only be a basis for a limited number of things but not for all things. Nothing qualifies for a comprehensive basis for all things except a comprehensive idea about man, life and the universe. This is because it is the intellectual basis on which every thought is built, and because it determines every viewpoint in life. And because it is only the intellectual creed, which is fit to refer to with regard to thoughts that regulate life’s matters and those that affect man’s conduct in life.

Nevertheless, the fact that the comprehensive idea, i.e. the intellectual creed is exclusively fit as a general and comprehensive basis for thinking and inclinations, in no way this means that it is the correct basis. It only means that it is fit to be a basis, irrespective of correctness or incorrectness. What indicates the correctness or incorrectness of such a basis is its compatibility with man’s fitrah (innate nature). If an intellectual creed was compatible with man’s fitrah , it would be a correct creed, and , consequently, it would be a correct basis for thinking and inclinations, i.e. for the formation of personality. If it were incompatible with the fitrah, it would be a false creed and thus a false basis. Creed’s compatibility with fitrah means its acknowledgement of the impotence and the need to depend on the Creator (The Governor) that are in man’s fitrah, in other words its compatibility with the instinct of sanctification.

The Islamic aqeedah is the only intellectual creed that acknowledges what is in man’s fitrah, namely sanctification. This is because other creeds are either compatible with the instinct of sanctification by way of emotion not by way of ration, thus being non-intellectual creeds, or they are intellectual creeds but do not acknowledge what is in man’s fitrah , i.e. they do not acknowledge the instinct of sanctification.

Therefore, the Islamic aqeedah is the only correct creed. And it is the only creed that is fit to be the correct basis for thinking and inclinations. Hence, the formation of personality by man should be based on the intellectual creed as a basis for his thinking and inclinations. Since the Islamic creed (aqeedah) is the sole correct intellectual creed and thus the sole correct basis, the formation of personality should take place by making the Islamic aqeedah alone the sole basis for man’s thinking and inclinations, in order for him to be an Islamic personality, i.e. to be a lofty and distinct personality. Hence formation of the Islamic personality is only accomplished by building both the thinking and the inclinations of the individual on the basis of the Islamic aqeedah. By so doing, the Islamic personality is formed. Yet this formation is not ever lasting, it is merely formation of the personality. For this personality to remain based on the Islamic aqeedah, there is no guarantee, since deviation from the aqeedah might occur in man’s thinking; it might occur in his inclinations as well. This deviation may be in the form of misguidance (kufr) or in the form of fisq (transgression). Therefore, a constant observance of building the thinking and inclinations on the basis of the Islamic aqeedah maintained at every moment in life in order for the individual to remain an Islamic personality. After the formation of this personality, work is focused on developing it by developing the mentality and by developing the nafsiyyah. As regards the nafsiyyah, it is developed through worshipping the Creator and drawing nearer to Him through acts of obedience, and by constantly building every inclination towards any thing on the Islamic aqeedah. Development of the mentality, on the other hand, is achieved through the explanation of thoughts built on the Islamic aqeedah and conveying them in Islamic culture.

This is the method for forming the Islamic personality and the method for developing it. It is one and the same method employed by the Prophet (saw). He used to call people for Islam by calling them for the Islamic aqeedah. Once they have embraced Islam, he strengthened this aqeedah in them and ensured that they were committed to building their thinking and inclinations on its basis, as was reported in the Athar (material conveyed by the Sahaabah),"None of you shall be believer unless his disposition is in accordance with what I brought to you," and "None of you shall be believer unless I am the intellect with which he comprehends." He then proceeded to convey the Quranic ayahs of Allah (swt) that were being revealed to him and to explain the ahkaam (rules) and to teach Islam to the Muslims. At his hands, and as a result of following him and adhering to what he conveyed, lofty Islamic personalities second only to the prophets were formed. We thus conclude that the starting point with the individual is the establishment within him of the aqeedah; then, thinking and inclinations are built on it; afterwards, effort is exerted in performing acts of obedience and acquiring thoughts.
1.3 Gaps in Conduct
Many Muslims exhibit acts that are incompatible with their Islamic aqeedah. Many Islamic personalities exhibit some behaviour that contradicts with their Islamic personalities. Some think that the acts, which are incompatible with the Islamic aqeedah, ostracise the person from Islam, and that the behaviour contradicting the attributes of a committed Muslim divests him of his Islamic personality.

The truth is that gaps in the conduct of a Muslim do not divest him of his Islamic personality. This is because a person may inadvertently fail to associate his concepts with his aqeedah; or he may be ignorant of the contradiction between such concepts and his aqeedah or his Islamic personality; or Satan may overwhelm his heart and thus cause him to distance himself from this aqeedah in one of his acts. So he would act in a manner that is incompatible with his aqeedah or that contradicts the attributes of a Muslim adherent to his deen or against the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt). He would do all this or some of it when he still embraces the aqeedah and employs it as the basis for his thinking and inclinations. Thus it is incorrect in such cases to say that the person has abandoned Islam, or that he has become a non-Islamic personality. Because as long as the Islamic aqeedah is embraced by him, he remains a Muslim, although disobedient in one of his acts. As long as one adopts the Islamic aqeedah as the basis for his thinking and inclinations, he is an Islamic personality, even if he commits fisq (transgression) in a given instance of his behaviour. This is because what matters is the embracing of the aqeedah and the adopting of it as the basis for thinking and inclinations, even though there are gaps in acts and behaviour.

A Muslim is not ostracised from Islam unless he relinquishes the embracement of the Islamic aqeedah whether by speech or action. He is not divested of his Islamic personality unless he distances himself from the Islamic aqeedah in his thinking and inclinations, i.e. if he does not take it as a basis for his thinking and inclinations. If he distances himself from it, he is no longer a Muslim. And if he does not distance himself from it he remains a Muslim. Therefore one can be a Muslim because he does not deny the Islamic aqeedah, but in spite of being a Muslim he is not an Islamic personality. This is because despite his embracement of the Islamic aqeedah he does not take it as a basis for his thinking and inclinations. This is due to the fact that the association of concepts with the Islamic aqeedah is not mechanical in such a way that the concept does not function except in accordance with the aqeedah. Rather it is a social association that is open to separation and back to restoration. Therefore no wonder that a Muslim commits a disobedience and violates the commands and prohibitions of Allah in one of his acts. Such a person might see the reality incompatible with associating behaviour with the aqeedah. Or he might imagine that it was in his interest to do what he did but then he repents and comprehends the error of what he did and returns to Allah (swt). Such a violation of Allah’s commands and prohibitions does not deny him his aqeedah but it does deny him his commitment to the aqeedah in this precise act. Therefore an ‘aasi (disobedient person) or a faasiq (perpetrator of transgression) is not considered a murtadd (apostate), but he is considered a Muslim ‘aasi only in the act in which he was disobedient, and he is punished for this act only. He remains a Muslim as long as he embraces the aqeedah of Islam. So, it should not be said that he is a non-Islamic personality for the mere instance when he erred inadvertently, or when he was overwhelmed by Satan, as long as his adoption of the Islamic aqeedah as a basis for his thinking and his inclinations is intact and free of any doubt.

The Sahaabah (companions of the prophet) were involved in a number of incidents at the time of the prophet (saw) where a companion of the prophet would violate a command or prohibition. Such violations did not deny him his being a Muslim and it did not compromise his Islamic personality. This is because they were humans not angels. They are just like all other people and they are not impeccable because they are not prophets. Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah conveyed to the Kafirs of Quraish the news of the prophet’s intention to invade them, although the prophet was cautious to maintain the secrecy of the invasion. The prophet twisted the head of Al-Fdl Ibn Al-‘abbas when he saw him gazing, in a manner indicating inclination and desire, at a woman who was talking to the prophet. In the year of the conquest (of Mecca), the Ansar spoke about the prophet and said that he had abandoned them and returned to his kinsfolk despite his vow not to do so. The senior Sahabah fled the fight at Hunain and left the prophet with only few of his companions. These were only some of the incidents which the prophet did not consider undermining to the Islam of the perpetrators or blemishing to their Islamic personality.

This alone is sufficient evidence that gaps in conduct do not ostracise the Muslim from Islam, nor do they divest him of his Islamic personality. Yet, this does not imply the permissibility of disobeying Allah’s commands and prohibitions, since it is indisputable that disobeying them ranges between haraam (prohibited) and makrooh (disliked). Nor does this imply that an Islamic personality is free not to conform to the attributes of a committed Muslim since all this is indispensable for the formation of an Islamic personality. Yet this does imply that Muslims are humans and that Islamic personalities are humans not angles. Thus if they erred they would be treated in accordance with the dictates of Allah’s rule if their fault is punishable. But it should not be said that they became non-Islamic personalities.

The basis for judging whether someone is an Islamic personality is the intactness of his Islamic aqeedah and the building of his thinking and inclinations on it. As long as the basis is intact and the building of thinking and inclinations is exclusively on the Islamic aqeedah, rare inadvertent errors, i.e. gaps in conduct do not compromise his Islamic personality. But if a person’s aqeedah becomes faulty, this person is ostracised from Islam even if his deeds were built on the rules of Islam, because they would not then be built on belief but on something other that belief, either on habit, conformity to people, the benefit of such deeds or any other matter. If the building process becomes faulty due to his use of benefit as the basis on which to build his behaviour, or the use of the intellect as the basis on which to build his behaviour, the person would remain a Muslim due to the intactness of his aqeedah. But he would no longer be an Islamic personality, even if he was among the carriers of the Islamic Da’wa or if all his behaviour is in conformity to the rules of Islam. This is because the building of thinking and inclinations on the Islamic aqeedah due to belief in it is what makes an Islamic personality. Therefore, those who love Islam and want it to be dominant and victorious but do not build their thinking on its thoughts and rules but rather on their own minds, interests or desires, they should be wary of such a deed because it distances them from being Islamic personalities; even if their aqeedah is intact and even if they were highly knowledgeable of the thoughts and rules of Islam. Attention should be drawn to the fact that embracing the Islamic aqeedah means belief in all of the prophet’s message, as a whole, and belief, in the detailed, matters whose evidence is definite, and that the acceptance of all this be matched with contentment and submission. It should be known that mere knowledge is insufficient and that revolt against a most minor matter proven definitely as part of Islam ostracises the person and detaches him from the aqeedah. Islam is an indivisible whole as far as belief and acceptance is concerned. Thus Islam can only be accepted as a whole; relinquishment of a fraction of it is kufr (disbelief). Hence the belief in the separation of deen from life or from the state is indisputable kufr. Allah Almighty says, "Those who deny Allah and His Messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His Messengers, saying, ‘We believe in some but reject other’ and those who wish to take a course midway, They are in truth (equally) unbelievers"[150-151: 2 An-Nisa’].

2 The Islamic Aqeedah
The Islamic Aqeedah is the imaan (positive belief) in Allah, His Angles, Books, Messengers and the Day of Resurrection and Al-qada’u wal-Qadar (fate and destiny) whether favourable or unfavourable are from Allah (swt). The meaning of imaan is confirmed belief that conforms to reality and results from evidence. A belief, which has no evidence, is not imaan since it cannot be confirmed without evidence. If it does not have evidence, it is not conducive to confirmation; it will only be acceptance of a piece of news and thus not considered imaan. Hence, evidence is indispensable for any thing required to be part of imaan, so that acceptance of it becomes imaan. Therefore, the availability of evidence is a precondition for imaan, irrespective of its soundness or faultiness.

Evidence is either rational or naqlee (transmitted). What determines whether the evidence should be rational or naqlee is the subject to be proved by it, in order to have imaan in the given subject. If the subject is accessible by the senses and the senses perceive it, the evidence will definitely be rational not naqlee. If it is inaccessible by the senses its evidence will be naqlee. Since the naqlee evidence itself is accessible through the senses, i.e. the fact that is evidence is perceptible and is accessible by the senses. The categorisation of evidence as a naqlee proof fit for imaan should be dependent upon proving it as evidence via rational proof.

Upon examination of matters that the Islamic aqeedah demands imaan in, one finds that imaan in Allah (swt) is achieved through rational proof. Because its subject, which is the existence of a creator for the tangible comprehensible beings, is perceptible and is accessible by the senses. But imaan in angels is achieved through naqlee proof because the existence of angels is not accessible by the senses, neither the angels themselves nor anything that indicates their existence is perceived by the senses. Regarding imaan in the Books, they are classified as follows. Imaan in the Quran is achieved through rational evidence because the Quran is comprehensible and tangible its miraculousness is comprehensible and tangible at all ages. On the other hand, imaan in the other Books such as the Tawraah (Old Testament), the Injeel (New Testament) and the Zaboor (The Book of Psalms) is achieved through naqlee evidence. This is because the fact that such Books come from Allah is not perceptible at all ages. They were rather perceptible during the life of the Messengers who conveyed them, through the miracles that were delivered. Those miracles terminated at the end of their time; thus they are not perceptible after the time of those who delivered them. But the information that they were from Allah and that they were delivered by the Messengers is reported. So, their evidence is naqlee not rational, because of the intellect’s inability to comprehend at all ages that they were the speech of Allah, due to the inability to comprehend their miraculousness through the senses. Imaan in all of the Messengers is comparable to this. Imaan in Muhammad the Messenger is reached through rational evidence because the fact that the Quran is the speech of Allah and that it was conveyed to us by Muhammad is accessible by the senses. Thus one’s perception of the Quran leads to his realisation that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. This is feasible at all ages and for all generations. Imaan in all other Prophets is reached through naqlee proof, because the evidence of the prophethood of each of them is his miracle which people other than those who lived at the prophet’s time cannot perceive. All those who came later on until the Day of Resurrection cannot perceive those miracles. Thus no tangible proof of their prophethood is available. The proof of their prophethood is not reached by rational but rather by naqlee evidence. The evidence of the prophethood of our Master, i.e. his miracle, is available and accessible by the senses; it is the Quran. Therefore the proof here is rational. The proof of the Day of Resurrection is naqlee, because the Day of Resurrection is not accessible by the senses; nothing accessible by the senses indicates it. So no rational proof is available for it but rather a naqlee proof. Al-qada’u wal qadar (divine fate and destiny) has a rational proof because Al-qadaa’ (fate) is man’s action that issues from him or happens to him against his will. It is accessible by the senses and is sensorially comprehensible; thus its evidence is rational. The Qadar (destiny) is the attributes activated in things by man, such as burning by fire and cutting by knife. These attributes are accessible by the senses and are sensorially comprehensible. Thus the evidence of Al-Qadar is rational.

This has been regarding the type of evidence required for the aqeedah. The specific evidence for each element of the aqeedah is as follows. The evidence of the existence of Allah is exhibited in everything. The fact that tangible comprehensible things exist is definite. The fact that they are dependent on other (things) is also definite. So the fact that they are created by a creator is definite because their need means that they are created, since their need indicates the pre-existence of something; so they are not eternal. It should not be said here that a thing depended on some other thing not on a "non-thing", and so things are complementary to each other but in their totality they are independent. This should not be said because the subject of the evidence here is any specific thing such as a pen, a jug or a piece of paper, etc. The evidence is intended to prove that this pen or jug or that piece of paper is created by a creator. It will be obvious that this or that thing in itself is dependent on another, irrespective of that "other" on which it depends. This "other" on which a thing depends is definitely other than it, as is sensorially observed. Once a thing is dependent on some "other", it is proven as not eternal and thus it is created. It should not be said that a thing consists of matter and is dependent on matter and so dependent on itself not on an "other", and thus independent. This should not be said because even if we concede that a thing is matter and depends on matter, this dependence by matter is dependence on something "other" than matter not dependence on matter itself. This is so because an entity of matter alone cannot complement the dependence of another entity of matter; something other that matter is needed for this dependence to be complemented , and thus matter is dependent on something else, not on itself. For example, water needs heat in order to transform into vapour. Even if we conceded that heat is matter and water is matter, the mere availability of heat is not adequate for water to transform; a specific proportion of heat is needed for transformation to take place. So water is dependent on this specific proportion of heat. Something other than matter itself imposes this proportion and compels matter to behave according to it. Thus matter is dependent on that who determines the proportion for it and so it is dependent on someone who is not matter. Hence the dependence of matter on non-matter is a definite fact; so it is needy and thus is created by a creator. Thus the tangible perceptible things are created by a creator.

The creator has to be eternal with no beginning, since if He was not eternal it would been a creature not a creator. Thus being a creator necessitates being eternal. The Creator is eternal by necessity. Upon examining the things that might be suspect of being the Creator, it is concluded that the only candidates are matter, nature or Allah (swt). To say matter is the creator is false because of what has just been explained, i.e. the fact that matter is dependent on the one who determines for it the proportion in order for the transformation of things to happen; hence it is not eternal and that which is not eternal cannot be a creator. To say that nature is the Creator is also false, because nature is the aggregate of things and the system that regulate them such that every thing in the universe behaves in accordance with this system. This regulation does not come from the system alone, because without the things to be regulated there can be no system. It does not come from the things either, because the mere existence of things does not inevitably and spontaneously produce a system; nor does their existence cause them to be regulated without a regulator. Nor does it come from the sum of things and the system, because regulation does not happen except in accordance with a specific situation that compels both the system and the things. This specific situation of the things and the system is what makes regulation possible. The specific situation is imposed on the things and the system and regulation can happen only in accordance with it. It does not come from the things or the system or the sum of both of them; hence it comes from "something" other than them. Thus nature, which cannot function except in accordance with a situation that is imposed on it, is dependent, and thus it is not eternal and that which is not eternal cannot be a creator. Thus we conclude that the Creator is that whose attribute is eternality by necessity. That is Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.
The existence of Allah is a perceptible and sensorially comprehensible, because the dependence of the tangible perceptible things on an eternal "thing" indicates the existence of the Creator. When man deeply reflects on the creatures of Allah, and examines closely the universe and attempts to comprehend time and place, he will see that he is only a very tiny atom in relation to these ever-moving worlds. He will also see that these many worlds are all functioning in accordance with specific way and fixed laws. Thus he will fully realise the existence of this Creator and comprehend His oneness and see His grandeur and capability. He will realise that all what he sees of the contrast between the day and the night, and the direction of the winds and the existence of the seas and the rivers and celestial orbits are indeed rational proofs and expressive evidences of the existence of Allah and His oneness and capability. Allah Almighty says, "Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alteration of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the Ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which he gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise."(Al-Baqarah 164). Allah Almighty also says, "Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay they have not firm belief." (Attoor35-36). It is through the ration that the existence of Allah is comprehended, and it is itself that is employed as the method of arriving at imaan (positive belief). Hence Islam ordered the use of ration and deemed it the evidence regarding imaan in the existence of Allah (swt). Thus the proof of the existence of Allah is rational.

Those who advocate the timelessness of the world, and that it is eternal with no beginning, and those who claim that matter is eternal, and that it has no beginning; they say that the world is not dependent on anything but is self-sustained because all the things that exist in this world are different forms of matter; they are all matter. When any of these things depends on the other, this is not dependence because when something depends on itself, this is not dependence but independence. Thus matter is eternal and has no beginning, because it is self-sustained, i.e. the world is eternal and self-sustained.

The answer to this is twofold: first, the things that exist in this world are incapable of creating (anything) from nothingness, whether individually or collectively. Each thing of them is incapable of creating from nothingness. If another thing complemented it in one or more aspects, it would still be, together with the other thing, incapable of creating. Its incapability to create from nothingness is tangibly conspicuous. This means that it is not eternal, because an eternal (thing) must not be characterised with incapability; it must be characterised with ability to create from nothingness, i.e. the effected things must depend on it in order for it to be deemed eternal. Consequently, the world is not eternal and not timeless because it is incapable of creating.

The incapability of something to create from nothingness is definite evidence that it is not eternal. Second, is what we have affirmed that a thing is dependent on a proportion that it cannot surpass in the process of complementing any other thing's dependence. Here is an explanation of this. (A) is dependent on (B) and (B) is dependent on (C) and (C) is dependent on (A). Their dependence on one another is evidence that each one of them is not eternal. The fact that each complements the other or satisfies the need of the other does not happen in an unregulated manner but in accordance with a specific proportion, i.e. in accordance with a specific order. And the fact that it cannot fulfill this complementation except in accordance with this order and that it is incapable of surpassing it, this indicates that the thing which complemented (the other) did not fulfill the complementation solitarily but fulfilled it according to an order that was imposed on it by an "other" and it was compelled to conform to it. Thus the thing which complemented and that which was complemented both depended on that who determined for them the specific order in order for the complementation to happen. Both of them are incapable of surpassing this order. And the satisfying of the need cannot occur except in accordance with this order. Hence, that who imposed the order on both of them is the one to who is the need. Thus things collectively, even though each complements another, remain in need for an "other", i.e. in need to that who compelled them to conform to the specific order. For example, in order for water to transform into ice, it needs temperature. They say that water is matter, temperature is matter and ice is matter; thus in order to transform into another form, matter needed matter, i.e. needed itself and did not need another thing. But the reality is contrary to this. In order for water to transform into ice, it needs a specific temperature not only a temperature. Temperature is one thing and the fact that it does not act except at a certain level is another thing, and this is different from temperature itself. That is, the proportion that is imposed on temperature in order to act and on water to be affected does not come from water; otherwise it would have chosen to be affected as it wanted. It does not come from temperature either; otherwise it would have chosen to act as it wanted. That is, it does not come from matter itself; otherwise it would have chosen to act or be affected as it wanted. It has to come from something other than matter. Hence, matter needs that who determines for it the specific proportion that it needs in order to act or be affected. This who determines the proportion for it is one other than them. So matter needs one other than it. Thus it is not eternal because that who is eternal and not bound by time does not need an other because it is independent of others; all things depend on it. The lack of independence of matter is definite evidence that it is not eternal and it is thus created. One single glance at the world makes any human realise that effecting things, whether they be of the type that occupies space or of the energy type, can only result from tangible perceptible things and a specific order between these tangible perceptible things in order for the effecting of things to happen. There is no creation from nothingness by this world. Nothing is effected in this world without being regulated and in conformity with this proportion. That is, nothing in this world is effected from nothingness or without proportion, i.e. without a specific order. Thus things that are effected and those that were effected in this world are not eternal or timeless.

As far as things that are affected are concerned, this is obvious in that they are effected from tangible perceptible things and it is obvious that in the process of being effected, they were submitted to a specific proportion that was imposed on them. Concerning things that were effected, this is obvious in that they are incapable of creating from nothingness and also in their submission against their will to a certain order that is imposed on them. This order  does not come from them; otherwise they would be capable of departing from it and of not submitting to it; therefore it comes from other than these things. The incapability of the tangible perceptible things in the world, i.e. the incapability of the world to create from nothingness and their submission to a specific order that comes from an other is definite evidence that the world is not eternal or timeless but it is created by the eternal and timeless. Concerning those who advocate that creating is proportioning and conditioning and thus deny the existence of a creator from nothingness, their advocacy means that it is the tangible perceptible things and the specific order that is imposed on them are the ones who do the creating. This is because proportioning and conditioning cannot take place except in the presence of a tangible perceptible thing and a specific order that comes from someone other than this thing. This entails that creating comes from these two things: the tangible perceptible things and the specific order, and thus they are the creators. This is what is entailed by the advocacy that creating is proportioning and conditioning; it is definitely false. This is because the specific order does not come from the things or from itself, but it is imposed on the tangible perceptible things by another that does not belong to the perceptible tangible things. Thus it is clear that proportioning and conditioning is not creating, because it is impossible for (things) to be effected solely by that. Thus it is necessary that something/someone that is not perceptible or tangible, who imposes a specific order for the tangible perceptible things in order for effecting to take place. This shows that proportioning and conditioning is not creation and that it is impossible for creation to take place with these only.

It should be noted that if a creator did not create the tangible perceptible things from nothingness, he would not be a creator indeed. Because he would be incapable of effecting things according to his will alone; he would rather be subject to something in company with which it can effect things. He would thus be incapable and not eternal, because he was incapable of effecting (things) by himself but needed something else. The one who is incapable and who needs (something) is not eternal. In addition, as a  matter-of-fact, the meaning of a creator is the one who effects (something) from nothingness. The meaning of being a creator is that things depend in their existence on him, and that he does not depend on anything. If he did not create things from nothingness, or was incapable of creating when things did not exist, he would be dependent on things in effecting (things), and things would not be dependent solely on him. This means that he is not the sole creator and thus not a creator at all. So, a creator has to create things from nothingness in order for him to be a creator and has to be characterised with capability and will, independent of things, He should not depend on anything, and things should depend on him for their existence. Hence, effecting (things) has to be effecting from nothingness in order for it to be creation. The one who effects has to effect (things) from nothingness in order for him to be a creator.

Regarding the evidence of imaan in Angles, it is a naqlee evidence; Allah Almighty says, "There is no God but He: that is the witness of Allah, His Angles, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice."19: Al Umraan". And He says, ".. but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angles and the Book, and the Messengers;(Al-Baqarah:177). And He says, " Each on (of them) believeth in Allah, His angles, His books, and His Messengers," (Al-Baqarah:286). And says, " Any who denies Allah, His angles , His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgement, has gone far, far astray." (An-nisaa':136).

Regarding the evidence of imaan in the Books, the case of Quran is different from all other revealed Books. The evidence that the Quran is (revealed) from Allah and that it is the speech of Allah is a rational proof. This is because the Quran is a tangible perceived reality and the intellect can comprehend the fact that is (revealed) from Allah. The Quran is an Arabic text in its words and sentences. The Arabs did produce discourse, including the various types of poetry and the various types of prose. Texts of the discourse of the Arabs is still preserved in books and had been memorised and conveyed from generation to generation. The Quran is either the same as their mode of expression, which would indicate that it was uttered by an eloquent Arab, or it is a different mode of expression, which would mean that it was uttered by someone other than the Arabs. The Arabs are either capable of producing the like of it or incapable of this despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse. If the Arabs produced the like of it, it would be the speech of humans like themselves. If they failed to produce the like of it despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse and that they were the most eloquent masters of expression, it would not be the speech of humans. Upon examining the Quran and the discourse of the Arabs, one finds the Quran to be a unique mode of expression, which is unprecedented by anything the Arabs have said. They never produced anything that belonged to the category of the Quran, neither before nor after it was revealed, not even by way of imitating it or parodying its style. This proves that it was not the Arabs who produced this discourse and thus it is the discourse of someone else. It has been proved through tawaatur (authoritative chain of reporting whose reports are beyond any doubt) that bespeaks certainty and incontrovertibility that the Arabs were incapable of producing the like of the Quran although it challenged them to do so. The Quran addressed them: "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. It also said, "Or do they say, "He forged it?" Say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!" (Younus:38). And it  said, "Or they may say, "He forged it." Say, "Bring ye then ten Suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah! if ye speak the truth! (Houd:13). And it said, "Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.(Al-israa':88).Despite this stark challenge, they failed to produce the like of it. If it is proved that the Quran was not produced by the Arabs and that the Arabs failed to produce the like of it, then the Quran is proved to have come form Allah and that it is the speech of Allah. This is because it is impossible for any one other that the Arabs to have produced, and because it is an Arabic discourse, and because it rendered the Arabs incapable. It is wrong to say that it is the speech of Muhammad because Muhammad is one of the Arabs, and if the Arabs are proved incapable, then he himself is proved incapable because he is one of the Arabs. Moreover, everyone is governed by the mode of expression with words and sentences prevailing in his age or by the discourse reported from those who came before him. When he being creative in expression, he only uses words and expressions to convey novel meanings or in new figures of speech. It is impossible for him to utter (the like of) what he never sensed. It is evident in the genre of the Quran that the expression in it with words and sentences was not known by the Arabs, neither in the time of the prophet nor before his time.

As a human being , it is impossible for him to have produced the like of something that he had not sensed, because this is a rational impossibility. It is impossible for the Quranic mode of expression with respect to words and sentences to have been produced by Muhammad since he had not sensed it. Hence, the Quran is the speech of Allah and Muhammad brought it from Allah. This was proved rationally when the Quran was revealed and it is proved rationally now because it continues to render human beings incapable of bringing the like of it. This incapability is proved sensorially and is sensorially comprehensible for all mankind.

In conclusion,	the only conceivable sources of the Quran is either the Arabs or Muhammad or Allah, because the Quran is wholly Arabic and thus cannot have come from any other that these three. Yet it false to say that it was produced by the Arabs because they were incapable of producing the like of it and they confessed to their incapability. They have until this day continued to be incapable of producing the like of it; this proves that it did not come from the Arabs. Thus it would be either form Muhammad or form Allah. Yet it would be false to say that it is from Muhammad because Muhammad himself is an Arab and however genius a person is he can never surpass his age. Thus if the Arabs are incapable, then Muhammad is also incapable; he is one of them. Moreover, the hadith (speech) of Muhammad was reported through tawaatur, for example his saying (pbuh), "he who intentionally reports something false concerning me, let him reside in his place in hellfire”. If the speech of Muhammad is compared with the Quran, no similarity whatsoever is seen between the two types of text. This proves that the Quran is not the speech of Muhammad , and this proves that it is the speech of Allah.

It is noteworthy that all poets, writers, philosophers and thinkers of mankind commence (their writing) in a style that is characterised with some weakness; their style gradually improves until they reach the peak of their potential. Thus their style fluctuates in strength and weakness, apart from the occurrence of some frivolous thoughts and trite expressions in their texts. On the other hand, we find that style of the Quran from the day of the revelation of the first Ayah," Proclaim! (or Read!) In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created,"(Al-'alaq:1) until the day of the revelation of the last Ayah, "O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and give up what remains of your demand for usury (riba), if ye are indeed believers."(Al-baqarah: 278), was uniformly at its peak with respect to articulacy and rhetoric and the sublimity of the thoughts therein and the vigour of  its expressions. You will never find one trite expression or one frivolous thought in it, but it is one homogeneous piece, to the smallest detail, its entirety is, in respect of style, just like one single sentence. This is proof that it is not the speech of human beings, whose speech is susceptible to divergence in expressions and meanings, but it is indeed the speech of the Lord of the Worlds.

This has been regarding the Quran as one of the revealed Books in which Islam demanded imaan. The proof of the other revealed Books is naqlee not rational: Allah Almighty says, "O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the scripture which He has sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him)."(Al-nisaa':136). And he says, "... but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers;"(Al-baqarah:177). He also says, " To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and controlling over it.” (Al-ma'idah:48). And He says, "And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it" (Al-an'aam:92). And He says, " This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it,"(Younus:37). Concerning imaan in the Messengers, the case of our Master Muhammad is different from that of the other messengers. The proof of his prophethood is rational not naqlee. This is because the proof of the truth of the claim of someone claiming to be a prophet or a messenger is the miracles that he brings to support his claim. And the Shari'a that he brings is supported by those miracles. The miracle of our Master Muhammad which proves his prophethood and message is the Quran. The Quran is itself also the shari'a that he brought. It is miraculous and continues, and that it comes to be so. Since it has been proved through tawaatur, which is a definite and decisive proof, that Muhammad is the one who brought the Quran, and that the Quran is the Shari'a of Allah from Allah and that none brings the shari'a of Allah except prophets and messengers. This is thus a rational evidence that Muhammad is a prophet and a messenger of Allah.

The miracles of the rest of the prophets expired and ceased to exist. The Books we have today lack rational evidence that they come from Allah. Because the miracles that prove that they come from Allah have expired and ceased to exist. There is no rational proof to prove the prophethood of any of the messengers or prophets except our Master Muhammad (saw). But their prophethood is proved through naqlee evidence. Allah Almighty says: "The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believes in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His Messengers. We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers." (Al-Baqarah: 285) . And He says, "Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." (Al-baqarah:136).

The proof of imaan in the Day of Judgement , the Day of Resurrection, is naqlee not rational. Because the Day of Judgement is not accessible by the mind. Allah Almighty says, ".. that you may warn the Mother of Cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter, believe in this (Book),"(Al-'an'aam:92). And He says, "... as to those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts refuse to know, and they are arrogant” (An-nahl:22). And He says, “To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil.”(An-nahl:60). And He says, " And to those who believe not in the Hereafter, (it announceth) that We have prepared for them a Penalty Grievous (indeed)” (Al-israa':10). And He says, "Then when one blast is sounded on the Trumpet, And the earth is moved, and its mountains, and they are crushed to powder at one stroke; On that Day shall the (Great) Event come to pass. And the sky will be rent asunder, for it will that Day be flimsy: And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them. That Day shall you be brought to Judgement: not an act of yours that ye hide will be hidden”(Al-waaqi'ah:13-19). The prophet (saw) says, "imaan is to is to have imaan in Allah, His angles, His Books, His summoning you to account, His messengers and to have imaan in Resurrection.

These have been the matters that one must have imaan in; they are five matters: imaan in Allah, His Angles, His Books, His Messengers and the Day of Judgement , and to have imaan in al-qdaa' and qadar ( fate and destiny). None is deemed to have belief (imaan) in Islam or to be a Muslim unless he has imaan in all of these five matters and also in al-qadaa' wal qadar. Allah Almighty says, "O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day Of Judgement, has gone far, far astray”(An-nisaa':136). The Quran and the Hadith mentions these five issues explicitly, unmistakably naming each of them and meaning the referent of each name. Imaan in any other issue explicitly named and the referent of the name meant, was not mentioned in any explicit and definite text, as is the case with these issues. The texts which are definite (qat'ii) both in their chain of reporting (qat'ii ath-thubuut) and in their meaning (qat'ii ad-dalaalah, i.e. unambiguous) mentioned only these five, none else.

It is true that Imaan in al-qadar was mentioned in the Hadith of Jibreel according to some versions of it, where it says, " he said 'and that you believe in al-qadar, both good and bad..’ ". But this hadith is Khabar Aahaad (reporting of single individuals; non-mutawaatir). Moreover, what is intended here by al-qadar is the knowledge of Allah not the controversial issue of  al-qadaa' wal-qadar. The issue of imaan in al-qadaa' wal-qadar by this name and with the referent that is a subject of controversy was never mentioned in a qat'ii (definite) text. Yet the referent of the term is part of aqeedah; thus imaan in it is obligatory. It was never known by this name and with this referent at the time of the Sahaabah. No Sahiih (authentic) text mentions it by this name and with this referent. Rather it became common only at the beginning of the era of the Tabi'iin (the Followers). It became known and became a subject of discussion since that time. Those who introduced it and made it a subject of discussion are the Mutakallimuun (Muslim theologians, Muslim scholastics). It never existed before the emergence of Islamic Scholasticism, and was never discussed under this name "al-qadaa' wal-qadar and with the same referent except by the Mutakallimuun (Muslim Scholastics) after the end of the first Hijri century.
2.1 The Meaning of Believing (having imaan) in the Day of Judgement
Imaan in the Day of Judgement is imaan in Resurrection. It is the time when the life of all creatures in this worldly life terminates. All those in it die and then Allah resurrects the dead. He bring back to life their decomposed bones and He restores bodies to their previous state and also brings the souls back to the bodies. Allah Almighty says, "Again, on the Day of Judgement, will you be raised up”(Al-mu'minuun:16). And He says, "This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He who has power over all things. And verily the Hour will come: there can be no doubt about it, or about (the fact) that Allah will raise up all who are in the graves”(Al-hajj:6-7).  And He says, ".. he says, "Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?" Say, "He will give them life Who created them for the first time! ". And He says, " Say: "You, those of old and those of later times, "All will certainly be gathered together for the meeting appointed for a Day well-known."(Al-waaqi'ah:49-50).

Part of imaan in the Day of Judgement is imaan is that people are given their record books. Allah Almighty says, "Every man's fate We have fastened on his own neck: on the Day of Judgement We shall bring out for him a scroll, which he will see spread open. (It will be said to him:) "Read your (own) record;""(Al-israa':13-14). The believers take them with their right hands and the Kuffar (unbelievers) take them with their left hands. Allah Almighty says, "Then he who is given his Record in his right hand; Soon will his account be taken by an easy reckoning; And he will turn to his people, rejoicing! But he who is given his Record behind his back; Soon will he cry for Perdition. And he will enter a Blazing Fire”(Al-inshiqaaq:6-12). And He says, " And he that will be given his Record in his left hand, will say: "Ah! Would that my record had not been given to me! "And that I had never realised how my account (stood)!" "Ah! Would that (Death) had made an end of me!" "Of no profit to me has been my wealth!" "My power has perished from me!" (The stern command will say): "Seize you him, and bind you him, "And burn you him in the Blazing Fire. "Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits!(Al-haaqah:24-32).

Part of imaan in the Day of Judgement is imaan that Al-Jannah (Heaven) is true and that An-Naar (Hellfire) is true. Al-Jannah is abode created for the Believers that no Kaafir (unbeliever) can ever enter. Allah Almighty says, " a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous”(Al-Umraan:33). And He says, "The Companions of the Fire will call to the Companions of the Garden: "Pour down to us water or anything that Allah does provide for your sustenance." They will say: "Both these things has Allah forbidden to those who rejected Him."(Al-a'raaf:50). And He says, "Such is the Garden which We give as an inheritance to those of Our Servants who guard against evil”(Maryam:63). An-naar is a created abode where no believer lives eternally. Allah Al-mighty says, "None shall reach it but those most unfortunate ones who give the lie to Truth and turn their backs. But those most devoted to Allah shall be removed far from it” (Al-layl:15-17). Those who Allah Almighty wills of the Muslims whose major sins and misdeeds outweigh their minor sins and good deeds enter An-Naar, and later they exit from it and enter the Jannah. Allah Almighty says, "If ye (but) eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of you all the evil in you, and admit you to a Gate of great honour”(An-nisaa': 31). And He says, "But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light, Will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. And what will explain to you what this is? (It is) a Fire blazing fiercely!(Al-qaari'ah:8-11). Part of the imaan in Al-Jannah is the imaan that the delights of Jannah are tangible and that its people eat, drink, copulate, dress, and relish those delights. Allah Almighty says, "Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness), With goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of Clear-flowing fountains: No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer intoxication: And with fruits, any that they may select; And the flesh of fowls, any that they may desire. And (there will be) Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes, Like unto Pearls well-guarded. A Reward for the Deeds of their past (Life)”(Al-waaqi'a:17-24). And He says, " and their garments there will be of silk." and He says, "Upon them will be green Garments of fine silk and heavy brocade, and they will be adorned with Bracelets of silver; and their Lord will give to them to drink of a Wine pure and Holy."(Al-insaan:21). And He says, "As to the Righteous. They shall drink of a Cup (of Wine) mixed with Kafur, A Fountain where the Devotees of Allah do drink, making it flow in unstinted abundance."(Al-insaan:5-6). And he says, "And because they were patient and constant, He will reward them with a Garden and (garments of) silk. Reclining in the (Garden) on raised thrones, they will see there neither the sun's (excessive heat) nor (the moon's) excessive cold. And the shades of the (Garden) will come low over them, and the bunches (of fruit), there, will hang low in humility. And amongst them will be passed round vessels of silver and goblets of crystal, Crystal-clear, made of silver: they will determine the measure thereof (according to their wishes)”(Al-insaan:12-16). This is in addition to many other delights mentioned explicitly in the Quran.

Part of the imaan in An-Naar is imaan that its torture is tangible and that its people suffer various types of torture in fire, zamhareer (severe frost or glowing fire), boiling puss and other forms of torture which were mentioned explicitly in the Quran, such as torture with chains and handcuffs, liquid pitch, fire pits, the eating of zaqqoom, and the drinking of water which is as hot as boiling metal. Allah Almighty says, "Their garments of liquid pitch"(Ibraahiim:50). And He says, "For the Rejecters We have prepared Chains, Yokes, and a Blazing Fire”(Al-insaan:4). And He says, "Verily the tree of Zaqqum will be the food of the Sinful,"(Ad-Dukhaan:43-44). And He says, "(They will be) in the midst of a fierce Blast of Fire and in Boiling Water,"(Al-waaqi'ah:42). And He says, "if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces: How dreadful the drink!"(Al-kahf:29). And He says, "Nor has he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds,"(Al-Haaqqah:36). And He says, "as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the Penalty"(An-nisaa':56). And He says, “no term shall be determined for them, so they should die, nor shall its Penalty be lightened for them."(Faatir:36), And He says, "Then will you truly, O you that go wrong, and treat (Truth) as falsehood! You will surely taste of the Tree of Zaqqum. Then will you fill your insides therewith, And drink Boiling Water on top of it: Indeed you shall drink like diseased camels raging with thirst!"(Al-waaqi'ah:51-55). And He says, "In front of the Fire will they be brought, morning and evening”(Ghaafir:46).
2.2 The Emergence of Muslim Scholastics and Their Approach
The Muslims believed in Islam beyond any shred of doubt. Their belief was so strong that it did not result in any questions that indicate scepticism. Nor did they discuss the ayahs of the Quran except in a manner that would enable them to comprehend the reality of the thought therein. They did not inquire into the suppositions that might be drawn from it.

Second part from Abu Salim Apr 99 P46 to 75
The whole of the first Hijri century elapsed with current of the Da’wa overwhelming everything that stood in its way. The Islamic thoughts were being given to people as intact as it was received by the Muslims, in a brilliant understanding and a definitive faith and a surprisingly splendid awareness.Yet, the carrying of Da’wah in the conquered countries led to an intellectual collision with people of other religions who had not yet embraced Islam and those who entered its domain. This intellectual collision was strenuous; the people of other religions were acquainted with some philosophical thoughts and they had certain viewpoints which they got from their religions. The use to stir skepticism and to debate with Muslims over Aqeedas, because the basis of the Da’wa is the aqeedah and the related thoughts.

The sincerity of Muslims to the Islamic Da’wa and their need to give counter argumets to their adversaries, led many of them to learn some philosophical thoughts in order for these to be used as a weapon against their adversaries. Apart from their sincerity to the carrying of Da’wa and the refutal of their adversaries’ arguments, their justification and motivation for this learning lied in two factors:

Firstly: The Quran, besides its call for monotheism and prophethood, tackled the more significant sects and religions which were widespread at the time of the prophet (pbuh) ; it povided  counter arguments and refuted their advocaies. It tackled all types of “shirk” and refuted it. There were amongst the mushrikiin some who took planets for dieties and made them into partner of Allah; the Quran repudiated their beliefs. Some of them advocated the worship of idols and made them into partners of Allah; it repudiated their belief; some of them denied prophethood altogether; the Quran repudiated their belief; some of them denied the prophethood of Mohammad and it repudiated their belief; some of them denied resurrection and and the call to account and the Quran repudiated their belief. Some of them deified Jesus, peace be upon him, or made him into the son of Allah and the Quran repudiated this belief. The Quran did not suffice with this ; it ordered the prophet , peace be upon him, to engage in debate with them. “and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”(An-nahl:125), “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation” (Al-‘ankaboot (spider): 46). The life of the prophet was a life of itellectual struggle with all of the kuffar, both mushriks and people of the Book. Many incidents were reported about him in Mecca and Medinah in which he discussed and debated with the kuffar whther they be individuals, groups, or delegations. This intellectual struggle which is prominent in the aayahs of the Quran and the hadiths of the pophet and in his deeds was read and heard by the Muslims. Thus it was only natural for them to discuss with the people of other religions and to engage in itellectual struggle and argumentation with them. The rules of their religion call for such argumentation; and the nature of the call for Islam when it collides with kufr make it inevitable for this discussion, argumentation and struggle. What made the struggle take on the intellectual character is that the Quran itself calls for the use of the mind, and it cited intellectual proof and sensory evidence. The call for its aqeedah is based on nothing but the mind, not on naqlee evidence. Thus it was inevitable for the debate and the struggle to take on the intellectual character and to be marked with it.

Secondly: certain philosophical and theologian issues had leaked to the Muslims from the Nestorian Christians and their likes; the logic of Aristotle was known amongst Muslims; some Muslims had become familiar with certain books of philosophy . Many books were translated from Greek into Syriac and then into Arabic; later, translation was made from Greek directly into Arabic. This aided the existence of philosophical thoughts. Some other religions had resorted to Greek philosophy as a weapon and brought it into the country. All of this generated philosophical thoughts which made it mandatory for the Muslims to study them.

Those two factors, the rules and thoughts of Islam concerning argumentation and the existence of philosophical thoughts, were the factors which pushed the Muslims to shift to intellectual discussions and philosophical thoughts. They learned these thoughts and used them as material for their discussions and debates, and they justified this. Yet all of this was not a comprehensive philosophical study but merely a study of philosophical thoughts to repudiate Christian and Jewish thoughts, because it would not have been possible for the Muslims to rebut except after they have familiarised themselves with the arguments of Greed philosophers, especially those related to logic and theology. Because of this they were urged to be well-versed in foreign groups and their arguments and proofs. Thus the Muslim land became a ground where all opinions and all religions are presented and debated. Undoubtedly, debate provokes pondering and thinking and gives rise to multiple issues that provoke meditation and lead each group to adopt what it deems true. This debate and thinking were extremely instrumental in the emergence of people who practice a new methodology in discussion, argumentation and debate. The philosophical thoughts which they had learnt influenced them greatly , in their method of proving and in some of their thoughts. As a result the “science of Islamic scholasticism” (‘ilm-ul-kalaam) developed and it became a specialised branch of knowledge and the group of scholastics emerged in the Muslim lands.

Since those scholastics were focused on defending Islam, explaining it rules and, and elucidating the thoughts of the Quran, they were mostly influenced by the Quran, and the basis on which they built their discussion was the Quran as well. Yet, since they had learnt philosophy in order to defend the Quran and used it as a weapon against their adversaries, a they evolved a special approach in their proof and judgement which is different from that of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sahabah and different from the approach of Greek philosophers to proof and judgement.

Their difference from the Quran lies in that the Quran’s approach bases its call on an instinctive basis; it is based on this instinct (fitrah) and it addresses people in a manner consistent with this fitrah; simultaneously, the Quran is based on the intellectual basis. It is based on the mind and it addresses the minds; Allah Almighty say, “Those on whom, besides Allah, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! And if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to realise it from the fly. Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition! and He says, “Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted, Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:”(AT-Tariq:4-7) and He says, “Then let man look at his Food, (and how We provide it): For that We pour forth water in abundance, And We split the earth in fragments, And produce therein Corn, And Grapes and nutritious Plants, And Olives and Dates, And enclosed Gardens, dense with lofty trees, And Fruits and Fodder,”(Abasa:24-31), and He says, “Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made? And at the Sky, how it is raised high? And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm? And at the Earth, how it is spread out?”(Al-ghashiyah:17-20), and He says, “As also in your own selves: will ye not then see?”(Ath-thariyat:21), and He says, “Or, who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, “(An-naml:62). Thus the Quran approaches the proof of Allah’s capability , omniscience, and will on the basis of the fitrah and the mind. This approach is consistent with the fitrah and it generates a feeling within every human being to listen and respond to it; even an atheist comprehends it and succumbs to it. It is an approach that suits every human being, with no difference between the elite and the common people or between the educated and the uneducated.

Moreover, polysemous aayahs whose meaning is indefinite and in which a reader may find unclarity are general and void of detail; these have come in the form of a general depiction of things or a reporting of realities where an avoidance of discussion , thoroughness and substantiation is evident. So, the reader does not reject it ; he would not comprehend the realities denoted by the aayahs beyond the denotations of the words therein. Therefore, it was only natural that the attitude taken towards it was one of acquiescence as is the case towards the depiction of any reality and the reporting of any fact, without any justification or substantiation. Thus, certain aayahs depicts one facet of the actions of man and in so doing indicates compulsion; other aayahs depict other facets of the actions of man and in so doing indicates free choice. All Almighty says, “ Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties.”(Al-baqarah:185), and He says, “ but Allah never wishes injustice to His Servants.”(Ghafir:31). But on the other hand He says, “Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide, He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying, He maketh their breast close and constricted,” (Al-an’aam:125). Other aayahs indicate that Allah Almighty has a face and a hand and speak of Him as the light of the earth and the heavens and state that He is in the heavens “Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)?”(Al-mulk:16), “And thy Lord cometh, and His angels, rank upon rank,”(Al-fajr:22), “But will abide (forever) the Face of thy Lord,” (Ar-rahmaan:27), “ Nay both His hands are widely outstretched”(Al-ma’idah:64). Other Aayahs indicate his uniqueness, “there is nothing whatever like unto Him”(Ash-shuuraa:11), “There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes the fourth among them, nor between five but He makes the sixth, nor between fewer nor more, but He is with them, wheresoever they be”(Al-mujaadalah:7), “Praise and glory be to Him! (For He is) above what they attribute to Him!”(Al-an’aam:100). Thus certain aayahs came in the Quran which are seemingly contradictory. The Quran called such aayahs mutashabihaat (polysemous /not readily intelligible), Allah Almighty says, “in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not readily intelligible.”(Aali Umraan:7).

When these Aayahs were revealed and the Messenger conveyed them to the people and the Muslims memorised them by rote, these aayahs did not generate any discussion or debate.

They did not see in those aayahs any discrepancies that require to be cleared. They understood every aayah with reference to the aspect it came to describe or report. Thus the aayahs were harmonious in reality and in their hears. They believe in them, trusted them  and understood them in a generalised manner, and they sufficed themselves with this understanding; they regarded them as a description of reality or a reporting of facts. Many  the sagacious did not like the discussion concerning the details of the mutashaabihaat and or the debate thereof. They thought that such discussion was to the disadvantage of Islam: for everyone, understanding the general meaning, as much as one understands, would be sufficient and would make the discussion of the details and elaborations unnecessary. Thus the Muslims comprehended the approach of the Quran and received its aayahs throughout the time of the Prophet, and so did those who came after them until the entire first century A.H. had elapsed.

Their difference from the philosophers lies in that philosophers depend solely on syllogisms; they evolve the proof in a logical form including a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. They used terminology and jargon such as essence and accident and the like; they initiated intellectual problems upon which they built logical propositions not realistic sensory propositions.

The approach of the Muslim scholastics to discussion diverges from this. The scholastics believed in Allah, His Messenger and all what his Messenger brought to them; then they wanted to prove this implementing intellectual logical evidence. Then, they started to discuss the recency of the world and to cite evidence of the recency of things. Then they began to expand this, and thus new issues opened up before them; they pursued the  discussion of these and their offshoots to their logical end. So, they did not discuss aayahs in order to understand them as was the approach of the earlier generation and as is the purpose of the Quran, but they believed in those aayahs and then began to cite evidence of what they themselves understand from them. This has is one of the aspects of their discussion. The other aspect is their viewpoint regarding the mutashabihaat (polysemous aayahs). The scholastics were not content to have imaan in those aayahs in their generalised sense and without detail. So, they compiled the aayahs that might seem contradictory, after have pursued them, such as those related to compulsion and free choice and those which might indicate the incarnation of Allah (ta’aala). They focused their minds on them and they were as presumptuous as none else. Their thinking led them an opinion on every issue. Once they have reached their opinion, they addressed themselves to the aayahs which contradict their view and twisted them. Therefore, twisting (of meaning) was the primary characteristic of scholasticism. Thus if their discussion led them to the conclusion that Allah swt is too sublime (munazzah) to be characterised with location and direction, they twisted the ayahs which indicate that He ta’aala is in the heavens and also twisted al-istiwaa’ alaa al-‘arsh (the establishment of himself on the throne).

If their discussion led them to the conclusion that the negation of the attribute direction entails that the eyes of people would be incapable of sighting Him, they twisted the reports related to the sighting of Allah by people. Thus, twisting was one of the characteristics of the scholastics and their major distinction form the previous generations.

This methodology of giving the intellect the freedom to discuss every thing: the comprehensible and the incomprehensible, the natural and the supernatural, the sensorially perceptible and the sensorially imperceptible inevitably makes the intellect the basis of the Quran not the other way round. Thus it was natural for this approach of twisting to emerge, and it was natural that they would take any direction they opted for on the basis that the intellect opted for it, in their view. This inevitably meant discrepancies between them. If the reasoning of one group led them to advocate free choice and to twist compulsion, reasoning might lead others to affirm compulsion and to twist the aayahs of free choice; it might lead others to syncretize both opinions into a new opinion. All scholastics were prominently characterised with two things: first, dependence in proof on logic and syllogization, not on the sensorially accessible and second dependence of the twisting of the aayahs that contradict the conclusions they had reached.
2.3 The Fallacy of the Methodology of the Muslim Scholastics
Upon surveying the methodology of the Muslim scholastics, it becomes evident that it is a fallacious methodology and that applying it does not lead to imaan or the strengthening of imaan. Applying it does not even lead to thinking or to the strengthening of thinking. It only leads to mere knowledge; and knowledge is different from imaan and different from thinking. The fallacy of this methodology is obvious in several ways:

Firstly: in this methodology, they base their proof on a logical basis not on the sensory basis. This is wrong because of two reasons. One of them is that it makes the Muslim in need to learn the science of logic in order for him to be able to prove the existence of Allah; this means that those who are not acquainted with logic are incapable of proving their aqeedah; it also means that the science of logic becomes, in relation to scholasticism, like the science of grammatical syntax in relation to the reading of Arabic after the Arabic tongue has deteriorated, although the science of logic is irrelevant to the aqeedah and irrelevant to proof. The Muslims did not know the science of logic at the advent of Islam; they carried the message and established conclusive evidence to their creeds without relying on the science of logic whatsoever. This proves the non-existence of the science of logic in the Islamic culture and its superfluousness to any proof of the Islamic aqeedah.

The other reason is that the logical basis is susceptible of error unlike the sensory basis, which with regard to the existence or otherwise of things is absolutely infallible; what is susceptible to error should not be a basis for imaan.

Logic is susceptible to speciosity and its conclusions are susceptible to be untrue, because although it stipulates that the correctness of the premises and the soundness of their structure is a condition, the fact that it consists in the syllogizing of one premise on the other make the correctness of the conclusion dependant upon the correctness of these premises. The correctness of these premises is not guaranteed because the conclusion does is not directly founded on sensation; it is founded on the syllogizing of premises together and the correctness of the conclusion is thus not guaranteed. What occurs in it is that in combination of premises comprehensibles are syllogized on comprehesibles and comprehensibles are concluded therefrom; also sensorially accessibles are syllogized on sensorially accessibles and sensorially accessibles are concluded therein. Regarding the syllogizing of comprehensibles on comprehensibles and concluding comprehensibles therefrom, it leads to slipping into error and to contradiction of conclusions, and it leads to drifting into series of premises and conclusions which are rational in theory and by assumption not with regard to its existence in reality, so much so that in many of those syllogisms, the end of the road was fantasies and jabberwocky. Thus proving via the syllogizing of comprehensibles on comprehensibles is susceptible to slipping. For example, logically it is said that: the Quran is the speech of Allah; it is made up of letters which are arranged and sequenced in existence, and every speech which is made up of letters which are arranged and sequenced in existence is recent. The conclusion is that the Quran is recent and created. This syllogizing of premises has lead to a conclusion which in inaccessible to the senses; so the intellect is incapable of discussing it or judging it. Therefore, it is a hypothetical unrealistic judgement, apart from being one of the issues which the intellect has been prohibited from discussing. This is because a discussion of the attributes of Allah is a discussion of his entity, and in no way is it permissible to discuss the entity of Allah. Yet, it is possible to reach via the same logic to a conclusion contradictory to this one. Thus it would be said that: the Quran is the speech of Allah and it is one of its attributes, and any thing deemed an attribute of Allah is eternal; the conclusion is that the Quran is eternal and not created. Thus, contradiction in logic is evident in one and the same proposition. Likewise, in many logical propositions that are resultant from the syllogizing of comprehensibles on comprehensibles, a logician reaches conclusions which are utterly contradictory and utterly bizarre. Regarding the syllogizing of the sensorially accessible on the sensorially accessible, if the premises can be traced back to the senses and the conclusion can be traced back to the senses, the result will be correct, because it is based on the senses in the premises and the conclusion not solely on the syllogizing of propositions. But what occurs indeed is that reliance in arriving at truths is on the syllogizing of propositions, and the noticing of the senses is restricted to what the propositions end with. It may happen that a proposition is imagined to be true to a certain reality but in fact it is not. It may also happen that a proposition which is defined with a general demarcation will be true only to certain parts of it, and this truth of certain parts will lead to the deceptive conclusion that it applies to all parts. It may also be that in the proposition there is specious statement, which deceptively means the truth of the proposition. It also may be that the conclusion is true but the premises from which it is concluded are false, which deceptively means the truth of the premises…and so forth. For example, it would be said that: Spain is populated by non-Muslims, and every country whose population is of non-Muslims is not an Islamic country; the conclusion is that Spain is not an Islamic country. This conclusion is false. Its falsehood come from the falsehood of the second premise: the statement that every country whose population is of non-Muslims is not an Islamic country is false because a country is deemed Islamic if it was once ruled by Islam or if the majority of its population is of Muslims. This is why the conclusion is false. Spain is indeed an Islamic country. Another example is that it would be said: Mu’aawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyaan saw the prophet and met with him, and everyone who saw the prophet and met with him is a sahaabii (a companion of the prophet); the conclusion is that Mu’aawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyaan is a sahaabii. This conclusion is false. Not everyone who saw the prophet and met with him is a sahaabii; otherwise Abu Lahab would a sahaabii. Indeed, the sahaabii is everyone in whom the meaning of companionship was realised by, for example, having accompanied the prophet on one or two military expeditions (singular: ghazwah), or accompanied him for one or two years. Another example is: America is a country of high economic standard, and every country of high economic standard is a revived country. The conclusion is that America is a revived country. This conclusion is true to America, although one of the two premises is false; not every country with a high economic standard is revived; a revived country is one with a high intellectual standard. Thus, this syllogism, whose conclusion is true, deceptively leads one to assume that the premises from which the conclusion was taken; all this leads to the proposition that each of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia is a revived country because each has a high economic standard, although the truth is that these are not revived countries. Thus, the truth of the conclusions of all syllogisms are dependent on the truth of the premises. The truth of the premises is not guaranteed because they are susceptible to speciosity. Therefore, it is erroneous to depend on the logical basis in the establishment of proof. This does not mean that the truths reached via logic are false or that the establishment of proof via logic is erroneous, but it means that reliance in the establishment of proof on the logical basis is erroneous and that taking logic as a basis in the establishment of arguments is erroneous. It is the senses that are to be made the basis for proof and argument. As regards logic, it is valid to use for the establishment of the proof of the truth of a proposition. It would be true, if all the premises are true and if they together with the conclusion were traceable back to the senses and if the truth of the conclusion was resultant from the deduction from the premises, not from anything else. Yet, its susceptibility to the speciosity makes it imperative that it is not made a basis in the establishment of argument because as a whole, it is an uncertain basis which is susceptible to error, although proof by means of some forms of it can be conclusive. It is the senses that should be made the basis of proof, because as a whole this basis is a definite basis regarding the existence or otherwise of things; it is completely invulnerable to error.

Secondly: the scholastics departed from the sensorially accessible; they went beyond it to the sensorially inaccessible; the discussed the supernatural: the entity of Allah and His attributes, the sensorially inaccessible, and they connected this with the discussions related to the sensorially inaccessible. They excessively equated the unseen with the seen, i.e. equate Allah with man; so, they deemed justice as envisaged by man in this worldly life a necessity of Allah’s. They even deemed it necessary that Allah does what is best, because (according to them) Allah is Wise and He does not do anything except for a purpose of a wisdom; an action without a purpose is fatuous and absurd; a wise (being) either benefits himself or others, and since Allah Almighty is too sublime to benefit himself, the conclusion is that He acts to benefit others.

Thus they overstepped into discussions of the sensorially inaccessible and of issues which the intellect is incapable of judging, and so they blundered. They missed the point that the sensorially accessible is comprehensible and that the entity of Allah is incomprehensible and that not neither can be compared to the other. They were inattentive to the fact that the Justice of Allah incomparable to the justice of man, and that it is invalid to apply the laws of this world to Allah, who is the creator of this world and who manages the world according to the laws he set for it. If we do witness that when the perspective of man is narrow, he understands matters in a given way and that once his perspective widens, his view of justice changes and his judgement changes as well; how then do we compare (to ourselves) the Lord of the worlds whose knowledge encompasses everything and give His Justice the meaning of justice that we ourselves define? It is observable in this regard that man can view a given thing as good, but once his perspective widens, his view changes. For example, the Muslim world nowadays is Dar kufr that has abandoned the rule of Islam; so, all Muslims view it as a corrupt world and most of them say that it is in need for reform. But the aware say that reform means the removal of corruption from the status quo, and this is erroneous: the Muslim world in need for a radical and comprehensive change that removes the rule of kufr and implements the rule of Islam; any reform leads to the prolongation of the reign of corruption. Thus it is seen how the view of man towards what is good changes. How then do we subject Allah to the judgement of man and deem it necessary for Him to do what we see as good or better? If we made our mind the judge, we would see that Allah did things which our minds see no good whatsoever in it: e.g. what good is there in the creation of Ibliis and the shayaatiin (satans) and giving them the power to misguide man; why did Allah adjourn Ibliis until the Day of Judgement and let our Master Mohammad (peace be upon him)? Is all this better for people? Why does he allow removal of the rule of Islam from the face of the Earth and enable the triumph of the rule of kufr and humiliate the Muslims and enable the dominance of their kafir enemies? Is this better for the His servants? If we proceeded in enumeration of thousands of acts and judge them by our mind and our understanding of the meaning of good and better, we would not find them good. Therefore it is erroneous to compare Allah to man; nothing is incumbent on Allah “He cannot be questioned for His acts, “ (Al-anbiyaa’:23), “there is nothing whatever like unto Him, (Ash-shuuraa:11). Indeed, what made the scholastics slip into all this is there methodology or inquiry and their comparing Allah to man.

Thirdly: The approach of the scholastics give the intellect the freedom of inquiry in every thing, in the sensorially accessible and the sensorially inaccessible. This inevitably  results in the intellect inquiring into matter that it is incapable of judging, and inquiring into suppositions and imaginations, and establishing evidence to support mere conceptions of things that might be existent or non-existent. This may lead to the denial of thing which are definitely existent, of which we were informed by a (source) the truth of whose information is definite for us; but the intellect does not comprehend them. This may also lead to imaan in non-existent fantastical things but the intellect imagined its existence. For example, they discussed the entity of Allah and his attributes: some of them said that an attribute is one and the same as the attribute carrier; others said that the attribute is other than the attribute carrier. They said that the knowledge of Allah is the unfolding of the known as it is; the known changes from one time to another: the leaf of a tree falls after having been not fallen and Allah says, “Not a leaf doth fall but with His knowledge”(Al-an’aam:59)  and with the knowledge of Allah a thing unfolds as it is; thus Allah knows that a thing will be before it is and He knows that a thing was when it was and He knows that a thing no longer is when it no longer is. So how does the knowledge of Allah change with the change of things, and the knowledge that changes with the change of things is a recent knowledge and a recent thing does not lie in Allah because that in which the recent lie is recent itself. Other scholastics replied to this by saying: it is axiomatic that our knowledge that Zayd will come upon us is other that our knowledge that he has come indeed; this distinction is due to the renewal of the knowledge; but this is applicable to man because it is he whose knowledge is renewed because the source of his knowledge, i.e. sensation and comprehension, is renewed. But as regards Allah, there is no distinction between something destined that will be and a realised thing that was and an accomplished thing that occurred and a predicted thing that will occur. Indeed, the information for him is of one condition. Other scholastics replied: Allah is by his entity is knows all what was and what will be, and all information is known by him in one knowledge, and the difference between what will be and what was stems form the change in things not in the knowledge of Allah. All this discussion deals with matters that are sensorially inaccessible, and the intellect cannot judge such realities. So, it is invalid for the intellect to discuss them. But they discussed them and reached these conclusions in pursuit of their methodology that gives the intellect the freedom to discuss everything. They imagined things and discussed them. For example, they imagined that the will of Allah associated with the action of  the servant (man) when the servant willed the action, i.e. Allah created the action when the servant was capable and willing, not with servant’s capability and will.

This subject matter was only imagined and hypothesised by the scholars; sensorilly, it has no reality. But they gave the intellect the freedom of inquiry; it inquired into it and formed this conception; and thus they deemed it compulsory for one to believe in what they imagined and called it gaining and choice. Had they restricted the inquiry of the mind into the sensorially accessible, they would have realised that the action insofar as the creation of  all of its materials is concerned, it is only from Allah, because the creation from nothingness only comes from the creator. But the manipulation of these materials and the effecting of the action therefrom come from the servant, just like any industry he carries out, e.g. like the making of a chair. Has they restricted the inquiry of the intellect into the sensorially accessible, they would not have believed in much of the fantasies and theoretical suppositions that they believed in.

Fourthly: the methodology of the scholastics makes the intellect the basis of the entire imaan. Consequently, they made the intellect the basis for the Quran; the did not make the Quran the basis for the intellect. The have structured their interpretation of the Quran accordingly on their bases of absolute elevation, the freedom of the will, justice and the doing of the better and so on. They made the intellect the arbitrator in the aayahs which are seemingly contradictory; they made it the ultimate arbitrator between the mutashaabihat (polysemous) and the twisted the aayahs which do not agree with the view that they opt for, so much so that twisting of texts became a method of thiers, Mu’tazilah, Ahlussunnah, and  Jabriyyah alike. This is because the basis for them is not the aayah but the intellect; the aayah suould be twisted to conform with the intellect. Thus the employing of the intellect as a basis for the Quran resulted in error of inquiry and error in the subject matter of the inquiry. Has they employed the Quran as the basis, and had they built the intellect on the Quran, they would not have slipped into that.

Indeed, the imaan that the Quran is the speech of Allah is based on the intellect, but the Quran not the intellect becomes itself the basis for belief in what it contains after imaan in the it has been established. Therefore, when an aayah comes in the Quran, the intellect should not judge the truth or otherwise of its meaning. The aayahs themselves judge, and the role of the intellect in this case is only to understand. The scholastics did do this; rather, they made the intellect the basis for the Quran; it is because of this that their twisting of the aayahs of the Quran occurred.

Fifthly: the scholastics made the antagonism with philosophers the basis of their inquiry: the Mu’tazilah took(material) from the philosophers and argued against them; Ahlussunnah and the Jabriyyah (fatalists) argued against the Mu’tazilah; they also took form the philosophers and argued against them, whereas the subject for discussion is Islam not the antagonism with the philosophers or any other group. They should have inquired into the subject matter of Islam, i.e. what the Quran brought and what the Hadith contained and to restrict their inquiry to what it and to its discussion, irrespective of any person. But they did not do this: they converted the conveyance of Islam and the expounding of its aqeedahs into debates and polemics; they degraded it from a driving force within the heart, from the transparency and the fervour of the aqeedah, to a polemic feature and a rhetorical profession.

These have been the major fallacies of the methodology of the scholastics. One of the consequences of this methodology was that the discussion of the Islamic aqeedah transformed from being the means of calling for Islam and explaining it for people into a discipline which is taught just like syntax or any of the disciplines which were born after the conquests. This was in spite of the fact that if it were at all valid to establish a discipline for any of the branches of knowledge of Islam, it would be invalid to do this with the Islamic aqeedah, because it is itself the subject matter of the da’wah and it is the basis of Islam; it should be given to people exactly as it came in the Quran. The method of the Quran in conveying it to people and in expounding it to them should be implemented as the method of calling for Islam and explaining its thoughts. Therefore, the methodology of the scholastics should be abandoned; the methodology of the Quran should be solely reverted to: namely, basing the da’wah on the fiTrah (the instinctive basis) and simultaneously basing it solely on the intellect within the realm of the sensorially accessible.
2.4 Al-Qada p.81
In the Arabic language it is said: Qada means he gives a judgement on the thing, ......he judged between two disputants, he judged and decided upon a matter. The matter, he has executed/accomplished it'.The world al-Qada has been mentioned a number of times in the ayas of the Qur'an. Allah (swt) said:'When He decrees a matter, He only says to it:"Be! - and it is.' ie when He decides a matter it come into existence without any prevention or  hesitation [2:117] And He (swt) said:'He it is Who has created you from clay, and then has decreed a stated term (for you to die'.ie He has made for this creation which He has created from clay a lifespan (ajal) between his coming to existence and his death'[6:2] And He (swt) said:'And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him'. [17:23] ie He has given you a definite order that you should not worship anyone but Him (swt) And He (swt) said:'It is not for a believer, man or women,when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have an option in their decision'. [33:36] ie he ordered with an order and judged with a judgement. And He (swt) said:'Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens'. [41:12] ie He has made the sky by perfecting the .....seven heavens'. And He (swt) said:'But (you met) that Allah might accomplish a matter already ordained (in His Knowledge) [8:42] ie that he may accomplish a matter which inevitably has to be done.And He (swt) said:'(Then) the case would be already judged'.[2:210] ie He has completed the matter which the matter of their death and destruction, and He has brought it to an end. And He (swt) said:'That a term appointed (your life period) be fulfilled'. [6:60] ie that he may................And He (swt) said:'Say:If I had that which you are asking for impatiently (the torment), the matter would have been settled at once between me and you'. [6:58] the the matter would have been finished and I would have destroyed you  instantly.  And He (swt) said:'And it is matter (already) decreed'. ie it was a matter decided by Allah and a judgment which had already been commanded to exist ie an action which will occur from you by force because it is from the Qada (Decree) of Allah. [19:21] And He (swt) said:'This is with your Lord; a Decree which must be accomplished'. [19:71] al-Hatm is the verbal noun of 'hatama al-amr' when he obliged himself......ie its presence became binding on Allah, He himself has obliged Himself and judged it. Therefore, the word Qada is a .....which has more than one meaning: He made the thing with precision: he executed the matter and made the thing, and he ordered with an order and he completed the matter, he he made the existence of a matter definite, he he concluded the matter, he finished the matter and he judged with a matter, and he order a matter to definitely take place.

Despite the multiplicity of meanings nowhere was it mentioned that al-Qada is the judgement of Allah on only the kulliyaat, just as nothing has been mentioned that al-qadar is Allah's judgement on the juz'iyaaat. Therefore, the word Qada has linguistic meanings used by the Qur'an in these meanings and there is no disagreement about the meanings mentioned. These meanings are but a Arabic expression, the mind has nothing to do with it. And if al-Qada has a shari'a meaning then this meaning must be mentioned in ahadith or ayah until it can be said that this meaning is a shari'a meaning and no other meaning has been mentioned.Therefore the use of the word al-Qada mentioned in the ayat is not the subject of 'al-Qada wa al-Qadar about which the Mutakallimun differed afterwards. These verses have nothing to do with the study of al-Qada wa al-Qadar just as the verses and ahadith which contain the meaning of al-qadar have nothing to do with the study of  al-Qada wa al-Qadar. These verses and ahadith discuss the attributes of Allah and the actions of Allah but al-Qada wa al-Qadar discusses the action of the servant. The study of these verses are shari'a discussions and their meanings are linguistic but the study of  al-Qada wa al-Qadar for the mutakallimun is rational. These verses and ahadith are explained by their linguistic and shari'a meaning. And the study of  al-Qada wa al-Qadar is a terminological meaning coined by the mutakallimun.
2.5 Al-Qada wa al-Qadar   p.83
Al-Qada wa al-Qadar with this appellation ie by incorporating the words together to form one meaning. Both words have one designation. ie the Qada that is linked to Qadar by making them two inseparable matters, one is not detached from the other. It is not correct to include anything else in it which has not been used by the Sahabah or the Tabi'in. By studying the shari'ah and linguistic texts and studying the sayings of the Sahaba, Tabi'in and those who came after them from the 'Ulama; it appears that the terms ' al-Qada wa al-Qadar' together, have not been used as a specific terminological meaning by any of the Sahaba or Tabi'in, they have not been mentioned together in their specific terminological sense in the Qur'an or the Hadith.  Though they have been mentioned together in their linguistic meaning like the hadith of Jabir reported by al-Bazzar with a chain that is Hasan on the authority of the Prophet (saw): He (saw)said:'.......That is why this terminological designation is not found which alludes to this name except after the Mutakallimin after the first century had passed and after the translation of the Greek philosophy. It did not exist in the time of the Sahabahand nor was there any dispute or discussion of those two terms as one name for a specific terminological designation. Throughout the era of the Sahaba Muslims did not know of any study called 'al-Qada wa al-Qadar' though the word qada had been mentioned on its own. The word Qadar has been mentioned on its own in the ahadith just as it has been mentioned together in the aforementioned hadith of Jabir, but in all of these cases they have been mentioned in the linguistic meaning. They have not been mentioned in the terminological meaning. The word Qada has been mentioned in the hadith of al-Qunut. Al-Hasan said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) taught me words which i say in the Qunut of the with prayer, then he mentioned the du'a of qunut: (part of which is):'save me from what You have decreed, for You are the One Who decrees and no one decrees over You'. Which means:protect me from the evil of what you have decided, for You decide what You wish and no one decides over You. The word qadar has been mentioned in the hadith of Jibreel in some narrations. He said: Believe in al-qadar whether good or bad' and in his (saw) saying: '....and if some (misfortune) befalls you do not say: If only I had done such and such thing but say:  Allah has predetermined it (qaddara), what He willed He did'. The meaning of the word qadar in those two hadiths is the predetermination (taqdeer) and Knowledge of Allah. ie that you should believe that thing have been written by Allah in the al-Lawh al-Mahfuz and He knows them before they come to exist, whether they be good or bad'. And say Allah has written this in the al-Lawh al-Mahfuz and he knew it before it came to be and what He willed he did. The word al-Qada in the meaning mentioned in this hadith or were ever else was not disputed by the Muslims, they did not discuss its wording or its import/meaning.

As for the word qadar in the meaning mentioned in those two hadiths, the Muslims, before the presence of Greek philosophy, did not disagree about it or discuss its wording or import/meaning. But after the presence of the Greek philosophy amongst Muslims, a group from Kufa said:There is no qadar (predetermination) ie there is no one who predetermines (muqaddir) and everything takes place without any previous determination and they were called the :Qadariyyah. They are the ones who deny qadar and say that Allah (swt) created the fundamentals of things and then left it, so He does have knowledge of their partial aspects (juz'iyyaat). This is contrary to what has been mentioned in the clear text of the Qur'an which states that Allah is the Creator of all things whether small or big, whether fundamental or branch, and that He (swt) predetermined everything before its existence ie wrote it in the al-Lawh al-Mahfuz ie knew it before it came to be.

He (swt) said:'He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything"[6:101] And (swt) said:'And He knows whatever there is in the earth and in the sea: not a leaf falls, but He knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record.'[6:59] Except that this disagreement and discussion is only with respect to the word qadar of Allah in terms of His Knowledge. So the Qadariyyah claim that Allah knows the fundamentals of things but not their partial aspects. And Islam states that Allah (swt) knows the fundamentals of things as well as their partial aspects. Thus, the discussion with respect to the qadar of Allah ie His Knowledge is about the subject of Allah's Knowledge. It is a subject different to that of al-Qada wa al-Qadar. It is a different discussion, separate from the discussion of al-Qada wa al-Qadar. Its reality that took place is likese the same ie it is a different subject to that of al-Qada wa al-Qadar.

Thus, it appears that the words qada and qadar have each been mentioned on their own with each having a specific meaning. They do not have any relationship with the study of al-Qada wa al-Qadar. In other words, the word qada in all its linguistic and Shari'ah meanings mentioned by the Legislator, and the word qadar in all its linguistic and Shari'ah meanings mentioned by the Legislator, have no relationship to any of these terms, whether mentioned alone or together, in the discussion of al-Qada wa al-Qadar. ..................

The verses mentioned in demonstrating the Knowledge of Allah are ones that indicate that Allah's Knowledge encompasses every thing, thus His (swt) saying:'No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but is inscribed in the Book of Decrees - (al-lawal-Mahfuz), before We bring it into existence. Verily, that is easy for Allah.'[57:22] And His (swt) saying:'Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Mawla (protector)." And in Allah let the believers put their trust.'[9:51] And His (swt) saying:'Not even the weight of an atom or less than that or greater, escapes from His knowledge in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a Clear Book (al-Law al-mahfuz).'[34:3] And His (swt) saying:'It is He, Who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day, then He raises (wakes) you up again that a term appointed be fulfilled, then in the end unto Him will be your return. Then He will inform you what you used to do.'[6:60]

These verses were revealed to the Messenger (saw) and memorised and understood by the Sahabah, it did not occur to them to discuss al-Qada wa al-Qadar. Furthermore, the wording, understanding and indication of these verses state that they are a clarification about the Knowledge of Allah and have no relationship to the study of al-Qada wa al-Qadar. The same applies for the ayah:  And if some good reaches them, they say,"this is from Allah,"but if some evil befalls them, they say,"This is from you (Muhammad [saw])." Say:"All things are from Allah, so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word?' [4:78] It has nothing to do with the discussion of al-Qada wa al-Qadar because it is a refutation of the Kuffar who differentiated between bad and good. Thus, they made bad to come from the Messenger (saw) and good from Allah (swt). So Allah responded by declaring that everything is from Allah. The discussion is not about the good that a human being does and the evil that he purses. Rather the discussion is about fighting and death. The ayah before and after clarifies that:'They say:Our Lord! Why have you ordained for us fighting? Would that you had granted us respite for  short period?" Say:"Short is the enjoyment of this world. The Hereafter is (far) better for him who fears Allah, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly even equal to the Fateelah (a scalish thread in the long slit of the date-stone). "Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high!" And if some good reaches them, they say,"this is from Allah,"but if some evil befalls them, they say,"This is from you (Muhammad [saw])." Say:"All things are from Allah, so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word? Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you (O Muhammad [saw]) as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is sufficient as Witness. He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah,but he who turns away, then we have not sent you as a watcher over them.'[4:77-80] So the subject is what afflicts/befalls them and not what they are doing. That is why it has nothing to do with the study of al-Qada wa al-Qadar.

Therefore, everything that has bee mentioned so far has nothing to do with the study of al-Qada wa al-Qadar, they do not come under its meaning and they have no relationship whatsoever with what has come before. Rather, al-Qada wa al-Qadar as a meaning has come from the Greek philosophy which was transmitted/transferred by the Mu'tazila and they gave an opinion regarding it.  Ahl as-Sunnah and Jabariyyah refuted them and Ahl as-sunnah made a refutation of the Jabariyyah. And the discussion became restricted to the same meaning and remained in the same sphere. Thus, the issue is a meaning/sense that has been mentioned in Greek philosophy and it came to the fore in the debate which used to take place between the Muslims and the Kuffar who used to be armed with the Greek philosophy. It is a meaning which has a relevance to the 'Aqeedah. So what is desired is to give Islam's opinion regarding this meaning. The Mu'tazila gave an opinion and the Jbariyyah responded to them and gave another opinion. Ahl as-Sunnah refuted all of them and gave an opinion. They said that there is a third opinion which has come out from the two opinions and they described it as 'the pure milk that is sweet to drink that comes out of the excrement and blood'.

Therefore, the subject of discussion became known, which is the subject that came from the Greek philosophy. And since it is related to the 'Aqeedah, then the Muslim must state what his belief is regarding this subject. The Muslims did actually state their opinion, they formed three schools. Consequently, it is not allowed to refer the issue of al-Qada wa al-Qadar to what has been mentioned of the meaning of qadar, linguistically and in the Shari'ah. It is not allowed to imagine or conceive for al-Qada wa al-Qadar any meaning brought from mere supposition, conception/fancy or imagination. Thus, it is claimed that al-Qada is the universal judgement on only the universals (kulliyyaat) and al-Qadar is the universal judgement on the juziyyaat and its details. Or it is said that al-Qadar is the eternal plan for things and al-Qada is the execution/performance and creation according to that predetermination and plan. Indeed, that is not allowed because this is mere imagination, fancy and a false attempt of assuming the task of applying certain linguistic and shari'ahexpressions. .......

Similarly, it is not allowed to claim al-Qada wa al-Qadar is one the secrets of Allah and that we have been forbidden to discuss it. We cannot claim this because there is no Shari'ah text to say that it is one of the secrets of Allah, not to mention the fact that it is a perceptible subject for which an opinion must be given, so how can we say that it is not to be studied?! In addition to the fact that it is a rational discussion and a subject which relates to matters that are studied by the mind as a reality that is perceptible. And since it relates to the belief in Allah, that is why we must study al-Qada wa al-Qadar in the meaning placed under discussion and which later became part of the 'Aqeeda.

The meaning of al-Qada wa al-Qadar,or in other words, the question of al-Qada wa al-Qadar constitutes the actions of the servants and the attributes of things.That is because the issue mentioned is the actions of the servant and what arises from these actions ie the attributes brought about by the servant in things. Are they the creation of Allah, He is the One Who has created them and brought them into being? The Mu'stazila, all of them, said that the servant is the one who creates his own actions himself. He is the one who creates the action and brings it into existence. They differed about the attributes. Some of them said that the servant is the one who creates all of the attributes which is caused by man and he is the one who brings them into existence. Some differentiated between attributes. A section of these was said to be created by the servant in things and brought into existence by his and part of them were created by Allah (swt) in things and brought into existence by Him. As for the Jabariyyah, they said that Allah creates all actions of man and all attributes caused by man in things. He (Allah) is the one who brings them into existence, the servant has nothing to do with the creation and origination of the action or in causing the attribute in the thing. Ahl as-Sunnah said that the actions of the servant and the attributes caused in things by the servant are created by Allah (swt). But they said Allah creates them when the servant performs the action and when the servant causes the attribute. So Allah (swt) creates them when the servant has the ability and will and not by his ability and will.

This is the issue - the issue of - al-Qada wa al-Qadar, there are a summary of the opinions cited. Anyone who scrutinises these views must know the basis on which the discussion has been built such that the discussion can be on a common basis. Thus the result required by the basis of the discussion will result and not any result. The basis of the discussion in al-Qada wa al-Qadar is not the action of the servant in terms of whether he created the action or Allah created it. And nor is it the will of Allah (swt) in that His will is conditional on the action of the servant so it must exist with this will. And nor is it the Knowledge of Allah in terms of Him knowing that the servant will do such and such action or that His Knowledge encompass the servant, or that this action of the servant is written in the al-Law al-Mahfuz so he must act according to what has been written. Indeed, the basis of the discussion is definitely none of these things, because they have no relationship to the subject from the viewpoint of reward and punishment; they are related to the question from the viewpoint of creation from nothing, omniscience, omniwill, and the Protected Decree. This is quite different from the subject of the reward and punishment for an action.The topic of discussion on whose basis the question of al-Qada wa al-Qadar is built is the issue of reward and punishment for an action ie: is man obliged to perform an action, good or evil, or does he have a choice? And, does man have the choice to perform his action, or does he have no choice? The person who scrutinises the actions sees that man lives within two spheres:  one which he dominates, seen as the sphere that is present within the region of his conduct, and within which his actions happen absolutely by his choice; the other sphere dominates him, he exists within its domain, and the deeds that occur within it happen without his choice, whether they originate from him or fall upon him.

Thus, the actions that fall within the sphere that dominates man, man has no choice in them or in their existence. They can be divided into two kinds:  The first being a requirement of the law of the universe, the other concerns those actions which happen beyond man's control, but which are not necessitated by the universal laws. As far as the actions necessitated by the laws of the universe are concerned, man submits to them totally. He is obliged to act according to a specific system that is perpetual. Subsequently, man's actions in this sphere occur without his will and he will leave it without his will, i.e. he cannot fly merely by the use of his own body, neither can he walk on water, or choose for himself the colour of his eyes. Man did not produce the shape of his head nor the size of his body. Indeed, it was Allah t'aala who created all of this without any influence or relationship from the created man, because Allah created the laws of the universe, made them regulate the universe and made the universe act according to them without the ability to change. As for the second category, they are actions which happen beyond man's control, which he cannot reject and which are not related to the laws of the universe, are those deterministic actions which happen either unintentionally through him or upon him and which he cannot reject, such as:  If someone falls on a person and thus kills that person, or if someone shoots at a bird and without intent hits a person and kills him, or if a car, train or plane should crash, without any ability to avoid the incidents, and as a result the passengers die. All these examples are actions which occurred from a man or upon him - though they are bound by the laws of the universe - they happened without his will and outside his ability to control them, and they are within the sphere that dominates man. All the actions which occur within the sphere that dominates man are termed fate (qadaa), because Allah alone has decreed them. Therefore, man is not reckoned on these actions, whether good or bad - although Allah alone knows the good and bad in these actions - because man has no influence on them; he does not know them or how they are brought into existence, and he is unable to reject them. Man must believe in this fate and that this fate is from Allah subhanahu wa t'aala (the Glorified and Supreme).

As for the sphere that man dominates, it is the sphere in which he proceeds freely according to the system he chooses, whether it is the divine law (shar'iyah) or any other. In this sphere actions carried out by man or involving him occur by his will. For example, he walks, eats, drinks and travels anytime he likes, likewise he refrains from doing any of these things when he likes; he also burns with fire and cuts with a knife when he chooses; and he satisfies the instincts of procreation and ownership and the hunger of the belly as he likes. All this he performs or abstains from freely. Therefore, man is reckoned on those deeds which occur within this sphere. Thus, he is rewarded for the action which if it deserves reward and he is punished for it if it deserves punishment. These actions have nothing to do with al-Qada or vice versa. Because man is the one who undertook them with his own will and choice. Therefore, actions of choice do not come under the subject of al-Qada.

As for al-Qadar, it relates to actions whether they occur in the sphere which man dominates or in the sphere which dominates him, or whether they occur from or on things from the matter of universe, man and life. Thus, this action causes an effect ie something results from the action, so this thing that man causes in things in terms of attributes, is it created by man or by Allah (swt) just as He (swt) has created the things themselves. The one scrutinises this issue will find that there matters which are caused in things are from the attributes of things and not from the action of a man. As evidenced by the fact that man is not able to make them exist in anything except the things for which are from one of its attributes. As for the things which are not from one of their attributes, man is not able to cause in them what he wants. That is why, these matters are not from the actions of man but from the attributes of things. Thus, Allah (swt) has created the things and created (qaddara) in them attributes in manner that nothing else is possible to come from it except what He has cerated in it. Such as making the date pit to grow date palm from it and not apple, such the human sperm to originate only in humans and not the animals. Allah has created specific attributes for things, for example, He created in fire the attribute of burning, in wood the attribute of catching fire, and in the knife the attribute of cutting. He made the attributes an integral and perpetual part of the objects according to the laws of the universe. When it appears that the attributes are no longer present, it means Allah has stripped them off, and such an event would be a unnatural; it only happens to the Prophets as a miracle for them. Likewise, in the manner that Allah created attributes for the objects, He created in man instincts and organic needs and, as He created attributes in objects, He created in the instincts and organic needs specific attributes. Hence, in the procreation instinct Allah created the sexual inclination, and in the organic needs He created the attributes of hunger and thirst, etc. He made these attributes adhere to them according to the laws of the universe. The particular attributes that Allah subhanahu wa t'aala has created in objects, instincts and organic needs are called divine destiny, this is because Allah alone created the objects,instincts and organic needs and ordained in them their attributes.

"Every soul is a pledge for its deed." [74:38]
2.6 How the Issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar Evolved
With the exception of the issue of the perpetrator of the Al-kabiirah (major sin) over which Waasil Ibn Ataa’, the Head of the Mu’tazilah, withdrew form the circle of Al-Hasan Al-Basrii, we barely find any issue of the issues of scholasticism which had not stemmed from an issue that had discussed by Greek philosophers. The issue of  “Al-qadaa’ wal qadar” by this name and in this meaning which they discussed, had been discussed  and debated by Greek philosophers. This issue is called the issue of “al-qadaaa’ wal-qadar” and is also called “compulsion and free choice”, it is also called the “freedom of will”. All these names mean one and the same thing, namely: is man free or compelled to do or to avoid the actions that he does. It never occurred to the minds of the Muslims, before the translation of the of Greek philosophy, to inquire into it. It was the Greek philosophers who engage in inquiry and controversy over this issue. The Epicureans believed that the will is free in choice and that man does all of his actions according to his will and without compulsion. The Stoics on the other hand believed that the will compelled to take the path it takes and that it is incapable of departing from it. Man, they said, does nothing in accordance with his will; rather he is compelled to do whatever he does; to do or not to do is not within his control. After the advent of Islam and the infiltration of philosophical thoughts, one of the major issues was the attribute of justice on the with regard to Allah. That is: Allah is just; from this follows the  issue of punishment and reward. From this followed the issue of the servant’s (man’s) perpetration of his actions, in pursuance of their method of inquiry also into the offshoots of an issue, due the influence of the philosophers, i.e. the philosophical thoughts that they had studied in relation to the topics they were repudiating. The most prominent of these was the discussion by the Mu’tazilah; it was the prototype in this matter; the discussion of the other scholastics was a response to repudiate the views of the Mu’tazilah. Thus the Mu’tazilah are considered the pioneers in discussing the issue of al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar, and even in all the topics of scholasticism. The Mu’tazilah’s view of the justice of Allah was one of subliming above Him above injustice. Regarding the issue of punishment and reward, they took a stand which was consistent with the subliming of Allah and with His justice. They postulated that  the justice of Allah would be meaningless without the assumption of the freedom of the will of man and the assumption that he creates his actions and that he is capable of doing or refraining from doing; thus if he does voluntarily or refrains from doing voluntarily, his punishment or reward will be reasonable and just. But if the case was that Allah creates man and compels him to act in a given way by compelling the obedient to obey and the disobedient to disobey and then punishes this and rewards that, this would not be just in the least. Thus they compared the unseen to the seen, i.e. compare Allah Almighty to man. They applied the laws of this world to Allah Almighty precisely as one group of  Greek philosophers did. They deemed justice as envisaged by man incumbent on Allah. The root of origin of this discussion is the punishment and reward for the servant’s acts by Allah. This is the theme of the discussion which was called “al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” or “compulsion and volition” or “freedom of the will”. Their approach in to the discussion was that of Greek philosophers: they discussed volition and the creation of acts. On the issue of volition, they said “We see that one who wills good is good himself and one who wills evil is evil himself and one who wills justice is just himself and one who wills injustice is unjust himself. Thus if the will of Allah was associated to all good and the evil in the world, good and evil would be willed by Allah Almighty, and thus the one who willed would merit the epithet of good and evil and just and unjust, and this is an impossibility with regard to Allah Almighty.” They also say that if Allah had willed the kufr of a kaafir and the sins of a sinner, he would not have prohibited them from kufr and sin, and how can it be thinkable that Allah willed that Abu Lahab  be kaafir and then ordered him to have imaan and prohibited him from kufr? Whereas if one of the humans did this, he would be deemed mentally deficient, Allah is exalted high above this. If  the kufr of a kaafir and the disobedience of the disobedient we willed by Allah, they would not deserve punishment; their acts will be in obedience to his will……

It is thus that proceed with logical propositions, and then they cite naqlee proofs from the Holy Quran; they quote Allah Almighty’s saying,” but Allah never wishes injustice to His Servants. (Ghafir:31) and His saying, “Those who give partners (to Allah) will say: "If Allah had wished, we should not have given partners to Him, nor would our fathers: nor should we have had any taboos." So did their ancestors argue falsely” (Al-an’aam:148) and His saying, “Say: "With Allah is the argument that reaches home: if it had been His Will, He could indeed have guided you all."(Al-an’aam:149) and His saying, “Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties.” (Al-Baqarah:185) and His saying, “He liketh not ingratitude (kufr) from His Servants” (Az-zumar:7). They twisted the Aayahs that contradict their viewpoint, for example the saying of Allah Almighty, “As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.” (Al-Baqarah:6) and His saying, “Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil.”(Al-Baqarah:7) and His saying, “Nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy”(An-Nisaa’:155). They concluded from this the opinion that they held and advocated, namely their well-known view that man has  the freedom of will to do an act or refrain from doing it; thus if he does, it is according to his will and if he refrains from doing, it is also according to his will. As regard the issue of the creation of acts, the Mu’tazilah said that the acts of servants (people) are created by them and they are of their own doing not of Allah’s; it is in their power to do these acts or refrain from them without any intervention of the power of Allah. The proof of this is the difference which man feels between the voluntary and the involuntary movement, such as the movement of a person who voluntarily moves his hand and the movement of a trembling person, and the difference between the movement of someone going up a lighthouse and another falling from it; thus the voluntary movement is in the power of man; it is he who creates it; but he has no role in the involuntary movement; also, if man was not the creator of his acts, the takliif (obligation to comply with Shari’a) would be invalid, since if he was not capable of doing or refraining from doing, it would not be rational to ask him to do or to refrain from doing, and this would not have been the subject of punishment and reward. Thus they proceed with the proof of this opinion of theirs via logical propositions, and then they annex to this naqlee proofs; they cite many aayahs to prove their opinion, for example, Allah Almighty’s saying,” Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah,"”(Al-Baqarah:79) and His saying,” Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).”(Ar-Ra’d:11) and His saying,

” Whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly.”(An-Nisaa’:123) and His saying,” That Day will every soul be requited for what it earned;”(Ghaafir:17) and His saying,” he says: "O my Lord! send me back (to life), "In order that I may work righteousness”(Al-Mu’munuun:99-100). They twisted the aayahs which contradict their view, for example Allah Almighty’s saying,” "But Allah has created you and your handiwork!"(As-Saaffaat:96) and His saying,” Allah is the Creator of all things.”(Az-Zumar:62). They concluded with the opinioon which they held regarding the issue of the creation of acts, namely the viewpoint that man creates his own acts and that is capable of doing an act or refraining from doing it. In pursuance of the methodology of the scholastics of which it is typical to discuss the issue and the offshoots of that issue, one of the offshoots of the creation of acts which they discussed was the issue of resultance. After the Mu’tazilah had determined that the acts of man are created by him, a questiond arose from this: What about the acts that result from his action? Is created by him as well? Or is it created by Allah, for example the pain felt by a person who has been his, the taste that a thing comes to have as a result of the action of man, the cutting that occurs from a knife, pleasure, health, lust, heat, coldness, humidness, hardness, cowardice, courage, hunger, satisfaction, etc.. They said that all these are part of the action of man because it is man who causes them when he performs his acts. Thus they are resultant from his act and consequently they are created by him.

This has been the issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar and the view of the Mu’tazilah regarding it. The purport of it is that it is the issue of the volition of the act of the servant and the attribute that occur things as a result of the action of man. The drift of their view is that the servant has free will in all of his acts and that it is he who creates his acts and the attributes that occur in things as a result of his action.

This view of the Mu’tazilah provoked the Muslims and it was an unfamiliar view to them; it was a temerarious view in the primary basis of religion, namely the aqeedah. This is why they addressed themselves to repudiate their views. A group called Al-Jabriyyah merged; among the most famous of them was Al-Jahm Ibn Safwaan. Those Jabriyyah said, “Man is compelled and he does not have free will; neither does he have the capability of creating his own acts; he is just like a feather in flying with the wind or just like a piece of wood in the hands of waves. Indeed, Allah creates the acts at man’s hands. The said, “If we say that man is the creator of his own acts, what follows is the limiting of Allah’s capability and that it does not include all things, and that the servant is a partner of Allah’s in the creation of what is in this world. A single thing cannot be effected by two capabilities. If the capability of Allah created it, then man has no role in it, and if the capability of man created it then Allah has no role in it. It is impossible that part of it the result of the capability of Allah and another part is the result of the capability of the servant. That is Allah is the creator of the act of man, and it is according to His will that man performs an act.” They postulate that the acts of man happen only via Allah’s capability and that the servant has no influence whatsoever in it; Allah is merely the subject of what Allah conducts at his hands, and he is absolutely compelled; he and the inanimate are equals; they only differ in appearances. Thus they proceed in the proof of their view and quote aayahs of the Quran to support it, for example Allah Almighty’s saying,” But ye will not, except as Allah wills.”(Al-insaan:30) and His saying, “When thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's:”(Al-anfaal:17) and His saying, “It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He wills”(Al-Qasas:56) and His saying, “"But Allah has created you and your handiwork!"(As-Saaffaat:96) and His saying, “Allah is the Creator of all things”(Az-Zumar:62). They would twist aayahs indicating the free will of the servant and his creation of the act. Accordingly, they say that the attributes of things that result from the action of the servant such as pleasure, hunger, courage, cutting and burning etc. are from Allah Almighty. Ahlussunah wal Jama’ah emerged and they also addressed themselves to repudiating the propositions of the Mu’tazilah. Ahulssunnah postulated that the acts of servants are all by the will and volition of Allah. Will and volition, they said, mean the same thing, namely,  an eternal attribute of the Hayy (Alive) that dictates the opting for occurrence of one of  two practicables at one specific time while the capability is uniform with regard to all; the acts of the servants are according to his ruling - when He wills something He says “be” and it is – and His Qidyah i.e. His Qadaa’ , which is the act plus conditions ; Allah Almighty said, “So He completed (Qadaa) them as seven firmaments.”(Fussilat:12), “Thy Lord hath decreed (Qadaa)”(Al-israa’:23); what is intended here by Qadaa’ is the subject effected by Qadaa’ not the attribute of Allah. The act of the servant is according to the arrangement (taqdiir) of Allah, i.e. characterization of every created entity with its own specification as regards goodness, badness, usefulness, harmfulness and the time and place that contain it, and the consequent punishment and reward. The intention here is to affirm the generality of the will and capability of Allah because all (things)are created by Allah. This dictates the capability and the will(of Allah) for no compulsion or imposition. They said, “If it is said that according to our view, a kafir would be compelled in his kufr and a faasiq would be compelled in his fisq and thus it would be invalid to order them to have imaan and obedience, we say, ‘Allah Almighty indeed wanted them to be kafir and fasiq according to their own volition, and thus there is no compulsion; this is just as the Almighty foreknew their voluntary kufr and fisq; Thus the incumbency of the impossible does not follow.’ About the acts of the servants, they said in response to the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah, “The servants have voluntary acts for which they are rewarded in the case of obedience and for which they are punished in the case of disobedience.” They pointed out how they termed it voluntary, though they postulate that Allah is the sole creator and effecter of acts; they said, “The creator of the act of the servant is Allah Almighty. And the capability and will of the servant have a role in certain acts, such as the movement of striking, but not the others, such as the movement of trembling; Allah verily is the creator of all things; the servant is a gainer. The went on and explained this by saying, “The directing by the servant of his capability and will to the act is gaining. The effecting by Allah of the act thereafter is creation. The same accomplishment is under the two capabilities but in two different directions. The act is accomplished by Allah in the direction of effecting and accomplished by the servant in the direction of gaining. In other words, Allah Almighty has consistently created the act upon the capability and willing of the servant but not via the servant’s capability and will; this combination is gaining. The supported they view with the same aayahs that the Jabriyyah cited to prove Allah’s creation of acts and His willing of it. They supported their view concerning the the gaining by the servant with Allah Almighty’s saying, “as a reward for their (good) Deeds.”(As-Sajdah:17) and His saying, “Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)”(Al-Kahf:29) and His saying, “It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns.”(Al-Baqarah:286). They considered themselves as having repudiated the views of the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah. The truth is the they their view and that of the of the Jabriyyah is one and the same view; thus they are Jabris. Their notion of gaining was a total fiasco. It is neither in accordance with the intellect since there is no rational proof of it whatsoever, nor is it in accordance with the naql since there is no proof of it among shar’i texts whatsoever. It is no more that a failed attempt to reconcile the views of the Mu’tazilah and the Jabriyyah. The gist is that the issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar was a major issue of the scholastics, and all of them focused their discussion on the act of the servant and the attributes resulting therefrom, i.e. the attributes which the servant effects as result of his handling of things. Their basis for the discussion was the act of the servant and the attributes which he effects as result of his action: is it Allah who created both (the act and the attributes) or it the servant, and does this occur via the will of Allah or via the will of the servant?

The reason which gave rise to this discussion is the borrowing by the Mu’tazilah of this issue without any change from the Greek philosophy under the same name and in the same meaning “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” or “freedom of choice” or “compulsion and free choice”, and their discussion of it from a perspective that they deemed was consistent with the attribute of justice necessary for Allah Almighty. This led to the emergence of the Jabriyyah and Ahl-us-Sunnah to repudiate the views of the Mu’tazilah, which they did according to the same precepts and on the same basis. All of them discussed the issue from the perspective of the attributes of Allah not from the perspective of the it subject only. They applied the will of Allah and His capability to the act of the servant and to the attributes which the servant effects in things; their subject of discussion became: are these via the capability and will of Allah or are they via the capability and will of the servant?  Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar is , thus, the acts of the servant and the attributes of things which man effects in things as a result of his action. So, Al-Qadaa’ is the acts of the servants and the Qadar is the attributes of things. The fact that the Qadaa’ is the acts of the servants is evident from their discussion and controversy concerning it. That is, their postulation that the servant carries out the act via his capability and will, and the postulation of their opponents that the act is effected via the capability and will of Allah not the capability and will of the servant, and the postulation of those who opposed both groups that the act of the servant is effected as via the creation of the act by Allah at the time of the availability of the capability and will for the act, not via the capability and will of the servant. This indicate that the meaning of Al-Qadaa’ is the acts of the servants. The fact the Qadar is the attributes effected by the servant in things is evident from their discussion and controversy concerning it; i.e. when they discussed what results from the acts of the servant, they discussed the attributes that he effects; they said, “If we added starch to sugar and cooked them, pudding results: is the taste and the colour of pudding from our creation or is it from the creation of Allah? Is the exit of the ruuh (soul) upon slaughtering, and the movement of a stone upon pushing, and vision upon the opening of one’s eyes, and the breakage of a leg upon falling down and it intactness upon healing, etc.: are all these from our creation or from the creation of Allah.” This discussion is discussion of the attributes. This is indicated by their debate of these resultants. Bishr Ibn Al-Mu’tamir, the chief of  the scholastics of Baghdad said, “Whatever results from our action is created by us. Thus if I opened the eye of a person and he saw a thing, then his sighting of the thing is my action because it is resultant from my action. Also the colour of the foodstuffs that we make and their taste and aroma are our action. Similarly, pain, pleasure, health, lust, etc. are all the action of man”. Abu Al-Hudhayl Al-Allaaf, a key scholastic, said there is a difference between resultants: every thing that results from the action of man and whose process is known is from his action; otherwise it is not. Thus the pain which results from beating and the ascent of a stone when thrown upwards and the descent of it when thrown downwards, and the like are from the action of man. But colours, flavours, heat, coldness, humidness, hardness, cowardice, courage, hunger and satisfaction are all from the action of  Allah. An-Nadhdhaam said that what man does is only the movement and thus whatever is not a movement is not from his action; man does not perform movement except in himself; he does not perform it in others. Thus if one moved his hand this would be his action, but if he threw a stone and it move upwards or downwards, the movement of the stone it not from the action of man but from the action of Allah, which means the He made it intrinsic of the stone to move if pushed by someone, etc. Thus the development of colours, flavours, odours, pain and pleasure are not from the action of man because they are not movements. The reality of the  controversy regarding resultance itself indicates that is a controversy regarding the attributes of things: are they from the action of man or are they from Allah? The discussion, thus, and the controversy in this discussion is indeed in the attributes effected by man in things. In this way, the discussion was carried out on one and the same topic and according to the same precepts by all scholastics. Due to the fact that the discussion on the resultants from actions, i.e. on the attributes effected in things by man was subordinate because it was built on the discussion on the acts of the servant, it was marginal in the controversy between the Mu’tazilah, Al-us-Sunnah and the Jabriyyah. The discussion over the act of the servant was predominant amongst the scholastics. Debate and polemics were focused on it more than they were on the attributes. Since “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” is one single name of a referent, albeit a compound of two words which are amalgamated and one of them is a sub-point of the other, the discussion of the Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar later on focused more on the acts of the servant than it did on the attributes effected by man. The discussion on “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” continued and each came to understand it in a way different from the others. After the key scholars of the Mu’tazilah and the key scholars Ahl-us-Sunaah came their disciples and their followers; the discussion continued and was renewed in every era. Due to the diminution  of the Mu’tazilah and the dominance of Ahl-us-Sunnah, the debate tilted to the views of Ahl-us-Sunnah. Debaters, who disagreed over Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar, continued to ascribe to it fancied meanings of their own to Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar, and to attempt to apply to it language or Shar’i terminology. Thus some of them said that Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar is one of the secrets of Allah that no one knows; others said that discussing Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar was absolutely impermissible because the Prophet prohibited this, and they would cite the hadith “If Al-Qadar is mentioned, quit”; others came to differentiate between Al-Qadda’ and Al-Qadar; they said that Al-Qadaa’ was the rulings in the general and the Qadar was the rulings in the specific, i.e. in the parts and the details. Others said that Al-Qdaa’ was the planning and Al-Qadar was the execution; according to this view Allah plans the act, i.e. He draw it up and produces it design and He then is said to have made the Qadar of the act; He Almighty executes the act and accomplishes it , and then is said to have made the Qadaa’ of the act. Some others said that the meaning of Al-Qadar was Al-taqdiir and the meaning of Al-Qdaa’ is creation. Some considered the two words inseparable and said Al-Qadaa’ and Al-Qadar are two concomitant matters which are inseparable because one of them represents the basis, namely the Qadar and the other represents the building, namely the Qadaa’; anyone who seeks to separate them, in do doing so seeks to cause the downfall and demolition of the building. Some others differentiated between them and said that Al-Qadaa’ was one thing and Al-Qadar was another.

Thus the discussion continued on the issue of “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” as a specific entity, whether be it amongst those who treated them as separate or those who treated them as inseparable. Yet it had only one referent for all of them and irrespective of the interpretation of it, namely the act of the servant with regard to its creation: is it created by Allah or is it created by the servant or is it created by Allah at the same time the servant performs it? The discussion crystallized and focused on this referent and continued to according to the same precepts. After this discussion began, the issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar came to be classified as a Aqeedah topic. It was listed as a sixth issue of Aqeedah because it dealt with an issue pertaining to Allah, with regard to His creation of the acts and His creation of the attributes of things, whether the act or the attributes are good or evil.

It thus becomes evident that “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” considered as one term referring to one referent, or in their own words considered as “two concomitant matters” never existed in the discussions of the Muslims except after the emergence of the scholastics. It also becomes evident that there are only two viewpoints in this regard i.e concerning Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar : first, the one advocating the freedom of choice, which is the viewpoint of the Mu’tazilah, and second, the one advocating compulsion, which is the viewpoint of the Jabriyyah and Ahl-us-Sunnah, despite the difference between these last two in wording and the twisting of text. The Muslims settled on these two views and were diverted from the viewpoint of the Quran and the hadith and what the Sahaabah understood from these to a discussion in a new term i.e. “Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar” or “compulsion and the freedom of choice” or “the freedom of will”, and to a new referent i.e. : are the acts created by Allah and (happen) via His will or are they created by the servant and (happen) via his will, or are the attributes that man effects in things from the action of the servant and his will or are they from Allah Almighty? After the establishment of this discussion, the issue of Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar came to be included under the discussion of Aqeedah; it was made a sixth issue of aqeedah.
(To P75)
2.7 Guidance and Misguidance  p.94
Huda linguistically means rashad and dalala. It is said, he guided him to the deen, he is guided by a guidance, I showed him the way......... Dalal is the opposite of rashad. Hidaya, according to the Shari'a, is to be guided to Islam and to believe in it. And dalal, according to the Shari'a is the deviation from Islam. Pertaining to this is the saying of the Prophet (saw): 'Verily, Allah will not allow my Ummah to agree on a dalala.' Allah (swt) has kept the Janna (Paradise) for the muhtadeen (those who have hidaya) and the Nar (Fire) for the Daallin (those who are on dalal). In other words, Allah will reward the muhtadi (the one who has hidaya) and punish the daal (the one who is on dalal). Attaching the prospect of reward or punishment to huda and dalal indicates they (huda and dalal) belong to the actions of human beings and do not pertain to Allah. Since, if they were from Allah He would not have rewarded people for having hidaya and punished them for being on the dalal. Since when he punishes someone whom He has caused to go astray, He has done injustice to him. He is High, above such a thing, Exalted and Great. He (swt) said: 'And you Lord is not at all unjust to (His) slaves.'[41:46] He (swt) said:'And I am not unjust (to the least) to the slaves.'[50:29]

However, there are ayaats which suggest that hidaya and dalal are to be imputed to Allah (swt). So it is understood from them that hidaya and dalal do not emanate from the servant but are from Allah ta'ala. There are other verses which suggest that hidaya, dalal and idlal (causing someone to go astray) should be ascribed to the servant. From them it is understood that hidaya and dalal are from the servant. These, and other verses, should be understood in a legislative manner. In the sense that one comprehends the legislative reality for which it has been legislated. It appears, then, that the attribution of guidance and misguidance to Allah has a meaning other than the meaning of attributing guidance and misguidance to the servant. Each one is focused on an angle different from the angle on which the other is focused. In this manner the legislative meaning become most evident. Indeed, the verses which attribute misguidance and guidance to Allah are explicit in that it is Allah who guides and it is He Who causes someone to go astray. He (swt) said:'Say: "Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides unto Himself those who turn to Him in repentance.'[13:27] He (swt) said:'Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills, and guides who He wills.'[35:8] He (swt) said:'Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides who He wills.'[14:4] He (swt) said:'But He sends astray whom He wills and guides who He wills.'[16:93] He (swt) said:'And whomsoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islam, and whomsoever He willsto send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky.'[6:125] He (swt) said:'Allah sends astray whom He wills and He guides on the Straight Path whom He wills.'[6:39] He (swt) said:'Say: "It is Allah Who guides to the truth.'[10:35] He (swt) said:'And they will say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has guided us to this, never could we have found guidance, were it not that Allah guided us!'[7:43] He (swt) said:'He whom Allah guides, is rightly guided; buthe whom He sends astray, - for him you will not find no wali (guiding friend) to lead him (to the right Path).'[18:17] He (swt) said:'Verily! You (O Muhammad [saw]) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills.'[28:56] Thus, in these verses there is a clear indication that the one does the guiding and misguiding is Allah and not the servant. This means the servant does not find guidance by himslef, rather when Allah guides him he is guided. And when Allah sends him astray he goes astray. However, this wording has come with indications (qara'in) which divert the meaning from one of considering the initiation of guidance and misguidance is from Allah, to another meaning. Which is; that of considering the creation of guidance and misguidance as coming from Allah. The one who initiates guidance, misguidance and the sending of someone astray is the servant. As for these indications (qara'in) they are shari'a and rational indications. As for the Shari'a indications many ayahs have come attributing guidance, misguidance and idlal to the servant. He (swt) said:'So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he does so to his own loss.'[10:108] He (swt) said:'If you follow the right guidance no hurt can come to you from those who are in error.'[5:105] He (swt) said:'So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self.'[39:41] He (swt) said:'And it is they who are guided.'[2:157] He (swt) said:'And those who disbelieve will say: "Our Lord! Show us those among jinns and men who led us astray.'[41:29] He (swt) said:'Say: "If (even) I go astray, I shall stray only to my own loss.'[34:50] He (swt) said:'Then who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead mankind astray without knowledge.'[6:144] He (swt) said:'Our Lord! That they may lead men astray from Your Path.'[10:88] He (swt) said:'And none has brought us into error except the Mujrimun.'[26:99] He (swt) said:'As-Samiri has led them astray.'[20:85] He (swt) said:'Our Lord! These misled us.'[7:38] He (swt) said:'A party of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish to lead you astray. But they shall not lead astray anyone except themselves.'[3:69] He (swt) said:'If You leave them, they will mislead Your slaves.'[71:27] He (swt) said:'Whosoever follows him, he will mislead him to the torment of the Fire.'[22:4] He (swt) said:'But Shaytan wishes to lead them astray.'[4:60] So, in the wording (mantuq) of these verses there is a clear indication that the human being is the one who performs the act of guidance and misguidance, thus he sends himself astray and he sends others astray and the Shaytan also sends people astray. So guidance and misguidance has come to be attributed to the human and Shaytan and that the human being guides himself and sends himself astray. This is an indication (qarina) that the attribution of guidance and misguidance to Allah is not one of intiation (mubashara) but rather it is one of creation. If you place the ayahs together and you understood in a legislative manner, then the departure of each verse from the direction of the other becomes clear. Thus the ayah says:'Say: "It is Allah Who guides to the truth.'[10:35] and the other ayah says:'So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of his own self.'[10:108] The first indicates that Allah is the one who guides and the second verse indicates that man is the one who guides himself. The guidance of Allah in the first verse is one of creating the guidance in the humn being, ie creating the capacity for guidance. The second ayah indicates that the human beeing is the one who intiates what Allah has created in terms of the capacity for guidance and so he guides himself. That is why He (swt) says in the other ayah:'And (have We not) shown him the two ways (good and evil).'[90:10] ie the path of good and the path of evil ie We have given him the ability/capacity for guidance and We have left him to intiate his own guidance. So these ayahs which attribute guidance and misguidance to man are a shari'a indication (qarina shar'iyyah) showing that the intitiation of guidance should be diverted from Allah to the servant. As for the rational indication (qarinah 'aqliyyah), Allah (swt) takes people to account and so he rewards the one who is guided and punishes the misguided and He has preepared the reckoning according to the actions of human beings. He (swt) said:'Whosoever does righteous good deed it is for (the benefit of) his own self, and whosoever does evil, it is against his own self, and your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) slaves.'[41:46] He (swt) said:'So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it.'[99:7] He (swt) said:'Andhe who works deeds of righteousness, while he is a beliver, then he will have no fear of injustice, nor of any curtailment (of - his reward.'[20:112] He (swt) said:'Whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof.'[4:123] He (swt) said:'Allah has promised the hypocrites; men and women, and the disbelievers, the Fire of Hell, therein they shall abide.'[9:68] For if the meening of ascribing guidance and misguidance to Allah is that He (swt) initiates it, then His punishment of the kafir, munafiq and sinful is injustice. And Allah ...... Then we are obliged to divert/alter its meaning to something other than initiation, which is the creation of guidance from nothing. And harmony with this is maintanied if the one who initiates guidance and misguidance is the servant, and therfore he is accounted for it.

This is with respect to the ayahs in which guidance and misguiadnce is ascribed to Allah. As regards verses in which guidance and misguidance is linked to His wish (mashee'a):'Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills, and guides who He wills.'[35:8] The meaning of mashee'a here is irada (will). The meening of these verses is that no one guides himslef by force against Allah's wish and nor does he forcibly go astray against His wish. Rather the one who finds guidance is the one who guides himself by the wish and will of Allah and soemone goes astray when he goes astray by the wish and will of Allah.

Still remaining is the question of the ayaat fom which one understands that there are people who will never be guided. Such as His (swt) saying:'Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad [saw]) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering.'[2:6-7] And His (swt) saying:'Nay! But on their hearts is the Ran (covering of sins and evil deeds.'[83:14] He (swt) said:'And it was inspired to Nuh: "None of your people will believe except those who have believed already.'[11:36] These verses are a notification from Allah to His Prophets about specific people that they will not believe, so this comes under the Knowledge ('Ilm) of Allah. The notification does not mean there is a group which will believe and a group which will not believe. Rather, every human being has the capacity to aquire Iman. The Messenger and the da'wa carrier after him..mukhatib...inviting all the people to Iman. It is not allowed for the Muslim to despair about anyones iman. As for what has come before in the Knowledge of Allah that he will not believe. Allah (swt) knows it because His Knowledge encompasses everything. And what Allah (swt) has not informed us about what He knows, it is not allowed for us to pass judgement. The Prophets did not pass jusgement that someone will not believe except after Allah (saw) had informed them of this.

As for His (swt) saying:'And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqun (the rebellious and disobedient).'[5:108] And His (swt) saying:'And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (wrong-doers).'[3:86] And His (swt) saying: 'And Allah guides not the people who are Kafirun (disbelievers).'[2:264] And His (swt) saying:'If you (O Muhammad [saw]) covet for their guidance, then verily Allah guides not those whom He makes to go astray.'[16:37] And His (swt) saying:'Verily, Allah guides not one who is a Musrif (a polytheist, those who commit great sins), a liar!'[40:28] These verses mean that Allah did not grant them guidance since the granting of guidance comes from Allah. Becasue the fasiq, zalim, kafir, daal, musrif and kazzab, all of them are characterised by attributes which are not consistent with guidance and Allah will not give guidance to the one who has such an attribute. Because guidance is granted when the human being is ............Similar to this is His (swt) saying:'Guide us to the Straight Way.'[1:6] And His saying:'And guide us to the Right Way.'[38:22] ie grant us (guidance) so that we may be guided ie feciltate for us the causes of this guidance.
2.8 The termination of life-span (ajal) is the only cause of death    p99
Many people think that death, even though it takes place once, has more than one cause. They say the causes vary but death occurs once. They take the view that death can occur from a terminal/fatal illness such as pestilence/plague. And it may occur by the stabbing of a knife or being hit by a bullet or burned by fire or when some ones head is chopped off etc. For them these are all direct causes which lead to death. ie death occurs in consequence of them. That is why they proclaim these things are the causes of death. Accordingly, death occurs when these things take place, and it does not occur when they do not take place. So, in their view death has occurred due to the existence of these causes and not because their life-span (ajal) has been terminated even though with their tongues they say man dies due to his ajal. The causes of death are these things and not Allah (swt) even if their say with their mouths that Allah (swt) is the one who gives life and makes people to die.

The truth is that death is one and its cause is also one ; which is the termination of the ajal. And that it is Allah (swt) alone who causes death and the direct cause bringing about death is Allah (swt). That is because for something to be correctly considered as a cause, it must always produce an effect. And that the effect cannot be produced except by only its cause. This is contrary to the condition/circumstance (hala) which is a particular condition with concomitant circumstances under which something usually takes place. However it may also fail to transpire and not take place. For instance, life is the cause of movement in animals, when life exists within him them movement occurs from him. When life is absent the movement is absent as well. Also for example, energy is the cause of the motor being set in motion. When the energy is present the motor starts, without energy there is not motion. This is contrary to the rain in relation to the cultivation of crops. It is one of the conditions in which plants grow but it is not the cause. That is because rain allows crops to grow, but it may rain but there are no crops. Crops may grow due to just the moisture being retained by the land like the cultivation in the summer which grows without any rain. Similarly, plagues may exist and someone might be shot but death does not occur. And death may occur without any of these things under which death usually takes place being present.

The one follows the things in which death occurs, and the one who follows death itself can be sure of this from the reality. So he finds that these things - in which death normally occurs- are present but death does not occur. Or death might occur without the presence of any of these things. For example, a person might be fatally stabbed with a knife and all the doctors agree that it is fatal. Then the one stabbed does not die. On the contrary his wound heals and he gets better. Also death might occur without any apparent cause/reason, for instance if someones heart suddenly stops beating without the nature of the condition in which the heart stopped being clear to the doctors after a detailed investigation. Such incidents are many which are known to the doctors. Many a hospital in the world bears witness/testimony to thousands of such incidents. Something might happen which usually and definitely leads to death but then the person does not die. And death might occur suddenly without any cause leading to it being apparent. That is why all the doctors say:for so and so patient nothing can be done for him according to medical teaching, however he may get better but this is beyond our knowledge. Also they say so and so person is not under any risk and he will recover. He passes the danger period and then his situation deteriorates and he suddenly dies. All of these are realities witnessed and sensed by the people and doctors. They clearly indicate that these things from which death takes place are not causes of death. Since if they were the causes of death they would not fail (to cause death consistently) and death would not occur due to any other cause, ie death would not occur without a perceptable cause. By their mere failure to cause death even if it is once and by the mere occurance of death without these causes even if only once, indicates definitly that they are not causes of death but rather conditions/circumstances in which death occurs. The true cause of death which produces the effect is something else and not that.  It might be said: yes, these things which take place and in which death takes place are usually conditions/circumstances and not causes because they may fail to result in death. However, there are causes which are seen and sensed from which death definitly takes place and it does not fail to take place, so that is the cause of death. For example, cutting the neck and removing the head from it is definetly results in death, and without fail. When the heartbeat stops death defintely occurs, without fail. These and other such examples are in terms of parts of the human body, from which defintely occurs, are the cause of death. Yes, striking the neck is one of the conditions of death but not a cause of  death, and stabbing the heart with a knife is one of the conditions/circumstances of death but it is not the cause of death etc. But decapitation and the stopping of a heart beat is a cause of death. So why do we not say that this is the cause of death? The answer is that cutting the neck and removing the head from the body does not occur from the person. It does not occur from the neck itself or the head. It does not happen except by an external factor. It is then not right to say that severing the neck is a cause. Rather the thing that did the cutting is a suspected cause and not the cutting itself. Because the cutting did not occur from itslef but from an external factor. Similarly, the stopping of the haert beat did not occur from itslef but rather ther must have been an external factor. It is not correct therfore to say that the stoppoing of the heart beat is a cause, rather what caused the haert to stop is suspected of being the cause of death and not the stopping of the haert itself. Becauase death did not occur from itself but from an external factor. So it is not possible that decapitation and the stopping of the haert beat can themselves be suspected of being the cause of death. There is no suspected cause of death except the external factor.

Furthermore, Allah (swt) has created attributes in things. When the attribute is absent then its effect is gone. There will be no attribute without the presence of the object, which is part of its attributes. For example, Allah created in the eye the attrinute if sight, and in the ear the attribitue of hearing, and in nerves the attribute of sensation, and in fire the attribute of burning and in lemon the attribute of sourness and so on and so forth. This attrubute of an object is the natural result of its existence. It is similar to one of characteristics/features. For example water, one of its natural charateristics is liquidity and part of its attribute is that it quenches thirst. The motor, for example, one of its natural charateristics is motion and part of its attribute is heat. And the heart, one of its natural charateristics is palpitation and part of its attribute is life. So quenching thirst, heat and life are the natural charectaristics of the object though they are part of its attributes. The presence of an attribute in an object is not the cause of the action which is its effect. So the absence therefore of a attribute is not the cause of the absence of the action which is its effect. This is becasue the presence of the attribute of buring in fire is not sufficient to produce burning. So it cannot serve as a cause for burning since the presence of the attribute of burning in fire not a cause for bringing about burning. Therfore, absence of the attribute of burning in fire is not cause for the absence of burning. Likewise, the presence of the attrubute of life in the heart is not enough to produce life. It is not suitable as a cause for life. Since the presence of the attribute of life is not a cause for producing life. Then at that moment, the absence of the attribute of life from the heart is not the cause of the absence of life. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the disappearnce of an object is not the cause of the disapperance of its attributes. rather what is the cause of the diassapreace of the object's attribute is a thing that is external to the object itself. Which makes its attribute go and retains/keeps the object devoid of its attribute. Or it makes the object itself go/disappear and so it makes its attribute go/dispparer with it. So the thing that made the attribute disappre or the thing which madethe object disppaer and with it its attrubute. This is the cause of the diasppraence of the attribute and the object itself is not the cause for the disppareance of its attribute. Therefore, form thing angle also, ie the angle that life is an attribute of the presence of the head on the body and it is an attribute of the haert beat. It should not be said that removing the head from the neck is the caue of death and that the stopping of the haert beat is the cause of death. Rather the supected cause is what removed the attribute from the neck by removing it and from the heart by stopping it. It is not the cutting off of the neck or the stopping of the haert. Therefore, damaging a limb ie cutting the neck or stopping the heart beat is not the true cause of death. Because it is impossible for any damage to occur to the limb except by an extrnal factor. And because life is one of its attributes - ie the limb - it will not go except by an external factor which will remove it - ie the attribute - or it will remove the limb and with it its attribute. Similarly, the cause of death is not the external factor because it has been proven rationally and from the reality that the external factor may occur but death does not take place. Death may occur without this external factor taking place. The cause must invariabley produce the effect. Nothing remains to be said except that the true cause of death which definitly produces the  effect, which is death, is other than these things.

The mind is not able to be guided to this true cause because it cannot be sensed, therefore Allah (swt) must inform us of it and prove this knowledge about the real cause of death with an evidence which is definite in authenticity and meaning so that we can believe it. Because that is from the beliefs which are not proven except by the definite evidence. In numerous ayahs Allah (swt) has informed us that the cause of death is the termination/expiration of our life-span (ajal) and that it is Allah (swt) who causes death. So death occurs inevitabledue to the (termination) of ajal without fail. So the ajal is the cause of death. The one who causes death is Allah (swt). He is the one who actuates/initiates the act of death. This has been mentioned in numerous ayahs. He (swt) said:'And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term.'[3:145] ie he has decreed death for an temporary appointed time which is known which cannot be delayed or advanced. And He (swt) said:'It is Allah Who takes away the souls at the time of their death.'[39:42] ie He is the one who causes people's death when they die. And so He is the one who takes away the thing by which he has life. And He (swt) said:'My Lord (Allah) is He Who gives life causes death.' [2:258] ie He is the one who undertakes/initiates the creation and bringing about of life  and He is the one who undertakes/initiates the act and occurrence of death. He (swt) said:'It is Allah that gives life and causes death.'[3:156] And Allah (swt) has said this in response to the saying of those who disbelieved. The ayah states:'O you who believe! Be not like those who disbelieve (hypocrites) and who say to their brethren when they travel through the earth or go out to fight: "If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed," so that Allah may make it a cause of regret in their hearts. It is Allah that gives life and causes death. And Allah is All-Seer of what you do.' [3:156] ie the matter is in the hands of Allah. He might allow the traveller or ghazi (one who fights in Allah's path) to live but cause the one residing and sitting in his house to die as He (swt) wills. And He (swt) said:'Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high.'  [4:78] ie wherever you may be death will catch you even if you are in strong fortresses. And He (swt) said:'Say:"The angel of death, who is set over you, will take your souls". [32:11] This is in answer to the Kuffar. Allah (swt) is saying that they will return to their Lord, so He will make themto die when He sends the angel of death to take their ruh (secret of life). The ayah is: 'And they say: "When we are (dead and become) lost in the earth, shall we indeed be recreated anew?" Nay, but they deny the Meeting with their Lord! Say:"The angel of death, who is set over you, will take your souls, then you shall be brought to your Lord!" [32:10-11] ie take your ruh, so death takes place when the ruh (secret of life) is taken. And He (swt) said:'Say (to them): "Verily, the death from which you flee will surely meet you."[62:8] ie the death from which you flee and run away from. You do not have the courage to wish it fearing that you will have to face the evil consequences of your disbelief (kufr). You will not elude it but it will definitely meet you. And He (swt) said:'When their term (ajal) is reached, neither can they delay it nor can they advance it an hour.'[7:34] When the life-span which Allah has decreed comes to a stop, it cannot be delayed or advanced for an instant. He (swt) said 'hour' (saa'a)as being equal to a moment/instant. And He (swt) said:'And We have decreed death to you all.'[56:60] ie We have decreed death for you and divided the allocation of rizq (provision) between you in different and disparate measures as dictated by our Will (mashi'a). Yor ages difiired from being long, short or medium. These and other verses which are of definite meaning and text indicate a meaning which is open to only one meaning, which is that Allah is the one who actually gives life and death without the presence of any causes or effects, and that man does not die except when his life-span has been terminated and not due to the condition/circumstance in which is occurred, which he thinks is the cause of death. So the cause of death is the termination of life-span only and not the condition/circumstance in which death occurred. It should not be claimed that death should be attributed to Allah in terms of creation. As for its intiation, that is by human beings or the causes from which death resulted. Such as His (swt) saying:'And you (Muhammad [saw]) threw not when you did throw but Allah threw.'[8:17] And like His (swt) saying:'And whomsoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islam, and whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if he is climbing up to the sky.'[6:125] And His (swt) saying:'Verily, Allah sends astray whom He wills, and guides who He wills.'[35:8] That cannot be claimed, because there are indications (qara'in) which divert the initiation of action from Allah to the human being. Whcih makes the meaning to be that Allah craeted the throwing, opening of the breast to Islam, the cinstriction of the breast, guidance and misguidance. But the one who actually initiates that is not Allah but the human being. These indications are rational and textual. Because of His saying 'You threw' (ramayta) it measn that the throwing originated from the Messenger (saw) and because the punishment for going astray and reward for being guided by Islam indicates the presence of chioce on the part of the human being, who can choose Islam or kufr. Which indicates that the one who intiates action is the humaj being. If Allah (swt) was the initiator then He would not have rewrded or punihsed the human being. Also, it is sensedand comprehendded that the Messenger is the one who threw and it is the human beinmg who finds guidence by usuing his mind in a correct manner and it is the human being who goes astray by not using his mind or using it in an incorrect manner. This is contrary to death. There is not indication that the intiation of death comes from anyone other than Allah and that death occured wioith the termination of the ajal. It has been proven that there is no sensed cause for death and nor is there a text diverts the meanings of verses from their correct meaning. And there is not indication whcih showes that the initiator of death is something other than Allah. So the verses reamin on the meaning which was mentioned explicitly according to the indication of the Arabiclanguage and the Shari'a. Whcih is that the one who intiates death is Allah (swt).

From all of this it becomes clear that the rational evidence indicates the thing in which death usually occurs are circumstances and not causes. The true cause is something else and it cannot be sensed. It has been proven by the shari'a evidence that these things ifrom which death occurs, they are not what brings about death and nor are they cause of death. Decisive verses have shown that the cause of death is the termination of ajal. And the one who causes death is Allah subahanhu wa ta'ala.
2.9 Rizq is in the hands of Allah (swt) only
Rizq is not ownership (milkiyya) because rizq is a gift (‘ata). So the verb razaqa means to give (a’ta). As for ownership it means to possess something through any of the mediums permitted by the Shari’a in which to own property. The rizq can be halal (lawful) or haram (forbidden). All of it is termed as rizq. So the money won by a gambler from another in a gambling match is rizq. Since it is money that Allah (swt) gives to each person that pursues any of the situations in which money is obtained.

A view which prevails amongst people that they are the ones who provide for themselves. And they consider the circumstances in which they earn wealth - ie money or profit - as the cause of their provision (rizq) even if they say by their tongues that the razzaq (one who gives sustenance) is Allah (swt). They see the employee who takes home a certain wage through his hard work and effort that he is the one who provides for himself. And when he exerts every effort or tries through various means to supplement his wage, they see that he was the one who procured this raise/increase. And the businessman who makes profit as a result of his business endeavours, they see that he is the one who provided his own sustenance. And the doctor who treats the ill is making his own living. In this manner, they see that each person pursues an occupation from which he earns money. He is the one who provides for himself. So the causes of provision, for those people are perceptible and tangible, which are the circumstances which lead to the procurement of money.

The person who commits himself to these circumstances, he is the one who will earn this money whether he himself or someone else received the provision. People have come to hold this view because they do not grasp the reality of the conditions from which their provision come. They take them to be the cause because of their inability to differentiate between the cause and the condition. The fact is that these circumstances from which the provision comes, are actually conditions in which the rizq is obtained and not a cause of rizq. If they were the true causes of rizq then they should not fail at all in producing that rizq, but it can clearly be seen that they do fail. These conditions may well exist but (we see) no provision comes out of it, and rizq may be obtained without such conditions existing at all. If they were the cause then the result (ie the rizq) would have been definitely inevitable. Since, the rizq is not an inevitable result; it only comes when the condition exists or the rizq might fail to materialise despite their existence. This indicates that they are not the causes but only the conditions under which the rizq is obtained. An employee might work for a whole month but he is prevented from his (expected) income due to settling a previous debt, or spending money on those whose maintenance he is obliged to provide, or by paying taxes. In such a situation, the circumstance which brings the provision (ie the employee’s work), the rizq was not obtained since he did not get his wages. (On the other hand), there might be someone in his house in al-Quds, to whom the postman brings the news that so and so relative of his in America has died, leaving him as the sole inheritor, and that all of his wealth will pass into his hands. So he should gain possession of it himself or through a recognised agent. This rizq came to him and he did not even know it was coming. Or a side of his house might collapse and he finds money hidden there, so he takes it. If the circumstances, which derive from human beings, are indeed the cause of rizq then they would not fail. And no rizq would be produced except when these circumstances are present. It is quite apparent that they do fail, which indicates that they are conditions and not causes of rizq. The number of incidents, in which rizq has been obtained without any apparent cause, are innumerable. ......... Which indicates that the circumstances in which rizq is obtained are, as a rule, conditions of rizq and not its causes.

Furthermore, it is not possible to consider the conditions (halaat), in which the rizq comes (when these conditions are present), as causes of rizq. And nor is it possible to consider the person who engages in these conditions as being the medium by which the rizq was brought. Since that contradicts the text of the Qur’an which is definite in meaning  and authenticity. When anything contradicts a text which is definite in meaning and authenticity, one is duty bound to adopt the definite text without any hesitation whatsoever. And all other opinions are rejected except the one (correct) opinion. Since anything that is proven from a define evidence, it comes from Allah (swt) and one is obliged to adopt it and reject the others. Therefore, the truth to which the Muslim should submit is that the rizq is from Allah and not from human beings.

There are many ayahs which clearly show (and they are not open to interpretation) that rizq is from Allah (swt) only and not from human beings. This is what makes us absolutely certain that what we see from the styles and means by which the rizq comes, that they are only conditions which occur so that the rizq may come. Thus, Allah (swt) says:’And eat of the things which Allah has provided for you.’ [5:88]’Who created you, then provided food for you.’[30:40] ‘Spend of that which Allah has provided you.’[36:47] ‘Verily Allah provides sustenance to whom He wills.’[3:37] ‘Allah provides for it and for you.’   [29:60]‘Surely, Allah will provide for them.’[22:58] ‘Allah increases the provision for whom He wills.’ [13:26] ‘So seek your provision from Allah (Alone).’[29:17] ‘And no (moving) living creature is there on earth but its provision in due from Allah.’[11:6] ‘Verily, Allah is the All-Provider (al-Razzaq).’[51:58] These and other such ayahs are many. They are definite in meaning and authenticity, having only one possible meaning and not open to any interpretation. Which is that the rizq is only from Allah who is the Razzaq (the one who provides sustenance). So the rizq is only in the hands of Allah.

However, Allah (swt) has ordered His servants to undertake actions and they have been given the ability to choose to pursue the conditions in which the rizq comes. They are the ones who should pursue, in accordance with their choice, all of the conditions in which the rizq comes. However, these conditions are not the cause of rizq. And nor are the servants the ones who bring forth this rizq, as clearly stated in the text of the ayaats. Rather, Allah is the one who gives them their provision in these conditions irrespective of whether the rizq was halal or haram. And irrespective whether Allah has obliged, forbade or permitted it. And regardless of whether the rizq was obtained or not. Except that Islam has clarified the manner in which it is allowed or not allowed for the Muslim to pursue the condition in which the rizq is obtained. Thus, it clarified the means of ownership and not the causes of rizq, and restricted ownership to these means. It is no permitted for any Muslim to possess any provisions except through a legal means. Since it is the lawful rizq and anything else is haram even though the rizq - whether halal or haram - is from Allah (swt).

One issue still remains (unanswered) : Is the provision of a person everything that he owns even if he has not made use of it? Or is his provision that which he has only made use of? The answer is that the ayahs of the Qur’an suggest that the provision of human beings consist of everything he owns whether he has derived benefit from them or not. Allah (swt) said:’That they may mention the Name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He has given them for food.’ [22:34]‘Allah increases the provision for whom He wills.’ [13:26] ‘Eat of the lawful things that We have provided you.’[2:172] ‘But feed and clothe them therewith.’[4:5]‘And provide its people with fruits.’[2:126] ‘Eat and drink of that which Allah has provided.’[2:60] These verses are clear in their use of the noun ‘rizq’ for everything that a person owns. It is, of course, applied to anything from which benefit is derived. The rizq has not been specified to that which is only made use of........ Because the ayahs are general and their indications are general. It should not be said when someone takes your money from you, whether through stealing, forced appropriation or embezzlement, that he has taken your rizq from you. Rather one should say ; he took his rizq from you. So when a human being comes to possess wealth, he has taken his rizq. When the wealth is taken from him, he has not taken his rizq. rather the one who possess the wealth has taken his rizq from him. No one takes the rizq of someone else, rather the person takes his own rizq from someone else.
2.10 The Attributes (sifat) of Allah   p.112
Before the emergence of the mutakallimin the question of Allah's attributes was not known. It did not instigate any studies. The expression 'attributes of Allah' (sifat Allah) is not mentioned in the Qur'an and nor in the sacred Sunnah. It is not known that any of the Sahaba had mentioned or discussed the term 'attributes of Allah'. Everything mentioned in the Qur'an which the mutakallimin say is the 'attributes of Allah' must be understood in the light of His (swt) saying :

'Glorified be your Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him!'[37:180]

And His saying:

'There is nothing like unto Him'[42:11]

And His saying:

'No vision can grasp Him' [6:103]

Then, the description is taken only from the Qur'an and as it is mentioned in the Qur'an. Thsu,  kwnoeldge ('ilm) is taken from........... His (swt) saying:

'And with Him are the keys of the ghayb (unseen), none knows them but He. And He knows whatever there is in the earth and in the sea;not a leaf falls, but He knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record'  [6:59]

And life (hayat)  is taken from......His saying:

'Allah! None has the right to be worshipped except He, the Ever living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists'[2:255]

 'He is the Ever Living, none has the right to be worshipped except He'.[40:65] And power (qudra) is taken from.......His saying:'Say:"He has power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in party strife"' [6:65]

'See they not that Allah, Who created the heavens and the aerth, is Able to create the like of them.'  [17:99]

The attribute of hearing (sam') is taken from......His saying:

'Truly, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knowing.'[2:181]

And seeing (basar) is taken.....from His saying:'And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower'[3:121]

 'And verily, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Seer' [22:61]

'He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer'[40:20]

And the attribute of speach (kalam) is taken from....His saying:

'And to Musa Allah spoke directly'[4:164]

'And when Musa came at the time and place appointed by Us, his Lord spoke to Him.'[7:143]

 And the devine Will (irada) is taken from.... His saying:

'He does what He intends'[85:16]

'Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it,"Be! - and it is!' [36:82]

'But Allah does what He likes'[2:253]

And the attribute of creation (khalq) is taken from....His saying:

'Allah, is the Creator of all things'[39:62]

'He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurements' [25:2]

These attributes havebeen mentioned in the Noble Qur'an just as other attributes like devine Unity (wahdaniyya) and Eternal Pre-existence (qidam) have been mentioned. There was no difference between the Muslims that Allah is One, Eternal, Living, Able and taht He Hears, Sees, Speaks, Knowing and excersiing Devine Will.

When the philosophers came and thoughts of philosophy infiltrated the Muslims. The disfferences between Mutakallimin about the attributes of Allah crept in. So, the Mu'tazila said: The Essence (dhat) of Allah and His attribuites are the same thing. Thus, Allah is Living, Knowledgable and Able/Powerful in His Essence. He does not have Knowledge, Power, Life external to His Essence. Because, if Allah was Knwoldgable due to a knowledge external to His Essence, andLiving due to life that is external to His Essence as is the case with human beings. Then, this inevitable/definietly necessiates that there is a description (sifa) and one described (mawsuf), a hamil and mahmul, and this is the state/condition of (corporeal) objets/bodies. And Allah is free of all such corporealist anthroporphomism/anthropohormic corporealism (jasmiyya). If we say the attribute exists by itself then there will be more than one Eternal Pre-Existent Being, in other words there will be more than one god. The Ahl al-Sunnah said:'Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala has eternal attributes which exixt in His Essence. They (the attributes) are:' neither He but not other than He'( la huwa wala gharuhu). As for Him having attributes. This is due to the fact that it has been proven that He is knowledgable, living, able etc. It is known that knowledge, life and power etc in their entriety, indicate an external meaning to the concept of Absolute Being (Wajib al-wujud). Not all the words are synonymous in meaning.It cannot be as the Mu'tazila say that He is Knowledgable ('lim) without knowledge ('ilm) and Able (qadir) without power (quwwa) etc. This is obviously impossible/obsurd, on the level of us/on par with us saying that a thing is black without any blackness.The texts have stated the evidenve for His Knowledge, Ability etc. The issuance of exact and precise actions indicate the presence of His Klnowledge and Power and not just a mere designation of knowledgable and powerful. As for His attributed being eternal. This is due to the impossibility of new entites (haadith) subsisting/existing in His Essence. Since, it is inconceivable that a new entity (haadith) would exist in the Pre-Existent and Eternal Being (al-Qadim al-Azali). As for the attributes existing inHis (swt) Essence. That is becaue it is from th neccesary things required for existence. Because there is no meaning to describing the attribute of a thing except if it (the attribute) exists in the thing. As for the attributes being 'neither He or otherthan He'. The attributes of Allah are not the Essence itself. Because the mind dictates that the description/attribute is other than the thing described. It is a meaning external to the Essence. Because it is an attribute of Allah and not other than Allah.Since it is not a thing, essence or substance ('ayn) but only a description of the Essence. Though it is not the Essence of Allah, it is not other than Allah. Rather it is an attribute of Allah. As for the view of the Mu'tazila; if every attribute was made to exsit by itslef then there would be more than one Pre-existent Being. This would have ben the case if the attribute was an Essence. As for when it is a description of the Essence, the description of the Essence by such an attribute does not necettate that there is a plurality of essences. Rather it necessatates that there are more than one description of the One Essence. That does not negate Allah's Oneness (wahdaniyyah) or mean a plurality of gods. In this manner the Ahl al-Sunnah proved rationally that Allah has attributes which are other than His Essence but not other than He. Beacuse the description is other than the thing described but not detached from the thing described. Then they explained the meaning of each of these eternal attributes. Thus, they said the attribute of Knowledge ('ilm) is the eternal attribute which reveals the known things (ma'lumaaat) that relates to it and the attribute of Ability (qudra) is an eternal attribute which effects the things decreed (maqduraat). And Life (hayah)is an eternal attribute which necettates the sihhat of living.  And  Ability (qudra) is power (quwwah). And Sam' (hearing) is an eternal attribute that relates to things that are heard (masmu'aat). And seeing/sight (basar) is an eternal attribute relating to the seen things (mubsirat). Through them he has a complete understanding, not one that is by way of imagination or delusion or by way of being effcted by sensation/feeling or arriving at a whim. The 'wish' (irada) and 'will' (desire) are both expressions of the attribute of life................. And speach (kalam) is an eternal attribute which is expressed by the composition called the Qur'an. Allah (swt) speaks with words, it is one of His eternal attributes and not from the catagory/class of letters and sounds. It is an attribute which negates silence and aafa. Allah (swt) speaks with them. He oreders, forbids, informs, and nayone who oerders, forbids and informs......

In this manner the Ahl al-Sunnah explained what the attributes meant after proving that Allah has eternal attributes. However, the Mu'tazila denied that these meanings are for the attributes of Allah. Since they rejected that Allah has attributes external to His Essence. They said; since it is proven that Allah is Able, Knowldgable and All-incompassing and that the Essence of Allah and His attributes are not effected by change, because changeis the attribute of new/created things, and Allah is free of that. And since something is present and it was non-existent before and it will be nonexistent after being present. And the Ability and Will of Allah undertook that. They created something which did not exixt previously and they made it non-exixtant after it had existed. So how can the Devine and Eternal Ability be linked to the created thing, that it (the devine ability) should create it? .........So for the qudra to initiate a thing which previously it did not intitiate constitues change in the qudra. It has been proven  that Allah is not effected by change, undoubtedly this is the state of the Preexistent Being (al-qadeem al-azali) Similarly the view regrding the Will (iradah), the same is said for the attribute of Knowldege ('lm). Knowledge is the revealing of the known matter (ma'lum) as it is. The known matter changes from one time to another. .........

Thus, the polemics between the scholastic Mu'tazila on one side and the people of Sunnah on the other flared up regarding the attributes of Allah, just as it flared up in other issues such as Qada and Qadar. What is strange that the points of disagreement provoked by the mutakallimun, are the same points provoked by the Greek philosophers before. Thus, the Greek philosphers had instigated/generated these points in relation to the attributes of the Creator. Then the Mu'tazila came and responded to them. But the response was within the limits of their belief in Allah and within the limits of their views on Tawheed (Oneness of Allah). The Ahl al-Sunnah opposed them to decrease their rushing/running behind the Geek pholisophers and the specultive asumptions and issues of logic reached by them. But they fell in the same trap the Mu'tazila had fallen in. So they responded on the same level. which is that the mind was made a basis for discussion and dialectices in matters comprehended or not comprehended by him, and in matters sensed or not sensed by human beings. They made verses of the Qur'and hadiths to support their views. And they explained away verses and hadith which contradicted their opinions. Thus, all the mutakallimun from the Mu'tazila, Ahl al-Sunnah and others came to be on the same level in making the mind the basis. na dmaking the ayaat of Allah to support what their minds had lead to or interpret away so that they are understood according to what the mind of the one comprehending has lead to.

It apprears that what led the mutakallimun to tread this path in study are two factors; Frist, they did not know the definition of the mind. Second, they did not distuguish between the mothdology of the Qur'an in the comprehension of facts/truths and themethodology of the philsophers in comprehending the facts/truths. As for the issue of them not comprehending the definition of the mind. It is obvious from their own definition of ration. It has been reported about them that they used to say:'Ration is the power/faculty of the soel and comprehension'. Which according to them means 'an instinct which is follewd by knowledge of daruriyyat (things known by necessity) when the senses are sound'. Or they say:the mind is the essence with which the unseen things are comprehended using wasait and perceptible things by seeing'. Ir they say:'the mind is the soel itself.' If someones understanding of the mind is such, then it is not strange for him to give himself a free reighn in these matters.So he arranged, theoretically, various issues and came out with a result that did not exist. And he says of himslef that came to comprehend this result with his mind'. Consequently, the rational investigation/study for them did not have a limit at which it stopped. They can dive into any study/investigation and arrive at results they and they called this a rational study and rational results. Therefore, it is not strange that the Mu'tazila should say: that connecting the eternal ability of Allah with the decreed/existing (maqdur) created incident (haadith) makes the attribute of qudra (ability) created (haaditha). That considered that to be a rational investigation and result.....And the Ahl as-Sunnah say at the same time that connecting the ability of Allah with the decreed/existing thing (maqdur) does not make the qudra (ability) change and nor does it make it a created thing. Because what makes the qudra created is change in the qudra and not the change in the decreed thing. And they considered that to be a rational investigation and a rational result.....because the mind according, to most, was the soel or an instinct followed by knoiwledge of things known by necessity (daruriyyat). Therefore the mind investigated everything. If they truly understood the meaning of the mind they would not have got involved in these suppositional investigations and results which are known not to exist. They were just things from which other things followed/resulted and they called these rational truths/facts.

And now, in this age the meaning of the mind is clear to us. We realise that as long as the things which are necessary for the mind to study/investiage are not availabe then we cannot call it a rational discussion. And it is not allowed to permit ourselves to ....... We know that the mind is 'the transmission of the reality via the senses to the brain with previous information which explains this reality'. Every rationl discussion must have four things first, a brain, second a senses, third reality and fourth previous information relating to this reality. If one of these four things is lost, there can be no rational discussion at all. Eventhough it is possible to have a discussion based on logic and it is possible for there to be imagination and supposition. None of this has any value, because it does not come under the comprehension of the mind or the mind's comprhension of its source. So the mutakallimin's lack of understanding of the meaning of the mind made them give themseves a free reighn in many discussions which cannot be sensed or they did not have any previous information relating to them.

As for the Mutakallimin not distuinguishinf between the method of the Qur'an from the method of the philosophers in the rational discussion. This is becausen the Qur'an discussed theology and the philosophers discussed theology. As for the theological discussion of the philoshopers, it is that the philosphers looked into the Absolute Being (al-wujud al-mutlaq) and whatever was necessary for its Essence. They did not study the universe but what was beyond the universe. They began to arrange proofs with their logical premises and from these proofs they arrived at results. Then they derived other results from these results. They proccede in this manner until they arrived at what they considered to be the truth of this Essence and the requirements of these Essence. All of them. despite arriveing at diferent results, in their study they followed one method which is the doscussion of the supernatural, establishing proofs resulting in pseculative assumptions or other proofs and arrivng at results they considered definite and belived.

This method of study contradicts the method of the Qur'an because the Qur'an discusses the universe itself, in respect to existents (mawjudat): the earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, human being, riding animals, camels, mountains and other such percieved things. From which the listener arrives at understanding the creator of the universe, creator of exixtents and creator of the sun, camel, mointains, humankind etc through his comprehension of these exitent things. When the Qur'an discusses the supernatural which cannot be senseand cannot be comprehend by comprehending the existent things it decribes a reality and ditermines a fact and orders that it be belived as a definite matter without drwing the attention of human beings to undetrstand it or drawing  their attention to something from which they should comprehend it. And that is  like the attributes of Allah, like the Paradise (jannah), Hellfire (nar), Jinns, shaytans etc. And this is the method understood and followed by the Sahabh who advanced into lands carrying the message of Islam to the people in oredr to bless hem with it as they have been blessed by this message. The situation remained like this until the elpse of the first century. And pholosophic thouhts from Greek philosophy and other philosophies seeped through and the mutakallimun came to exist. And the method of rational study/investigation became altered and the polemics over the Essence of Allah and the attrubutes of Allah began. Far from being a deep discussio it is not even considered a rational discussion at all because it is the study of a thing that cannot be sensed. And anything that cannot be sensed, it is outside the scope of the mind to study it in any way whatsoever. Since the disuiion in the attributes of Allah is whether it is the Essence itself or other than the Essence, it is a stud of the Essence and the study of the Essnce is prohibited in origin and impossible to do. That is why the study of all of the mutakallimun is misplaced and purely mistaken. The attributes of Allah is tawqreefiyya (fixed bythe Lawgiver). Whatever has been mentioned in th definite texts we have mentioned it according to the extent mentioned in the definte texts and not in anything else. It is nopt allowed to add an attribute which has not been mentioned and we should not try to expalin an attribute with anything other than waht has been mentioned in the definite text.
2.11 The Muslim Philosophers   p.121
When philosophic issues relating to theology infiltrated the minds of the Muslims, certain scholars like al-Hasan al-Basri, Ghaylan al-Dimashqi and Jahm b. Safwan during the end of the Ummayad reign and the beginning of Abbasid rule, began to deal with/address some miscellaneous scholastic/theological issues. Then, after them came Ulama who were acquainted with Aristotelian logic and familiarised themselves with some of the books of philosophy after they had been translated. The study/investigation of scholastic/theological issues expanded and they began to study the science known as Kalam. Such as Wasil b. 'Ata, 'Amr b. 'Ubayd, Abu Hudhayl al-'Allaf and al-Nazzam. However, the studies of those people were not complete philosophical studies but the expanding study of philosophical thoughts until they became well-versed with different views in philosophy, and that of the view of eachgroup of philosophers in some issues by pursuing them and not all issues. In addition to confining themselves to some philosophical studies they restricted themselves to their belief in the Qur'an. That is why they did not leave the fold of Islam, ratherthey expanded in reasoning, and they gave themselves free reign in the proofs, but only to establish that which will strengthen iman and a desire to eliminate anthropomorphic elements from the belief in Allah. As a result, no deviation occurred in the beliefs despite their deferent dogmas/ views. So all of them were Muslims who were defending Islam.

Then after the mutakallimun came individuals who did not reach to the stage of becoming groups and mazhabs, and none of the Muslims followed them on mass even though individuals preferred their studies. They are the ones who came after the mutakallimun in an age existing amongst Muslims in the Muslims countries, they are the Muslim philosophers. It seems that what allowed them to exist amongst Muslims is that conversance/knowledge of philosophical thoughts and the books of philosophy which made these studies attractive to the people in that age. It seems what allowed these people to exist amongst the Muslims is that in that age the study/acquaintance with the philosophical thoughts and books of philosophy, that these studies became endeared to the people. So some persons took on the responsibility of widening the study of such thoughts. Thus, they studied these thoughts in a deep and extensive way, a study that was comprehensive and unrestricted in everything and every thought. He followed every line (of thought) in its entirety. He digested/absorbed an appropriate amount of philosophy to qualify him to think philosophically and produce philosophical output.  It was due to these deep and extensive studies in philosophy, especially a specific type/brand of Greek philosophy that led to the presence of philosophers amongst Muslim. The first Muslim philosopher whose presence was known was Ya'qub al-Kindi (d.260). Thenthe Muslim philosophers emerged one after another. Thus, the philosophers did not emerge except after the presence of the mutakallimun, and after the methodology of those philosophers had become prevalent, and it was the subject of study, debate and polemics. In the eyes of many mutakallimun and Ulama philosophy became intolerable (kabura). Before that, there were no philosophers amongst Muslims. Hence, there were mutakallamin and philosophers amongst the Ulama in the Muslim lands. However, there is a difference between mutakallimun and the philosophers. The mutakallimun were well versed with some philosophical thoughts. As for the philosophers, they were scholars of philosophy. That is why the philosophers used to look upon the mutakalimun as ignorant. The philosophers thought the mutakallimun were people of sophistry and polemics. And they, ie the philosophers, were the one who rationally studied, in the logical issues, the sound philosophical research.

All the mutakallimun and philosophers studied theology, although there is a difference between the method of the mutakallimun and that of the philosophers. The difference can be summarised as follows;

1. The mutakallimun had conviction in the principles of iman and they acknowledged their correctness and believed in them. Then they used their rational evidences to prove them. So they proved them rationally with logical proofs. They used the rational study/investigation through the style/medium of logic as a means to prove their beliefs. Because they already believe in the basic principles of Islam and they came to from arguments and proofs to establish what they believed in.

2. The studies of the mutakallimun were restricted to issues relating to the defence of their creed and refutation of the arguments of their opponents whether they were Muslims - but they disagreed with them in understanding from the Mu'tazila, murji'a, Shi'a, khawarij and others - or whether they were non-muslims such as the Christians, Jews, Magians and others. Even though the most prominent thing in their discussions was for the purpose of responding to the Muslims amongst the mutakallimun and philosophers.

3. The studies of the mutakallimun were Islamic and they, despite their differences and contradiction, are considered as Islamic opinions. Any Muslim who is convinced of one of its opinions is considered to have had conviction in an Islamic opinion. And whatever he was convinced of was considered as the Islamic creed.

This is the methodology of the mutakallimun and this is how it is considered. As for the methodology of the philosophers, it can be summarised as follows:

1. The philosophers studied the issues for their sake. Their method of study and its pillar is the study of issues as indicated by the demonstrable proof (burhan). And their view of theology was the view concerning the Absolute Being (al-wujud al-mutlaq)and whatever its essence necessitated. They begin their theory/philosophical speculation ...... proceeding step by step until they arrive at the result whatever it may be and have conviction in it. This is the aim and support of philosophy. Their discussions are purely philosophical having no relationship to Islam in terms of the discussion even though one may witness that it has a connection to some subjects. They would frequently admit textual things in their discussions for which a rational proof cannot be established for it correctness or invalidity. Such as the resurrection (ba'th wa nushur) and bodily ma'ad. And often they would ......certain opinions of Greek philosophy, effected by their Islamic aqeeda and issuing the judgment on the question on its basis. And often they would attempt to reconcile certain issues of philosophy with Islamic issues, however this was an addition to, and a result of, them being Muslims effected by Islam. But it was not an intellectual effect which he made as the basis/postulate, as was the case with the mutakallimun. Rather, the effect is akin to a great extent to the effect of Christianity on the Christian philosophers, and the effect of Judaism on the Jewish philosophers, in respect that deep rooted concepts........must continue to reamin duering the study or had some effect on it. As for the basis/postulate on whch they proceeded, it is around the Absolute Being (al-wujud al-mutlaq) and what it necessetated for its Essence. Their true influence was Greek philsopy. Their mentality had become formed according to Greek philosophy. So they wrote about the thoughts of pholosopy after gaining maturyty in the Greek philosophy. There was no relationship between Islam and their pholoshophy.

2. The Muslim philosophers did not stand in defence of Islam. They only stood to determine facts and furnish proofs for them. And nor did they enetre into reporting opposing views and refuting them in Islam's defence eventough it may have been influencedby Islam. Therefus, the rational discuyssion is the basis, it is the subject matter, and nothing else is present in theiur discussions.

3. The studies of the Muslim philosophers are non-islamic studies. Rather they are purely philosophical discussions and have no relationship to Islam. It has no place for Islam in its discussion. They are not considered islamic opinions and they rae not part of the Ilsmaic culture.

Thsi is the diffrence betwen the methodology of the miutakallimun and the methododlogy of the muslim philosphers. And this is the reality of the muslim philosophers. It is injustice, contradiction of the reality and fabrication of Islam to call the philsophy that the likes of al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and others from the Muslim philosophers were preoccupied with/practised, as Islamic philosophy. Since it has no connection to Islam, rather it totally contradicts Islam whether in terms of the basis or in terms of many of its details.  As for the contradiction it terms of the basis, this philosophy discusses that which is beyond the universe/creation, ie regarding the absolute existence (al-wujud al-mutlaq) which is contrary to Islam which discusses what is in the univeres and things that can be sensed only. It prohibits discussion about the essence of Allah and that which is beyond the universe. It oreders the Muslim to submit to it totally and stop at the limit of what iman enjions without giong further and without allowing the mind to attempt to discuss it. As for the details, there are many discussions in this philosophy which Islam considers as disbelief (kufr). Ther are discussions which hold the world to be eternally pre-existent (qadm al-'alam) and that it is eternal (azali).And there arediscussions which assert that the delight/pleasure of Paradise is  spiritual and not corporeal. And discussions which maintin that Allah is ignorant of detailed aspects (juz'iyyat). And other such notions which are definitely manifets kufr in the eyes of Islam.

How can it be claimed that this philosophy is Islamic given this claer contradiction ? In adition to the fact that there is abolutely no philosophy in Islam because it restricts the rational discussion to the sensibal objects and prohibits the mind from discussing that which is beyond the universe, which makes al its discussions remote from philosophy, follwing a method diffrent to it. There is no possiblity given in it that there should be any philsophic studies. That is why there is nothing called Islamic philosophy. In ISlam there is the study of the Qur'an and the prophetic sunnah. They are the only basis of Islam in terms of the aqeeda and rules, whther in terms of an order, prohibition or notification.
2.12 The Prophets (ambiya) and Messengers (rusul)
‘Prophet’ (nabi) and ‘Messenger’ (rasul) are two contrastive terms but they share in the respect that that a shari’a is revelaed to both of them.
2.13 The Infallibility of the Prophets
When it is said that the Islamic ‘aqeeda consists of the belief in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgement and qadha wa qadar, the good and bad of which is from Allah (swt). This does not mean that there are other things which one is not obligated to believe in. Rather, it means that this is the basis. There are other thoughts which relate to the ‘aqeeda, such as the infallibility of the Prophets which comes under the belief in the prophets. The evidence of the infallibility of the Prophets is a rational evidence (daleel ‘aqli) and not a textual evidence (daleel sam’i) because the proof of the prophethood of  a prophet and the message of the messenger to whom he has been sent is rational, established by a perceptible miracle.
2.14 The Revelation  p133
It is not allowed on the part of the Messenger (saw) that he be a mujtahid  p.138
The opinion that our master Muhammad (saw) made ijtihad in certain rules and he made an error in his ijtihad which Allah (saw) then corrected means that sayyidina Muhammad (saw) conveyed the Shari'a to people from his ijtihad and not revelation. And thathe is not ma'sum (protected from error) in some of what he conveyed to the people from the Shari'a of Islam. All of this is invalid (batil) by ration and the shari'a. Indeed our master Muhammad (saw) is a Prophet (nabiy) and a Messenger (rasul)  like the rest of the Prophets and Messengers, protected from committing mistakes in that which he conveyed about Allah (swt), which is a definite protection indicated by therational evidence (daleel 'aqli). Furthermore, there are shari'a evidences that are definite in their meaning that the Prophet's (saw) conveyance of the Message (risala), in aspects general and specific, was only from revelation. And the Messenger (saw) did not convey the ahkam except from revelation. He (swt) said in Sura al-Ambiya:

Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I warn you only by the revelation '[21:45]

ie tell them O Muhammad that I warn you with the revelation that has been revealed to me. In other words my admonition/warning to you is restricted to the revelation. And He (swt) said in sura al-Najm :

'Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is only an revelation that is inspired'. [53:3]

The expression 'ma yantiqu' is from the general form (sighat al-'umum). So it includes the Qur'an and Sunnah. There is nothing in the Book and Sunnah that makes it specific to the Qur'an. So it remains general ie everything he has pronounced from the shari'a is a revelation that has been revealed. It is not correct thatit be specified to say that what he pronounced is only from the Qur'an. Rather, it should remain general and inclusive of the Qur'an and the hadith.

As for its specification to what he has conveyed about Allah in terms of legislation, and other rules, beliefs, thoughts and stories/narratives and its non inclusion of styles and means and affairs of the world such as the actions/issues of agriculture/cultivation, industry and sciences etc. This specification has occurred due to two things : First, other texts have come and specified it to legislation. He Messenger (saw) said regarding the subject of pollinating the date palm :'You are more knowledgeable in the affairs of your dunya'. And he (saw) told the Muslims in the battle of Badr when they asked him: Is this revelation from Allah or is it a question of opinion, war and strategy? He replied : it is a question of opinion, war and strategy. These texts have specified the revelation to things that are other than the affairs of the world and whatever is by way of war, opinion and strategy. As for the second thing which has specified revelation to legislation, beliefs and rules etc. It is clear from the topic of discussion. That is because he is a messenger and the discussion is with what he has been sent sent with and not anything else. So it is the subject of discussion that has been specified, and the sighat al-'umum remains general, however only in respect to the subject for which the generality came and it does not bring together all subjects. Yes, the consideration is for the generality of the wording and not for the specificity of the cause (sabab) (al-'ibra bi 'umum al-lafz la bi khusus al-sabab). However what is meant by the cause/reason (sabab)is the incident for which reason the Qur'an was revealed.  The topic is not specific to it rather it is general to all the incidents, however in only in the subject of discussion and not in all subjects. The subject matter of revelation is the warning (indhar) ie legislation and rules. He (swt) said:

'Say:"I warn you only by the revelation"'.[21:45]

And He (swt) said in sura Sad:

'Only this has been inspired to me, that I am a plain warner'.[38:70].

These verses show that what was intended was what he brought of the beliefs and rules and anything he has been ordered to convey and warn people of. That is why it does not include the means and styles or the actions of his natural disposition, which is how human beings have been moulded/fashioned ie fromthe nature of the way in which he has been created. Such as his manner of walking, pronunciation, eating etc..they are distinguished by what relates to beliefs and shari'a rules and not the means and styles and other things of such nature which do not come under beliefs and rules. Therefore, whatever the Messenger (saw) brought, regarding what he has been ordered to convey in all matters that relate to the actions of the servants and thoughts, is a revelation from Allah (swt).

The revelation includes the sayings, actions and silence of the Messenger (saw). Because we have been ordered to follow him. And He (swt) said:

'Whatsoever the Messenger [saw] gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from it'.[59:7]

And He (swt) said:

'Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (saw) you have a good example'. [ 33:21].

Thus, the speech, action and silence of the Messenger (saw) is a shari'a evidence. They are all revelation from Allah (swt).

The Messenger of Allah our master Muhammad (saw) used to receive revelation and convey what he brought from Allah (swt), and resolve matters according to the revelation and did not deviate from/go beyond the revelation. He (swt) said in sura al-Ahqaf:'

I only follow that which is revealed to me'.[46:9]

And He (swt) said in sura al-A'raf:

'I but follow what is revealed to me from my Lord'.[7:203]

.ie I do not follow anything except what my Lord has revealed to me. Generally, all of this is explicit, clear and evident. Everything that relates to the Prophet (saw) in terms of what he has been ordered to convey is only revelation. The legislative life of the Prophet (saw) in clarifying the rules to the people proceeded on this manner. For he (saw) used to wait for the revelation in many of the ahkam. Such as in the case of zihar (injurious comparison-pre-islamic type of divorce), li'an (imprecation) and the like. He did not state a hukm on an issue or do an act of legislation or remain silent legislatively except due to revelation from Allah (swt). Sometimes the Shabah used to confuse the ruling on an action of the servants with an opinion concerning a thing, or a means or style. So they asked the Messenger (saw): is that revelation O Messenger of Allah? Or is it a question of opinion and mashura? If he said it was revelation they would be silent because they knew that it was not from the Prophet himself. But if he told them: no, it is an issue of opinion and mashura they would discuss with him and perhaps even follow their own opinion as in Badr, Uhud and Khandaq. And in matters other that what he conveyed from Allah he used to say: You are more knowledgeable in the affairs of your dunya'. As reported in the hadith concerning the pollination of date palm. Had the Prophet said something pertaining to legislation withoutrevelation he would not have waited for the revelation to state the hukm. And why did the Sahaba ask about a statement whether it was revelation or opinion? .. Therefore, nothing issued from his saying, action, and silence except if it came via revelation from Allah and not from his own opinion. He (saw) never made ijtihad and ijtihad is not allowed for him according to the shari'a and ration. As for the shari'a, they are the explicit verses which indicate that the restriction of everything that relates to the revelation:

'Say:"I warn you only by the revelation"'.[21:45]

'I only follow that which is revealed to me'.[46:9]

'Nor does he speak of his own desire'. [53:3]

As for ration, it is because the Prophet (saw) used to wait for the revelation in many rules despite the urgent need to clarify the hukm of Allah. If ijthad was allowed for him he would not have delayed in giving the hukm but he would have made ijtihad. Because he used to postpone giving the hukm until the revelation was sent down. This indicates he did not make ijtihad. It also indicates that it was not allowed for him to make ijtihad. Because if it was allowed he would not have put off giving the hukm despite the need to do so. Also, it is obligatory to follow the Prophet (saw). If he exercised ijtihad it would be possible for him to make a mistake. If he made a mistake we would be obliged to follow him so the matter would necessitate/intail that we follow a mistake which is not valid. Because Allah did not order that we follow a mistake.Furthermore, the Messenger (saw) is protected (ma'sum) from making mistakes in the conveyance of the Message. It is absolutely not possible on his part to make a mistake in the conveyance (tableegh) of (Allah's Message). Since allowing the Messenger to make a mistake negates the (concept of) Messengership and prophethood. So the affirmation of Messnegership and Prophethood determines that the Messenger is not allowed to make mistakes. Regarding tableegh (conveyance of the Message) it necessitates that he is protected from making mistakes in tableegh. So it is impossible on the part of the Messenger (saw) to err in what he conveys from Allah (swt). Consequently, it is not allowed on his part to exercises ijtihad. Everything conveyed by him from the ahkam, with his saying, action and silence is revelation from Allah (swt) and nothing else.

It should not be claimed that Allah will not allow him to remain on the mistake. And that he will swiftly clarify it to him. Because the mistake in ijtihad when it occurs from the Messenger (saw) becomes fard on the Muslims to follow until the clarification comes. Then this clarification would have reestablished another hukm different to that of the first hukm. The Muslims would be ordered to follow this hukm and leave the former hukm which is a mistake. This is invalid, it is not possible on Allah's part the He order the people to follow a mistake and then order them to leave it and follow the correct one. Similarly, it is not allowed on the part of the Messenger (saw) thathe convey a hukm and then say to them that this hukm is a mistake because it is from me, and the correct hukm is what has come to me from Allah, which is this hukm. And inform them that they should leave the first hukm because it is a mistake and inform them of the correct hukm.

It should not be said that this is a rational evidence for a shari'a matter, which is not allowed. Because the shari'a matter requires a shari'a evidence, since the shari'a matter whose daleel has to be only a shari'a evidence is the shari'a rule. As for beliefs, their evidence can be rational or a shari'a evidence. The subject of whether the Prophet (saw) is a mujtahid or not is from the beliefs and not from the shari'a rules. So its evidence can be a rational or shari'a evidence.The fact that it is not allowed for the Messenger to be a mujtahid is proven by the rational and shari'a evidence. It is one of the beliefs.

It should not be claimed that the Messenger (saw) actually made ijtihad in various rules and that Allah did not acknowledge/recognise his ijtihad, and that He corrected the messenger ijtihad and revealed verses which clarified the correct opinion. That should not be claimed because the Messenger did not exercise any ijtihad in conveying any rule of Allah. Rather whatis proven by the Quranic text and the sound sunnah is that he used to convey to the people from revelation. He did not convey anything in terms of legislation, beliefs, rules and the like, except if it had come via the revelation. And that when the revelation had not been sent down for an incident, he would wait until it was revealed.

As for the verses that are cited by those who say that the Messenger (saw) actually made ijtihad, and in which they assume/imagine ijtihad took place. There is not one ayah in which ijtihad took place. For example, His (swt) saying:

'It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land'.[8:67]

And such as His (swt) saying:

'May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad [saw]). Why did you grant them leave (to remain behind)'.[9:43]

And like His (swt) saying:

'And never (O Muhammad [saw]) pray (janazah) for any of them (hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave'.[9:84]

 And like His (swt) saying:'(The Prophet [saw]) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man'.[80:1-2]

And other such ayats and hadith. This is not by way of exercising ijtihad regarding a hukm and conveying it to the people. Rather, it is byway of a mild rebuke for undertaking actions which are contrary to what is more befitting for the Messenger to do. For the Messenger (saw) did not convey a specific hukm to the people and then the ayah came to clarify the error of the hukm which he has conveyed and clarify the mistake in his ijtihad and demand that he convey the correct opinion regarding this hukm. Rather the truth of the matter is that the Messenger (saw) undertook an action in applying a Shari'a rule from the rules of Allah which had previously been sent down in the revelation (wahy) and the Messenger (saw) had already conveyed to the people. The Messenger (saw) acted in a manner contrary to what was more befitting for him to have done in accordance with this hukm. Thus, he was mildly reproached for this contrariety. This mild reproach is not a legislation of a new hukm. So the hukm has already been revealed, and its application had been ordered and the Messenger (saw) had already conveyed it. Thus, in these incidents mentioned in these verses he (saw) undertook an action in accordance with what Allah has ordered, except that his performance of this action was contrary to what was best, thus he was mildly rebuked for this. Thus, the verses are verses which mildly rebuke the Messenger (saw)for undertaking what was contrary to the best action. They are not verses which legislate new rules that had not been legislated before. And nor do they correct an ijtihad, or legislate another hukm which is at variance with the hukm the Messenger had already made ijtihad for. It is rationally possible for the Prophets and Messengers to do what is contrary to the best because the meaning of doing what is better is that there is permissible (mubah) issue. However, some actions are better than others. Or, there is a matter which is preferable (mandub) but there are actions which are better than others. Thus, is permissible for a person to live in the city or in the village. But living in the city is better than living in the village for the one who wishes tosee to the matters of ruling and accounting the rulers. If he lives in the village he has done contrary to what is best. Giving sadaqa openly and discreetly is a preferable matter (mandub) but giving sadaqa secretly is better than giving it publicly. If hegives it in public, he has acted contrary to what is best. So, it is allowed for the Messenger (saw) to undertake what is contrary to the best, rather it is allowed for him to do everything that is not considered to be sinful. He in actual fact undertookwhat was contrary to the best so Allah mildly censured him for it. The one who thinks deeply about these verses that they cite will will find that the wording of the verse, its understanding and meaning indicates this.

Thus, His (swt) saying:'

It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land'.[8:67]

indicates that the taking of prisoners had already been legislated on the proviso that a severe slaughter (ithkhan) takes place previously. Which is supported by the ayah:'

Smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly on them (ie take them prisoners)'.[47:4]

Thus, the hukm of taking prisoners was not revealed in the ayah:

'It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom)'.[8:67]

Rather, it was revealed before that in sura Muhammad which is called the sura of fighting(sura al-qital). It was revealed before sura al-Anfal. Thus, it is in this sura of fighting that the hukm of taking prisoners was revealed. He (swt) said:

'So, when you meet (in jihad), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly on them (ie take them prisoners) Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (ie free therm without ransom), or ransom, until the war lays down its burden'.[47:4]

So the rule of taking prisoners had been revealed and was known before the revelation of:

'It is not for a Prophet...'[8:67]

In this verse there is not a single legislation for prisoners. And in the wording there is no legislation for prisoners to be found. Rather, it is only an address to the Messenger (saw) that he should not have taken prisoners until he had inflicted a severe slaughter (ithkhan). What is meant by ithkhan is killing and creating intense fear. There is no doubt that on the day of Badr the Sahaba killed a great number of people and that they won the battle. It is not a condition of inflicting a severe slaughter in the land that everyone should be killed. Then after killing a great number they took a group as prisoners. This is permitted from the ayah in sura Muhammad which is the sura of fighting, and from this ayah itself. They indicate that after inflicting a severe slaughter (ithkhan) it is allowed to take prisoners. So this verse has come to indicate a clear indication that that capture of prisoners was allowed according to the hukm of this ayah. So it is not correct that the Messenger (saw) made ijtihad regarding the hukm of captives/prisoners when he took prisoners and the verse came to correct his ijtihad. And nor is it the case that the capture done by the Messenger (saw) in Badr was a legislation and the ayah came to clarify his mistake. Likewise this capture was not a sin or a breach of the hukm that had been revealed. However, it indicates that the Messenger (saw), in applying the hukm of taking captives as mentioned in sura Muhammad:'Smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them'.[47:4] on this incident ie the battle of Badr, that it was better if the killing was greater so that the ithkhan is more evident. Thus, the verse was revealed to mildly reproach the Prophet (saw) for applying the hukm in a manner which is contrary to what is best. It is the censure of an action undertaken by him to apply a previous hukm, it is not the legislation of a hukm and nor is it the correction of an ijtihad. As for His (swt) saying at the end of the ayah:

'You desire the good of this world, but Allah desires for you the hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise'.[8:67]

This is the conclusion of the rebuke in the ayah. ie you have taken prisoners before doing your outmost to inflict a severe slaughter (ithkhan) hoping to get ransom for those prisoners ie by taking captives you desire the transient things of the world, from the ransom (fida) which is the result/consequence of taking them captive. And Allah wishes to strengthen His deen by killing them in the battle, not by taking them prisoners. The issue is the taking of prisoners and desiring the good of this world is a result of the capture, it is not a mild rebuke for taking ransom. Rather, it is only a mild rebuke for taking captives before inflicting a severe slaughter. It completes the meaning of the ayah which began with this meaning from its very beginning:

'It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world, but Allah desires for you the hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise'.[8:67]

As for His (swt) saying:

'Were it not a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe punishment ('azaab) would have touched you for what you took'.[8:68]

It is not a promise of a punishment from Allah for taking ransom as some would imagine. Rather, it clarifies the consequences that could possibly result from taking prisoners before doing ones outmost to inflict asevere slaughter, such as losing the battle and Muslims being killed by the Kuffar. This is the great punishment, it is not the punishment of Allah. ie if it were not that Allah knew that you would be victorious, then for taking prisoners before doing your outmost to slaughter the Kuffar, your enemies would haves killed you and defeated you. The Qur'an has used the word 'azaab (punishment) for killing in war. He (swt) said:

'Fight against them so that Allah will punish them (yu'azzibihum) by your hands'.[9:14]

It cannot be that it means the punishment of Allah, because the address is general to the Messenger (saw) and the believers. Because if the ayah, as they contend, is considered to be correcting an ijtihad. Then it is a mistake that has been forgiven for which they do not deserve to be punished by Allah. If it is considered a mild reproach for acting contrary to what is best, as is the reality in this case, then it does not merit any punishment from Allah. It is not at all possible that it means the touching of a punishment from Allah. Rather, the meaning is that your enemies would have killed and humiliated you. As for the hadith reported regarding the cause of this ayah being revealed, and regarding its stories, they are isolated reports (khabar ahad) which are not admissable as evidence for aqeeda. Permitting or not permitting ijtihad on the part of the Messenger is from the creedal issues. Furthermore, they contradict the definite text, which is the explicit text mentioned in sura Muhammad regarding the hukm of taking prisoners and the fact that it was revealed to the Messenger (saw). ............................. Also, the ruling on taking captives is a shari'a rule for which the Messenger (saw) waited for the revelation. He did not consult his companions and then act upon what they advised and so the revelation had to be sent down to correct it because this means the legesilation of certian rules was by the shura and not revelation. Therefore, all the hadiths reported regarding those two ayahs are rejected in terms of meaning (dirayatan) and they are exempt from being considered as proof. As for His (swt) saying:

'May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad [saw]). Why did you grant them leave (to remain behind), until those who told the truth were seen by you in clear light, and you had known the liars?'.[9:43]

The ayah does not indicate the practise of ijtihad becasue it is a ruling to say that it is allowed for the Messenger to give permission to whoever he wished. The hukm has already come before the revelation of this ayah. It came in sura al-Nur. He (swt) said:

'So if they ask your permission for some affairs of theirs, give permission to whom you will of them'.[24:62]

This sura was revealed after sura al-Hashr in the battle of Khandaq. And the ayah;

'May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad [saw])'.[9:43]

came in sura al-Tawbah. It was reveled regarding the expedition of Tabuk in the ninth yaer of the hijra. So the hukm was known and the ayah in sura al-Nur is explicit indicating that it is allowed for the Messenger (saw) to grant them permission (to remain behind).

Howvere, in that incident for which the ayah of sura al-Tawbah was revelaed, ie the expedition of Tabuk and the preparation of the army of 'usra (hardship). It would have been better if the Messenger (saw) did not grant the hypocrites (munafiqin) permission to stay behind. When he gave them the permission in that very incident, Allah mildy rebuked him for this action. ie rebuked him for undertaking an action that was contrary to what was better. The ayah does not correct an ijtihad and it does not legislate a hukm which is different to the hukm the Msseneger had made ijtihad for concerning the same incident. Rather, it is a mild rebuke for something that was conrtrary to what was best.

As for His (swt) saying:

'And never (O Muhammad [saw]) pray (janazah) for any of them (hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave. Certainly, they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and died while they were fasiqun (transgressors)'.[9:84]

It came after His (swt) saying:'If Allah brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say:"Never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind. And never (O Muhammad [saw]) pray (janazah) for any of them (hypocrites)...'.[9:83-84]

Allah (swt) has clarified in the ayah;

'If Allah brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites)'.[9:83]

that the Mssenmeger (saw) should not allow them to accomany him in his expedetions. And this was in order to humiliate and disgrace them so that they do not get the hounour of making jihad and going out (to fight) with the Messneger (saw). And He (swt) in the ayah that comesimmdiatly after;

'And never (O Muhammad [saw]) pray (janazah) for any of them (hypocrites)'.[9:84]

announced (just) another thing to humiliate them.  That took place during the campaign against them in order to destroy them. So this ayah, the ayah before it and the ayah after it clarify the rules regarding the munafiqin and the manner in which they should be treated by showing them contemp, humiliating them and lowering them them from the status of the believers. There is nothing in the ayah which indicates that the Messenger (saw) made ijtihad regarding a hukm. The verse came showing the contrary. Rather it is the preliminary/opening legislation with respect to the munafiqin. It is in line with the other verses regarding the munafiqin repeated in the same sure. Nothing appears in it, whether explicitly, by way of indication, by wording or understanding, or giving cause for any semblence (shubha) (of such a meaning) that it corrects an ijtihad or draws attention to a mistake. As for what has been narratedregarding the reason for revealing this verse in terms of reports, they are solitary reports (akhbar ahad) and are not admissable as evidence for 'aqeeda and nor can they contradict the definite text which restricts the Meseneger's convyance of ahkam to that which he brought through revelation and nothing else. He (saw) did not follow anything but the revelation. Let alone that these hadiths should make 'Umar b al-Khattab try to prevent the Messenger (saw) praying the janazah. So eiether he wanted to prevent him from doing an action legislated as a hukm or he wanted to prevent the Messenger (saw) from undertaking a worship according to a legislated shari'a rule and the Messenegre (saw) was silent about it. Then he (saw) reverted to 'Umar's opinion after the revelation of this ayah. This is not allowed in respect to the Messenger (saw). Acting upon this hadith contradicts the fact the Mesenger is a Prophet, so the hadith is rejected in terms of meaning (dirayatan). The hadith indicates that the Messenger (saw) gave his shirt to 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy and that he tried to pray (janaza) for him though he was the head of the munafiqin. 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy was exposed by Allah (swt) after the ghazwa of Bani al-Mustaliq, his son came to the Messenger (saw) to find out if the Messenger had taken the desicion to kill him so that he may himself kill his father. Allah (swt) revelaed sura al-Munafiqin after the ghazwa of Bani al-Mustaliq and He (swt) said to the Messenger (saw) regrading it:

'They are the enemies, so beware of them. May Allah curse them! How are they denying the Right Path'.[63:4]

 And He (swt) told him with respect to it:

'Therefore their hearts are sealed'. [63:3]

And He (swt) told him:'Allah beras witness that the hypocrits are indeed liars'.[63:1]

And then the Messenger (saw) comes after this and gives his shirt to the head of the munafiqin and tries to pray (janaza) for the head of the munafiqin and then 'Umar prevents him. This contradicts the ayaat. The ayah of sura al-Tawba was revealed in the ninth year (AH) after sura al-Munafiqin by a number of years. So the hadiths about 'Umar and the shirt and other such hadiths contradcit the reality of how the Munafiq were treated after the ghazwa of Bani al-Mustaliq. And they contradict the verses whichwere revaled before it regrading the munafiqin. Therefore, they are rejected also from this angle in terms of their meaning (dirayatan).

As for His (swt) saying:

'(The Prophet [saw]) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man. But what could tell you that per chance that he might become pure (from sins)'.[80:1-2]

and the ayaat that follow. They do not indicate any ijtihad..the Mssenger (saw) is oerdered to convey the da'wa to all the people and to teach the Muslims Islam. It is forthe Messneger to undertake both orders at every time/instance. 'Abd Allah b. Umm Maktum became a Muslim and learnt Islam. He came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) while he was with the leaders of Quraysh; 'Utbah and Shaybah (the two sons of Rabi'ah), Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-'Abbas b. al-Muttalib, Umayyah b. Khalaf, al-Walid b. al-Mughira. He (saw) was inviting them to Islam in the hope that others would embrace Islam if they entered its fold. Ibn Umm Maktum said to the Prophet (saw) while he was in this situation: Oh Messener of Allah!  Teach me (aqri'ni) to read and teach me what Allah has tought you'. He repeated this not knowing that the Prophet (saw) was busy (speaking) with these people. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not like the interruption to his conversation and so he frowned and turned away, and so this verse was reveled. The Messenger (saw) is orederd to convey (the da'wa) and orederd to teach Islam. So he undertook the convayance of the Call and turned away from teaching the one who asked to be tought due being preoccupied with the convayance of the da'wa (tabligh). It was better for him to teach Ibn Umm Maktum what he head asked for. But he did not do this so Allah (swt) mildly rebuked him for that. Since his (saw) turning away from Ibn Umm Maktum was contrary to the best action, so Allah (swt) mildy rebuked him for undertaking what was contrary to what was best. In this there is no ijtihad concerning a ruling or a correction of an action. It was only the application of Allah's ruling upon a certian incident which was contrary to the best action for which Allah mildy censured him.

Thus, there is no indication in the aforementioned verses on the occurance of ijtihad from the Messenger (saw). Since no ijtihad came from him regarding what he conveyed from Allah, ijtihad is not allowed for him whether according to the sharia'a or ration. The Messenger (saw) was not a mujtahid and it is not allowed in respect to him that he be a mujtahid. It was only a revelation revaled to him by Allah (swt) and thisrevelation (wahy) is either by wording and meaning as in the Noble Qur'an or it is meaning only which is given expression by the Messenger either with his own words or by his silence which alludes to a ruling or by doing an action and that, all of it, isthe Sunnah.
2.14.1 The Noble Qur'an   p.151
The Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (saw) in parts for a period of 23 years. It used to be revealed in various ways. Sometimes revelation would come in (quick) succession and other times it would take a long time (tarakhin). The Qur'an was revealed gradually and not all at once due to a wisdom (hikma) Allah (swt) has mentioned in the noble Qur'an:

'And those who disbelieve say:"Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once?" Thus (it is send down in parts), that We may strengthen your heart thereby.'[25:32]

ie thus it has been revealed in parts so that We may strengthen, due to the division, your heart so that you may understand it fully and memorise it. And He (swt) said:

'And (it is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts), in order that you might recite it to men at intervals. And We have revealed it by stages.'[17:106]

ie it is a Qur'an whose revelation We have made to be in parts and (revealed) gradually at intervals ie slowly (mahl), deliberately without haste (tu'adah) and taking care (tahabbut). We have revealed it in stages ie according to incidents/events. So, inorder to strengthen the heart of the Messenger, and so as to recite it to the people slowly without haste, and also in order to reveal it according to incidents and answers to questions, the Qur'an was revealed gradually and in parts for 23 years.

The Qur'an used to be revealed to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he used to instruct people to memorise it in their breasts, write it down on pieces/scraps of leather, paper and kaghid (card ?), and also write it on scapula (aktaf), palm risp ('asab) and likhaf/lukhaf ie on shoulder blades ('azm al-'areed), leaf stalks of date palm and hijara raqiqa. When the ayaat were revealed he used togive the order that they be placed in their proper place in the sura. Thus, he used to say put this ayah in such and such sura after such and such ayah. So they sued to put them in their proper place in the sura. It has been narrated by 'Uthman that he said:'The ayaat used to be revealed to the Prophet (saw) and so he used to say: Put these ayahs in the sura which mentions such and such thing'. It was done in this manner until the whole Qur'an was revealed and Allah took his (saw) soul after the revelationof the Qur'an was complete. That is why the arrangement of the verses of every sura in the from as it is in now in the present script (mushaf) was, as determined by the revelation (tawqeefan), from the Prophet, transmitted to him (saw) by Jibreel from Allah (swt). And according to this arrangement the Ummah transmitted the Qur'an from her Prophet (saw) and there is no dispute about this. And this verse order of suras was the same form we see today. It is the very form the Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered. And it is the same form that was written on pieces/scraps of shoulder blades, palm risp, likhaf and preserved in the breasts of men. Consequently, the arrangement of verses within its chapters is definite in that it is ditermined/fixed by revelation (tawqeefi) from the Messenger of Allah (saw), from Jibreel, from Allah (swt). As for the chapter arrangement regrading certain chapters (suras) they were put together according to the ijtihad of Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them). Ahmad and the sunan compilers have reported a hadith by Ibn 'Abbas which has been declared sound by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim, they narrated:'I (Ibn 'Abbas) said to 'Uthman:'Why have you.....towards sura al-Anfal when it is from the mathani (suras with less than 100 ayahs), and towards al-Baraa'ah when it is from the mi'un (consisting of about 100 ayahs). You have put them together/combined them and you did not write between them the line 'bismillah ar-rahman a-rahim' and you have placed them among the seven long (tiwal) suras. So 'Uthman said:'Often a sura would be revealed to the Messenger of Allah (saw) that would have a number of verses. When a something was revealed to him - ie verses from it- he used to call someone from among those who used to write for him and said:"Place these ayaat in the sura, in which this and this is mentioned. Sura al-Anfal was one of the first to be revealed in Madinah and al-Baraa'ah was at the end of the Qur'an. Their narrative used to resemble each other so I thought Anfal was part of Baraa'ah.' The Messenger of Allah (saw) died and he did not clarify to us if anfal was part of baraa'ah. Thus, It has been narrated by Sa'eed b. Jubayr from Ibn 'Abbas who said that:'The Prophet (saw) did not know the ending of a sura until 'bismillah ar-rahman a-rahim' was revealed. In another narration:'When bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim was revealed they knew that the sura had come to an end. This indicates that the verse order in every sura was dietrmined /fixed by revelation (tawqifiyyan). And since the Prophet (saw) did not elucidate the issue of baraa'ah, 'Uthman added it to al-Anfal according to his own ijtihad (may Allah be pleased with him). The author of al-Iqna' reported/transmitted that the Basmala (abbr. for bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim) for Baraa'ah is presentin the mushaf (copy/collection) of Ibn Mas'ud. It has been reported that the Sahaba used to keep copies whose arrangement of suras was different though there were no differences in the verse arrangement. So the mushahf of Ibn Mas'ud was compiled in a manner different to the mushaf of 'Uthman in terms of the arrangement of the suras. It began with al-fatiha, then al-baqarah, al-nisa and Aali 'Imran. Contrary to the 'Uthmani mushaf whose arrangement is al-fatiha, al-baqarah, Aali 'Imran and then al-nisa. None of them were compiled according to the order of revelation. It is said that the mushaf of 'Ali was according to the order of revelation, it began with iqra', then al-muddaththir, nun wal qalam, al-muzzammil, tabbat, al-takweer, sabbih, it went on in this manner to the end of the Makkan suras and then to the Medinan suras. All of this indicates that the sura arrangement in relation to some suras were arranged according to the ijtihad of the Sahaba. That is why maintaining the arrangement of suras in recitation in not obligatory whether in reciting the Qur'an (tilaawah), in the prayer (salah), in a lesson or teaching. As evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (saw) read sura al-Nisa before Aali 'Imran in his night prayer. As for what has been reported aboutthe prohibition of reciting the Qur'an in reverse order, what was intended was that an ayah in one sura should not be read in reverse, not the recitation of suras in reverse order.

Jibreel used to read once every year all of what had been revealed to the Messenger (saw) from the Qur'an. And in the year in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) died Jibreel recited the whole of the Qur'an twice to the Messenger (saw). It has been narrated by 'Aisha (r.a.) on the authority of Fatimah (r.a.) that: The Prophet (saw) confided in me that:"Jibreel used to read the Qur'an to me every year.......  It has been narrated about Abu Hurayra that he said: Jibreel used to present the Qur'an to the Prophet once a year, but he presented it twice to him in the year he died. Jibreel's presentation of the Qur'an to the Messenger (saw) every year means that he presented the arraignment of its verses in relation to other verses and the arrangement of its verses in their respective chapters because presenting the book means to present its sentences, words and arrangement. He presented it to him twice in the year in which the Messenger (saw) died. Which means similrly that the arrangement of its verses in relation to each other  was presented and aswell the arraingment of verses in htierrespictive suras. Likewise , it is possible to understand the hadith to mean that the sura arrangment in relation to each other was presented. However, ther are other hadith which ixplicitly mention the rrangment of verses. They state the of verses in relation to each other and the rrangment of verses in their respective chapters.: 'Place these verses in such and such sura after such and such ayah'. And 'place those verses in hte sura that mentioned such and such thing'. A sura would end and another sura would begin as decreed by Allah through Jibreel. It has been reported that Ibn 'Abbas said:'The Prophet (saw) would not know the ending of a sura until 'bismillah l-rahman al-raheem' was reveled'. And in another narration;'When 'bismillah l-rahman al-raheem' is reveled then they would know that the sura has come to an end'. All of this definitely indicates that the arrangement of verses in their chapters and the form of the suras in terms of the number of verses and their places, all of that is ditermined (tawqifi) by Allah (swt). The Ummah transmitted it in this form from her Prophet (saw) and that is proven by tawaatur (recurrent reports).

Narrated by Aisha, the mother of the Believers, that a person from Iraq came to her and asked, 'What type of shroud is the best?' 'Aisha said,'May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?' He said, 'O mother of the believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an,' She said,'Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its suras not in proper order."  'Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it you read first? Know that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: 'Do not drink alcoholic drinks.' people would have said, 'We will never leave alcoholic drinks,' and if there had been revealed, 'Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, 'they would have said, 'We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.' While I was a young girl of playing age, the following verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad:

 'Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.'[54.46]

Sura Al-Baqara and Sura al-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him." Then 'Aisha took out the copy of the Qur'an for the man and dictated to him the verses of the Suras (in their proper order). This hadith shows that the Qur'an had not been put together (in oreder) when we add to that the different arrangment of mashafs of the Sahaba, indicating that the arrangment of suras in relation to each other was done as agreed by the Sahaba.
2.14.2 The Compilation of the Qur'an   p.156
It has been proven by decisive and definite evidence that when the Prophet (saw) died the whole Qur'an had been written on scraps/pieces of shoulder blades, palm fibre/risps and likhaf. All of it was preserved in the hearts of the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them). An ayah or ayaat would to be revealed and so he used to order that they be written down before him at once. He did not prevent the Muslims from writing the Qur'an other than what he used to dictate to the scribes who wrote down the revelation. Muslim reported a hadith from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Do not write down anything from me, whosoever writes anything I have said other than the Qur'an let him erase it'. What the scribes used to write of the revelation were collected on sheets (suhuf). He (swt) said:'A Messenger from Allah, reciting purified pages (suhuf) (of the Qur'an)'.[98:2] ie reciting sheets (qirtas) purified from falsehood, honestly handwritten unequivocally true and just. Allah (swt) said:

'Nay, indeed it (verses of the Qur'an) are an admonition (tazkirah). So whoever wills, let him pay attention to it. (It is) in Records held (greatly) in honour. Exalted (in dignity), purified. In the hands of scribes. Honourable and obedient.' [80:11-16]

ie this admonition (tazkirah) established in Records held (greatly) in honour (suhuf mukarramah) from Allah and exalted in value, free from the hands of those that are corrupt (shayateen). They have beenwritten down by God fearing (atqiyaa) scribes. He (saw) left written everything that was between the two covers of the mushaf which had been written down in front of him. 'Abd al-'Aziz b Rufayya' narrated: Shaddad bin Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, 'Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur'an)?'  He replied. "He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Qur'an).' Then we visited Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him (the same question). He replied, 'The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur'an).' An Ijma' (consensus) has taken place on the fact that all of the verses of the Qur'an in their respective chapters (suras) had been written down directly front of the Messenger (saw) when the revelation used to be revealed to him, and that they were written on sheets (suhuf). The greatest of Messengers died content about the Qur'an, his greatest miracle which established the proof for the Arabs and the world.He did not fear for the verses of the Qur'an that they would be lost because Allah has preserved the Qur'an with an explicit text:

'Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Zikr (the Qur'an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption'.[15:9]

Because these verses had been preserved permanently via them being written down before him (saw), and being preserved in the hearts of the Sahaba and by the permission granted to the Muslims to write down the Qur'an. That is why after the death of the Messenger the Sahaba did not feel the need to compile the Qur'an in one book or need to write it down. Until many of the Huffaz (memorisers of the Qur'an) had been killed in the Riddah wars. So due to this 'Umr feared for the loss of certain sheets and death of the Qurra' (Those who had committed the whole of the Qur'an to memory), thereby causing some verse to be lost. So he thought about bringing the written sheets together (in one compilation). He presented his idea to Abu Bakr and so the compilation of the Qur'anwas done. It has been narrated by 'Ubayd b. al-Sibaq that Zayd b al-Thabit Al-Ansari said: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar.' (Zayd b al-Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the revelation (wahy) for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript). ' By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?' Abu Bakr said, 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Sura al-Tawbah which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were):'Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty'.[9:128] until the end of Bara'ah. The manuscript on which the Quran was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till  Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar during his lifetime, and finally it remained with Hafsa (r.a.), Umar's daughter. Zayd's compilation of the Qur'an did not consist of what he wrote down from the Huffaz. Rather his compilation assembled/brought together what he had written himself in front of the Messenger of Allah (saw). He did not place one sheet/page with another sheet in order to compile them unless two witnesses testified, for this sheet that had been presented to him, that it was written in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Furthermore, he did not accept a sheet unless it met two conditions; firstly, that it was present in written form with one of the Sahaba. And second, that it has been memorised by one of the Sahaba. When the written and memorised forms concurred with the sheet that was intended to be compiled, he took it. Otherwise he did not accept it. That is why he refrained from taking the end of sura al-Bara'ah until he found it in written form with Abu Khuzayma even though Zayd could himself recall and remember it. It has been narratedvia Yahya b 'abd al-Rahman b. Hatib that he said: 'Umar stood up and said; whosoever has received anything of the Qur'an from the Messenger of Allah (saw), let him bring it forth. They used to write that on sheets, tablets and palm risp. Ibn Hatib said: He(Zayd) did not accept anything from anyone until two witnesses had given testimony. This shows that Zayd did not used to be satisfied by merely finding something in written form until the one who received it testified that he had heard it despite the fact that Zayd already had it memorised. He used to do this due to his extreme caution.'

Thus, the (process) of compilation was nothing other than the bringing together of sheets that had already been written in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (saw) into one book between two covers/bindings. The Qur'an used to be written down on sheets but they were separately kept. So Abu Bakr assembled them in one place. That is why Abu Bakr's order to compile the Qur'an was not an order to write it down in one mushaf, rather it was an order to bring the sheets that had been written in the Messenger's presence together in one place and it was an order to make certain; that they are in the same form as they were by supporting it with the testimonies of two witnesses that they had been written in front of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and that they were in the possession of the Sahaba in written from and they had memorised them. These sheets remained preserved in the possession of Abu Bakr during his life and then with 'Umar during his lifetime and them with Hafsa the daughter of 'Umar, the mother of the Believers in accordance with 'Umar's bequest. From this it becomes clear that Abu Bakr's compilation of the Qur'an constituted only the bringing together of sheets that hadbeen written in the presence of Allah's Messenger and it was not an actual compilation of the Qur'an. And the memorisation was in regard to these sheets ie on scraps/pieces which were written in front of the Messnegr of Allah (saw) and not memorisation of the Qur'an. The bringing together of such pieces and their preservation was not done exept by way of cautiousness and doing ones utmost in examining the meorisation of exactly what has been reported from the Messenger of Allah (saw). As for the Qur'an itself, it was preserved in the haerts of the Sahabah and compiled/put together in their memory. In memorisation dpendence was put on a great multitude of Sahabah because those memorising it completely or partially were many.

This was regarding the compilation of Abu Bakr. As for the compilation of 'Uthman, in the third or (some say) the second year of his Khilafah ie in the year 25 AH Huzayfah b. al-Yaman approached 'Uthman in Madinah at the time when the people of al-Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhayfa was afraid of their (people of al-Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an. He saw that the people of al-Sham reading according to the recitation of Ubay b. Ka'b, and they were coming with readings the people of Iraq had not heard of. Also he saw the people of Iraq reading according to the recitation of 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud and so they brought things/reading the people of al-Sham had not heard of. Thus, they began to charge each other of kufr(disbelief). They both disagreed about a verse in sura al-Baqarah. One read:'And perform properly the hajj and 'Umra for Allah (wa atimmul hajja wal 'umrata lillah)'.[2:196] And the other read:''And perform properly the hajj and 'Umra to the House (of Allah)(wa atimmul hajja wal 'umrata lil bayt)'. So Huzayfah became angry and his eyes went red with rage. It has been narrated about Huzayfah that he said: The people of Kufah adhere to the recitation of Ibn Mas'ud and the people of Basra adhere to the recitation of Abu Musa. By Allah! If I go to the Leader of the Believers I will order him to make it a single recitation. So he travelled to 'Uthman. It has been reported by Ibn Shihab that Anas b. Malik narrated: Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhayfa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.' So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.' Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abd Allah b. al-Zubair, Said b. al-'As and 'Abd al-Rahman b. Harith b. Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'Incase you disagree with Zaid b. al-Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.' They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.' The number of copies made was seven. The seven mushafs were sent to Makkah, al-Sham, Yemen, Bahrayn, Basra, Kufa, and one copy was kept at Medinah.

Therefore, 'Uthman's action was not the compilation of the Qur'an. Rather it constituted in only the copying and transcription of the same thing transcribed from the Messenger of Allah (saw) as it was. He he did not do anything other than make seven copies from the preserved copy in the possession of Hafsa, the mother of the Believers and unite the people on this single script and forbade any other script or dictation other than it. The matter became fixed/settled on this copy as a script and dictation. It is the same script and dictation in which the sheets were written, which were written in the presence of Allah's Messenger (saw) when the revelation was revealed. And itis the same copy which Abu Bakr had compiled. Then the Muslims began to make copies from this copy and not any other copy. Nothing remained except the mushaf of 'Uthman in its script. When printers came about the mushaf was printed from this copy with the same handwriting/script and dictation.

The difference between the compilation of Abu Bakr and that of 'Uthman is that the compilation of Abu Bakr took place due to the fear that something would be lost from the Qur'an if any of its carriers (memorisers) were lost. Because, even though it was written on sheets but it had not been collected in one place like a single book. Thus, it was compiled in pages. the compilation of 'Uthman took place because differences increased regarding aspects of the Qur'an when they read it due to the expansion of the language. This led some to accuse others of making an error. It was feared that the matter would escalate/become seriously worse. So those sheets were copied onto one mushaf. The mushaf that we now have before us is the same mushaf revealed to the Messenger of Allah (saw) And it is the same one which was written in the sheets which were written in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (saw). And it is the same mushaf that Abu Bakr brought together when the sheets were compiled in one place. And it is the same one from which 'Uthman transcribed the seven copies and ordered that the rest be burned. And it is the same Noble Qur'an in its verse arrangement in relation to each other and their arrangment in their respectives suras, script and dictation. As for the copy dictated by the Messenger of Allah (saw) from the revelation, whose sheets were compiled together and then copied. It remained protected in the possession of Hafsa, the mother of the believers until Marwan became the Wali (governor) of Madinah and he tore it up. Since it was not considered binding because copies of the mushaf had spread everywhere. Ibn Shihab narrated that Salim b. 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar informed him:That Marwan used to send for Hafsa - ie when he was the amir of Madinah via Mu'awiyya - asking her for the sheets from which the Qur'an was written. She refused to give him it. Salim said:When Hafsa died, while we were returning from her burial Marwan communicated his firm decision to 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar that he send him that mushaf. So 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar sent it to him. Marwan ordered it to be destroyed. He said: I did this because I feared that if it remained with people for a long time then people will have doubts regarding these sheets.
2.14.3 The Quranic Script   p.163
The Quranic script is tawqeefi and it is not allowed to go against it. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (saw) use to have scribes who wrote down the revelation. They actually wrote the Qur'an down according to this script and the Messenger (saw) approved of their writing. His (saw) period came to an end while the Qur'an was in this writing(kataba ? is it pl. scribes or like kitabah?) , in which no change or alteration occured. Even though the Sahaba wrote the Qur'an, it has notbeen reported from anyone that he differed with this writing until 'Uthman came during his caliphate and transcibed the sheets preserved with Hafsa, the mother of the believers into mushafs according to that writing. And orederd than any other remaining mushafs be burned. Aswell it has been reported that the screipt of the Qur'an was different to that of the script of Arabic writing. There is not reason for such deviations except that their writing was fixed by revelation (tawqeefiyyan) and not by customary usage/convention. That is why it is not aked why was the word {..._ } in the Qur'an written with a waw and alif {...} and why was it not written with ya and alif. It si not asked what is the reason from the additional alif in {....} instead of {.....} and the additional ya in {....} and {....} and the extra alif in {...} in sura al-Hajj but absent from {...} in sura al-Saba'. And its addition to {...} though it is lacking from {....} in sura al-Furqan and its addition to {....} but ommited from {....} {....} {.....} in sura Baqara. Its addtion to {...} but absent from {....} in sura al-Nisa. Likewise, it should not be said that ................. Like ommitting the alif from {...} in sura Yusuf and al-Zukhruf but  intromitting it in other places. And inserting the alif after waw {...} in sura Fussilat but ommiting it in others. Inserting the alif in 'mi'aad' but ommitting it from the place in sura al-Anfal. So this difference in writing a single word between one sura and another in terms of the script despite though there is no diffrence in the meening and wording, this is an evidence to say that it is an action attributable to hearing them and not ijtihad or understanding. And anything attributable to hearing is tawqeefi. So the Messenger's acknoeldgment ofthis writing and the Sahaba's ijma' (consensus) on it and the reality of differences in writing a single word between one sura and anbother despite the unity of meaning and wording. All of this is a claer evidence to prove that this script in which the mushaf has been written is a tawqeefi script which must be adhered to exclusively. Writing the mushaf in a script other than this script is prohibited. It is not allowed to deviate from it at all. It should not be said that the Messenger (saw) was inlliterate,so his desicion regarding it is not considered for he had scribes who knew how to write, and they used to describe it to him, not to mention the fact that he (saw) used to know the forms of letters as reported in some hadiths. And let alone the fact thathis scribes wrote letters, which used to be sent to kings and leaders, that were written according to the normal script and they were different from the script used in writing the sheets on which the Qur'an was written while it was being revealed. And eventhough the one who dictated the Qur'an was one and the scribes were the same. Though the obligation to follow the uthmani script of the Qur'an is only specififc to writing the whole mushaf. As for writing the Qur'an by way of qoutation or writing it on blackboards for the purpose of teaching and other such writing which are not written on mushafs, it is allowed becsue the Messenger's approval and the Shaba's ijma' (consensus) has taken place on only the mushaf and not on anything else. No analogy (qiyas)is made to it because it is a matter fixed by the revelation without an 'illah (legal cause). So there is no Qiyas for it.
2.14.4 The Miracle of the Qur'an   p.166
The Qur'an is the expression revaled to our master Muhammad (saw) with what indicates of its meanings. So the Qur'an is the wording (lafz) and meaning (ma'na) together. The meaning on its own is not called Qur'an. And the wording cannot possibly have anymeaning becasue the basis of composing expressions is to indicate a certain/specific mening. That is why the Qur'an has been described by a describtion of its wording. Thus, Allah (swt) said aboit it that it is in Arabic when He said:

'Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an'.[12:2]
And He (swt) said:
'A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail;- A Qur'an in Arabic'.[41:3]

And He (swt) said:
'An Arabic Qur'an, without any crookedness'.[39:28] 'We have revealed unto you (O Muhammad[saw]) a Qur'an in Arabic.'[42:7] We verily, have made it a Qur'an in Arabic.'[43:3]

Arabic is a description of the Qur'an's wording/expression and not a description of its emanings, because its meanings are human meanings and not Arabic meanings. They are for humankind and not for the Arabs only. As for His saying:

'And thus have We sent it down (the Qur'an) down to be an Arabic judgement(hukman 'arabiyyan)'.[13:37] It means that the wisdom has been translated in the tongue of the Arabs and not that it is an arabic wisdom. So the word 'Arabic' is a description of its expression and not anything else. It wording is not to be described except only as Arabic. It has no other desiganation other than arabic, whether literally or metaphorically. That is why it is not correct to say that the writing of some of its meanings in another language is Qur'an. The arabic language of the Qur'an is definite/indisputable, it is arabic in wording only. The Qur'an is the miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Even though there are other miracles of the Prophet (saw) which took place at his hands different to that of the Qur'an, as mentioned in the Qur'an itslef and the sahih works on the Sunnah, the he (saw) did not challenge the people with them. On the contrary, the challenge was only with the Qur'an. That is why we say that the Qur'an was the miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) with which his Messengership has been proven even since the Qur'an was revelaed until the Day of Jusdgement. The Qur'an made the Arabs incapble of bringing somethibng like it, and it challenged them to bering somethibng like it. He (swt) said in His challenge to them:

'And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our slave, then produce a sura of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah, if you are truthful.'[2:23]
And He (swt) said:

'Say:"Bring then a sura like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful'.[10:38]'Or they say,"He (the Prophet) forged it (Qur'an). Say: "Bring you then ten forged suras like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth'.[11:13]
His challenge to them reached the point where He (swt) told them that you will not be able to bring something like it. He (swt) said:

'Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another'.[17:88]

So those addressed by the Qur'an were unable to being somethibng like the Qur'an.. This inibility to meet the challenge has been proven via recurrent eports (mutawatir). History has no knowledge of, and nor has anybody narrated a report, that they (the Quraysh) did bring somethung like it.

This challenge is not specicifgc to those who were addressed, rather it is an open challenge until the day of Judgement. Because the consideration is for the generality of the wording (lafz) and not the spicificity of the cause (sabab). So the Qur'an challenges the whole of mankind since it was revealed and until the Day of Judgement to bring somehting like it. that is why the Qur'an is not a miraclefor the Arabs who lived in the days of the Messengher (saw) only, and nor is it for only the Arabs in all time and place, rather it is a miracle for the whole of mankind. In this regard there is no difference between one tribe and another because he address is to the whole of mankind. He (swt) said:

'We have not sent you (O Muhammad [saw]), except to all of mankind'.[34:28]
Ans because the verses of the challenge are general ('amma), they say:

'And call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah'.[10:38]
It includes the whole of mankind, because the Qur'an informes us of the inibility of mankind and jinn. He (swt) said:

'Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof'.[17:88]

The Arab's inibility to bring like that of this Qur'an, and all the people's inibility to bring somithing like it is a matter itrinsic/inherent in the Qur'an itself. The Arabs, when they used to listen to the Qur'an, they approached it and they were taken by the magic of its eloquence until al-Walid b. al-Mughira, who had heard the Prophet (saw) reciting the Qur'an, said to the people: By Allah! There is not a man amongst you who is more well-versed in poetry than me, or has more knowledge of its poetic meter (rajazihi) or qasida [ancient Arabic poem with rigid tripartite structure] than me!. I swaer! In the saying that he says there is a sweetness and beauty (halaawa) and in it there is grace and elegence (talaawa). At its highest it is fresh green and leefy and at its lowest it is copiuos and abundant (with rain). Verily it is the highest and nothing is higher than it'. Even though this al-Walid did not believe and persisted with his kufr. So the aspects of the miracle are from the nature of the Qur'an itself because those who have heard it and those who will hear it until the Day of Jusgemnet are baffled and bewildered by the power of its effect and force of its eloquence by merly just listening to it, even if it is just one sentence:

'And whose is the kingdom this day?'.[40:16]

'On the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand'.[39:67]

'If you fear treachery from any people throw back (their covenant) to them (so as to be) on equal terms'.[8:58]

'O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgement) is a terrible thing. The Day you shall see it, every nursing mother will forget her nurseling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah'.[22:1] And thus an ayah or ayaat of the Qur'an would be recited. Its words, style and purpose completely engrosses the feelings a human being and seizes them.

The miracle of the Qur'an is most evident in in its fluency/purity, eloquence and its elevation to an astonishing level. This manifetst itself in the miracilous style of the Qur'an. Its style has clarity (wuduh), force (quwwah) and beauty (jamal) which makes the human being incapable of achieving it. Style (uslub): is the arrangement of meanings in coredinated words. Or the manner of expression to envision meanings with lingusitic expressions. And the clarity of style comes from the prominence of the meanings intended to be expressed in the phrase with which they are expressed:

'And those who disbelieve say:"Listen not to this Qur'an, and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome'.[41:26]
The force (quwwah) of the style is represented by the chioce of words which give the meaneing that is consonant with the meaning. Thus, the delicate meaning is expressed with the delicate word, and the eloquent/lucid meaning is expressed with the eloquent/lucid word and the odd/strange meaning is expressed with the odd/strange word and so on and so forth...

'And they will be given to drink there a cup (of wine) mixed with Zanjabil (ginger, etc), and a spring there, called Salsabil'.[76:17-18]

'Truly, Hell is a place of ambush, a dwelling place for the Taghun (Those who transgress the limits set by Allah). They will abide therein for ages'.[78:21-23]

'That indeed is a division most unfair'.[53:22]

'Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the ass'.[31:19]

As for the stylistic beacuty (jamaal), this is to be found in the chioce of the most pure and fitting expressions in the meaning one intends to express. And by selecting words and meanings which are together with these pure and fitting meanings in a sentence or sentences:

'Perhaps (often) will those who disbelieve wish that they were Muslims. Leave them to eat and enjoy, and let them be preoccupied with (false) hope. They will come to know.'[15:2-3]

The one who examines the Qur'an will find a lofty elevation with which the style of the Qur'an is characterised in terms of its clarity, force and beauty. Listen to the clarity, force and beauty:

'And among men is he who disputes about Allah, without knowledge or guidance, or a Book giving light (from Allah,- Bending his neck in pride, and leading (others) too (far) astray from the Path of Allah'.[22:8-9]

'These two opponents (believers and disbelievers) dispute with each other about their Lord; then as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling water will be poured down over their heads. With it will melt or vanish away what is within their bellies, as well as their skins. And for them are hooked rods of iron (to punish them). Every time they seek to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be driven back therein, and (itwill be) said to them:"Taste the torment of burning"'.[22:19-22]

'O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): Verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they wouldhave no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought'.[22:73]

The Qur'an is a special genre/style (tiraz) of expression. Its word arrangement (nazm) is notaccording to the method of metrical and rythmic poetry (as-shi'r al-mawzun al-muqaffa) and nor is it according to the method of free prose (an-nathr al-mursal). And nor is it on the method of an-nathr al-mujdawij (has  dual resemblance to rhymed and freeprose) or rhymed prose. It is a method which stands on its own, the Arabs did not have any aquaintence or knowledge of it before.

The Arabs, due to the extraordinary effect the Qur'an had on them, did not know from which angle it had reached this level of incapacitation (i'jaz). So they started to say:

'This is indeed clear magic'.[10:76]

And they began to say that it is the word of a poet and that he is a soothsayer. That is why Allah (swt) replied to them. He (swt) said:

'It is not the word of a poet, little is that you belive! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer, little is that you remember!'.[69:41-42]

The fact that the Qur'an is of a specxial genre/style and a unique structure is clear in every respect. So while you find the Qur'an saying:

'(Allah) will disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people'.[9:14]

And it says:

'By no means shall you attain peity (al-birr) unless you spend (in Allah's Cause) of that which you love'.[3:92]
Which is prose that is close to peotry, for if the two verses were arrainged then they would be two verses/lines of poetry in the following manner:

( put in Arabic)

However they are not peotry, but rather a type of prose which is unique. At a time when you find the Qur'an saying this type of prose, you find it saying:
'By the heaven, and at-Tariq (the night-comer, ie the bright star); and what will make you to know what at-Tariq (night-comer) is? (It is) the star of piercing brightness;There is no human being but has a protector over him (or her). So let man see from what he is created! He is created from a water gushing forth - . Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs'.[86:1-7]

Which is prose, and far from poetry in every respect. You also find it sying:

'We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah's leave'.[4:64]

'If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad [saw]) and begged Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them: indeed, they would have found Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful'.[4:64]

'But no, by your Lord, they can have no iman, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission.'[4:65] So it lengthens the passage and style (nafas) in prose.

You find it saying:

'And by the sun and its brightness; And by the moon as it follows the sun; And by the day as it shows up (the sun's) brightness; And by the night as it conceals it (the sun)'.[91:1-4] It shortens the passage and style (nafas) in prose. Eventhoug both areprose from passage to passage. Whilst you will find it innovating in free prose, thus it will be free in speach. So it says:

'O Messenger! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say:"We belive" with their mouths but their hearts have no faith. And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you. They change the words from their places; they say,"If you are given thsi, take it, but if you are not given thsi, then beware!" And whomsoever Allah wants put in fitna (error), you can do nothing for him agisnt Allah. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah does not want to purify; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment'.[5:41]

You will find it innovating in rhymed prose, thus it will speak in rymed prose. So it says:

'O you (Muhammad [saw]) enveloped (in garments)! Arise and warn! And your Lord (Allah) magnify! And your garments purify! And keep away from ar-rujz (the idols)! And give not a thing in oreder to have more (or consider not your deeds of Allah's obedienceas a favour to Allah). And be patient for the sake of your Lord'.[74:1-7]

You will find it superioir in ijdiwaj (prose which resembles rhymed or free prose) so it says:
'The mutual rivalry for piling up of wordly things diverts you. Until you visit the graves. Nay! You shall come to know! Again, Nay! You shall come to know! Nay! If you knew with a sure knowledge. Verily, you shall see blazing fire!'.[102:1-6]

You will find it lengthening the izdiwaj, so it will say:

'Be cursed (the disbelieving) man! How ungrateful he is! From what thing did He create him? From nutfa (semen) He craeted them, and then set him due proportion; Then He makes the Path easy for him; Then He causes him to die, and puts him in a grave; Then, when it is His Will, He will resurrect him (again). Nay, but (man) has not done what He commanded him. Then let man look at his food. That We pour forth water in abundance, and We split he earth in clefts, and We cause therin the grain to grow. And grapes and clover plants (green fodder for the cattle). And olives and date-palms. And gardens, dense with many trees. And fruits and Abba (herbage etc)'.[80:17-31]

Whilst proceeding on a certain rhymed prose it will move to another type of ruymed prose. So while prooceeding in rymed prose in the following:

'Then, when the Trumpet is sounded; Truly, that Day will be Hard Day. Fra from easy for the disbelievers'.[74:8-10]

It will abndon it in the verse immedaitly after it, so it says:

'Leave Me Alone (to deal) with whom I created Alone (ie al-walid b. al-Mughira al-Makhzumi)! And then granted him resources in abundance. And children to be by his side! And made life smooth and comfortable for him! After all that he desires - that I should give more; Nay! Verily, he has been stubborn and opposing Our Ayat (signs/proofs). I shall oblige him to face a severe torment!'.[74:11-17]

Then it will move from this rymed prose to another type in the verse that immediatley follows it, so it says:

'Verily, he thought and plotted; So let him be cursed, how he plotted! Then he thought;Then he frowned and he looked in bad tempered way; Then he turned back and he was proud'.[74:18-23]

In this manner examine the whole Qur'an, you will not find it adhering to anyting from the style of the Arabs in terms of peotry or prose in their various types, and nor does it resemble any saying from the sayings of the Arabs or any saying from humankind.

Then you will indeed find its style is claer, forceful and beatiful which renders meanings in a manner of expression whcih depicts the meanings in the most accurate of depictions. When the meaning is delicate you find it saying:

'Verily, for the Muttaqun (Godfearing), there will be a success (Paradise);Gardens and grapeyards. And maidens of equal age. And a full cup (of wine)'.[78-31-34] using delacate words and soft, flowing sentences.

And when the meaing is pure/eloquent it says:

'Truly, Hell is a place of ambush, a dwelling place for the Taghun (Those who transgress the limits set by Allah). They will abide therein for age, nothing cool shall they taste therin, nor any drink. Except boiling water, and dirty wound discharges. An exact recompense (according to their evil crimes)'.[78:21-26] using grand words and pure sentences. And whne the meaning is pleasant it brings a pleasnt words, so it says:

'And he raised his parents to the throne and they fell down before him prostrate'.[12:100]

And when the meaning is objectionable it comes with the appropriate word for this meaning, so it says:

'Is it for you the males and for Him the females? That indeed is a division most unfair'.[53:22] And it says:

'And lower your voice. Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the ass'.[31:19]

The rendering of meaning had been accompanied with this manner of expression which depicts the meanings, giving attention to words which have the sound/tones which moves the soul, when imaginig them, towards these meanings and their comprehension. That is why it used to evoke in the listener who comprehends, due to the depth of its meanings and the eloquence of its expression, a tremendous humility until some of the Arab thinkers who were well versed in eloquence almost prostated before it despite their disbelief and obstinacy.

Then, indeed the one who scrutinises the words of the Qur'an and its sentences will find that the Qur'an gives attention to, when placing letters together, the sounds that come out from their places of articulation. So the letters close to each other in articulation are placed close to each other in a word or sentence. And when there is a distance betwen the places of articulation, they are separated witha letter which eliminates the strangeness of the transition. And at the same time it makes a letter pleasant in articulation and light on the ears to be repeated like the refrain in music. It does not say 'kal ba'iq a-mudfiq' but 'kasayyib'. And nor doesit say 'al-hu'khu'' but 'sundusu khudrin'. And when it is necessary to use letters which are placed distanced from each other in a meaning which befits it and nothing else gives that meaning like the word 'deeza'. There is no point in using the word 'zalima' or 'ja'ira' in its place even though the meaning is one. In additon to this precision in usage, the letter  which makes .......is claerly found in verses with some frequency. The Verse of the Throne (ayatul kursiyy) for example has the letter lam repeated in it 23 times in a pleasant manner which has an impact on the hearing such that it makes people prick up thier ears and want to hear more.

In this manner, you will find that the Qur'an is a special genre. And you will find it reveals all of its meaningss in the expression that befits it, in the words around it and the menings with it. You will not find that lacking in any of its verses. Its incapacitation (i'jaz) is claer in its style in terms of being a special genre of speach which does not resembleany speach of human beings or vise versa, and in terms of the application of meanings in words and sentences which befit them and in terms of the effect/impression of the words on the hearing of the one who comprehends its eloquence and looks deeply intoits meanings, so he becomes humble to the point of almost prostating to it. And the effect it has on the hearing of the one who does not comprehend that, the ring and sound of these words captivate him and hold him spellbound in an incapacitating manner towhich the listner humbles himslef by force even though he may not understand its meanings. Therefore, it is a miracle which will remain a miracle until the Final Hour.
2.14.5 The Sunnah   p.173
Sunnah and hadith have the same meaning. What is intended by the word Sunnah is what has been reported about the Messenger of Allah (saw) from his saying, action and consent. What has been reported about the Sahaba is also considered part of the Sunnah because they used to live with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), listen to his saying, witness his actions and narrate what they saw and heard. The hadith is considered a shari'a text because Allah (swt) said:

'Whatsoever the Messenger [saw] gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from it'.[59:7]

And He said:

'Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is only an revelation that is inspired'.[53:3-4].

Many verses of the Qur'an have come as mujmal (ambivalent) which the hadith has provided the details. So prayer, for example, has come as mujmal (ambivalent), but it is the action of the Prophet (saw) that has clarified the times and manner of prayer. Inthis manner, many of the ahkams in the Qur'an used to come as mujmal (ambivalent) and the Messenger (saw) used to explain them. He (swt) said:

'And We have sent down unto you (O Muhammad [saw]) the Reminder so that you may explain to people what has been sent down to them'.[16:44].

The Sahaba ( may Allah be pleased with all of them) were the ones who heard the sayings of the Prophet (saw) and they saw his actions and condition. When they came across a problem in understanding an ayah or they disagreed about its tafseer or a ruling from it, they used to refer to the prophetic hadiths for clarification. In the beginning, the Muslims used to rely on memory and accurate transmission without looking at what they have written, by memorising this knowledge like their memorisation of the Book of Allah. When Islam had spread and the cities had expanded, and the Sahaba were dispersed/scattered across the regions and most of them had died and accuracy in transmission diminished. It became necessary to document the hadith and record it in writing.

The age of compiling the hadith goes back to the age of the Sahaba. There were a number of persons amongst them who used to write and narrate from what they have written. It has been narrated about Abu Hurayra that he said: from the companions of the Prophet (saw) no one narrated more hadiths than me except Abd Allah b. Umar. But he used to write them down, I did not. However, those sahaba who did write down the hadiths were scarce due to them being few in number. Most of the Sahaba used to that in their hearts since they were forbidden from writing hadith in the beginning of Islam. Muslim reported in his Sahih on the authority of Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri that he said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:Do not write down anything from me. Whosoever writes down anything from me other than Qur'an, let him erase it. Narrate about me, there is no objection.Whosoever deliberately lies about me, let him reserve his place in the hell-fire. That is why the Sahaba desisted/refrained from writing down hadiths, rather they were content just to rely on memory and being careful. The Sahaba gave strong attention to learning the hadith. It has been proven/established that many Sahaba refrained from accepting numerous reports. Ibn Shihab narrated from Qabisa that her grandmother came to Abu Bakr (r.a.), seeking her inheritance. He said: I did not find anything mentioned in the Qur'an for you and I do not know that the Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned anything for you Then he asked the people. Al-Mughira stood up and said: the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to give her a sixth. He said: Do you have anyone who can corroborate this? So Muhammad b. Maslama bore witness to the same thing so Abu Bakr implemented this ruling for her.

Al-Jariri narrated from Abu Nadra who narrated from Abu Sa'eed that Abu Musa gave salam/salutations to Umar three times behind the door but he was not given permission to enter. So he turned back. Umar sent ..why did you return/turn back? He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: When one of you gives salam three times and you are not answered, then let him turn back.

From this we see the cautiousness/carefulness of the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) in the narration of hadith and their precautions in accepting reports. It has even been narrated that Umar (r.a.) did not give much attention to the narration of Fatimah b. Qays (which states) that there is no maintenance (nafaqa) or lodging (sukna) for the woman who has been irrevocably divorced (mabtuta) with three pronouncements. He said: We shall not abandon the Book of our Lord or the Sunnah of our Prophet (saw) for the speech of a women we do notknow if she has memorised it or forgot it. This does not mean (that Umar left her hadith because) she is a woman, rather what it means is that we will not leave the Book and Sunnah for the speech of someone for whom it is not known whether she has memorised it or forgot it. The illah (reason) is whether she memorised it or not, and not because she is a woman.

When the fitna (civil war) ensued after the murder of Uthman (r.a.) and Muslims started to disagree among themselves and parties came forth from them. The attention of every party was devoted to deducing evidences and reporting hadiths which supported their claims.

Some of them, when they needed a hadith to support a saying or establish the proof for something, they would themselves concoct a hadith. There was a proliferation of such fabrications during this period of disorder. After the fitna (civil war) had abated the Muslims embarked upon checking the hadith, they found that those fabrications had become widespraed. So they laboured to separate the fabrications from the sound (sahih) hadiths.

And when the age of the Sahaba had come to an end and the Tabi'un came after them. They proceeded on the same method and they followed the noble Sahaba in their attention to the hadith and its spread through the medium of narration. Until the reigns of the Khilafah were placed in the hands of the just Khalifah 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz. He ordered the hadith to be written down at ther turn of the first century. Bukhari said in his Sahih in the kitab al-'ilm (The Book of Knowledge) that 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr b. Hazm :'Look for what you can find of the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and write them down. I fear for the lessons of knowledge and loss'dwindling of scholars. Do not accept anything other than the hadith of the Prophet (saw) so that you may dissiminate knowledge  and sit doewn to teach those who do not have knbowldge until they have knowldge. Verily, knowldge is does not perish unless it is secret' Likewise, he wrote to his 'Amils (district governors) to pursue the ahadith in the town centres  (ummahat) of the Muslim cities.

The first one to record the hadith in accordance with the order of 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz was Muhammad b. Muslim b.'Ubayd Allah b. 'Abd Allah b. Shihab az-Zuhri. He learned knowledge from a group of young Sahaba and senior Tabi'in. Then the recording of hadith became widespread in the generation which followed the generation of az-Zuhri. From among those who collected the hadith they were Ibn Jurayj in Makkah, Malik in Madinah, Hammad b. Salama in Basra , in Kufa Sufyan al-Thawri, in the al-Sham region al-Awaza'i and others in the various Islamic lands. The hadith collections of those people were mixed with the sayings of Sahaba and the fatwas (legal verdicts) of the Tabi'in. All this was in the second century A.H. Then the transmitters of hadith began to write their own compilations and compositions/works in the beginning of the third century. Compilation of hadith continued consecutively until the appearance of Imam Bukhari. He was distinguished in the science of hadith and he wrote his renowned book ; Sihih al-Bukhari in which he quoted those hadith which he perceived to be authentic. He was followed in his tracks by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj who was a student of Bukhari. He wrote his famous book: Sihih Muslim. Those two works are designated as the 'Sahihayn' (the two sahih works).

When the imams of hadith began to record the hadith, they recorded them in the manner in which they found them. They did not omit anything that reached them in the majority of cases except what was known to be fabricated and concocted. They compiled them with their isnads with they found in them, then they rigorously investigated the states/condition of the transmitters until they knew whose narration can be accepted, and whose narration is to be rejected and whose narration one should stop/desist from accepting. They followed that up with a study of the report and the state of the narration.Since not everything that is narrated by a transmitter who is characterised with trustworthiness and accuracy can be taken because he is susceptible to absent-mindedness/forgetfulness or error.

The hadith was a broad topic which encompassed all the Islamic disciplines. It used to include tafseer (Qur'anic exegesis), legislation and the Sira. The hadith transmitter used to narrate a hadith which would include the tafseer of an ayah of the Noble Qur'an, or a hadith which contained a ruling on an incident/event, or he would narrate a hadith which would mention one of the battles, and so on and so forth... When the Muslims began to bring together/collect all the hadiths and the hadith came to be put down in writing, the compilation of hadith began in the various cities/capitals of the state. The compilation of hadith singled out the hadith of the Messenger (saw) from everything other than it. Due to this the hadith became independent from the fiqh just as it became independent from the tafseer. This was at the end of the first two hundred years. Afterwards the movement for the collection of hadith was active and it separated the sound hadith from the weak ones, describing the men (transmitters) and gave a ruling whether for or against them.
2.14.6 The Sunnah is a Shari'a Evidence like the Qur'an   p.179
The Sunnah is a Shari'a Evidence (daleel Shar'i) like the Qur'an. It is revelation from Allah (swt). Confining oneself to the Qur'an and leaving the Sunnah is kufr buwah (manifest disbelief). It is the opinion of those outside the fold of Islam. As for the Sunnah being revelation from Allah (swt), it is explicit from the Qur'an al-Kareem. He (swt) said:

'Say:"I warn you only by the revelation"'.[21:45]

And He (swt) said:

'Only this has been inspired to me, that I am a plain warner'.[38:70]

And He (swt) said:

'I only follow that which is revealed to me'.[46:9]

 And He (swt) said:

'I but follow what is revealed to me from my Lord'.[7:203]

These verses are definite in authenticity and definite in their meaning of restricting what the Messenger (saw) has brought, warned people of, and pronounced as coming from the revelation which is not open to any interpretation. Thus, the Sunnah is revelation like the Qur'an. As for the obligation of following the Sunnah like the Qur'an al-Kareem, it is also explicitly stated in the Qur'an. And He (swt) said:

'Whatsoever the Messenger [saw] gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from it'.[59:7]

And He (swt) said:

'He who obeys the Messenger (saw), has indeed obeyed Allah'. [4:80]

 And He (swt) said:

'And let those who oppose the Messenger's commandment beware, lest some fitna (affliction) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them'.[24:63]

And He (swt) said:

'It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision'.[33:36]

 And He (swt) said:

'But no, by your Lord, they can have no iman, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission'.[4:65]  And He (swt) said:'Obey Allah and obey the Messenger'.[4:59]

He (swt) said:

'Say (O Muhammad):If you (really) love Allah then follow me'.[3:31]

So, all of these ayahs are explicit and clear in  the obligation of following the Messenger (saw) with regards to what he has brought. And in considering the obedience to the Messenger as obedience to Allah (swt).

So the Qur'an and hadith are shari'a evidences in terms of the obligation of following what has come therein/ what has been mentioned in them. The hadith is like the Qur'an in this respect. Therefore, it is not allowed for someone to say: we have the Book of Allah from which we will take (rulings), because what one understands from this statement is that the hadith has been abandoned. Rather, it is imperative that the Sunnah is mentioned together with the Book. So the hadith is taken as a shari'a evidence just as it is taken from the Qur'an. It is not allowed for anything to ensue from a Muslim which is perceived to mean that the Qur'an is sufficient, excluding the Sunnah. The Messenger (saw) has alluded to this. It has been reported that the Prophet (saw) said: You may alsmost find a man amongst you who sits on his bed narrating my hadith saying:Btween me and you is the Book of Allah. What we find halan in the Qur'an we will make halal and what we find haram in it we will make haram. As for what the Messenger of Allah forbade, it is like what Allah has forbidden' And in the narrationof Jabir, which goes back to the Prophet, he (saw) said: Whosoever comes to know a hadith about me and he rejects it. He has rejected three : Allah, His Messenger and the one who informed him of the hadith'. Therefore, it is wrong to measure/compare the Qur'an with the hadith, if the hadith does not agree with it we abandon it. Because this leads to abandoning the Sunnah if it came to specify the Qur'an, restrict it or elaborate its ambivalent (mujmal) parts, since it appears that what the hadith states doesnot accord with the Qur'an or it is not found in the Qur'an. Like the hadiths which add/attach branches to the foundation (asl). Indeed, the rules mentioned in the hadith have not been mentioned in the Qur'an. Especially, many of the detailed rules whichhave not been brought by the Qur'an but mentioned by only the hadith. That is why the hadith is not compared to the Qur'an. What the hadith has mentioned is accepted and anything other than it is rejected. Indeed, the order regarding this is that when a hadith mentions something which contradicts what has come in the Qur'an as definite meaning, then the hadith is rejected by on the basis of its meaning ie the text (matn). Because its meaning contradicts the Qur'an. That is like what has been narrated aboutFatimah bint Qays that she said:'My husband divorced me three times in the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw). So I went to the Prophet (saw) but he did not allow me to get lodging (sukna) or maintenance (nafaqah). This hadith is rejected because it contradicts the Qur'an. It contradicts His (swt) saying:

'Lodge them (the divorced women) where you dwell, according to your means'.[65:6]

Therefore, the hadith is rejected because it has contradicted definite text and definite meaning of the Qur'an. As for when the hadith does not contradict the Qur'an since it includes things not brought by the Qur'an or it is an addition to what is in the Qur'an, then the hadith is taken just like the Qur'an. It should not be said ; the Qur'an and whay has been ,mentioned in it suffices for us since Allah has ordered us to (follow) them both together and it is obligatory to believe in them both together.
2.14.7 Educing proofs using the Sunnah/Educing Sunnah as proof    p.182
It is known that the Sunnah is the speech, actions and silence of the Messenger (saw). And that it is obligatory to follow the sunnah like the Qur'an. However, it has to be established that the Messenger (saw) is the one who has said this saying, that he(saw) did this action or was silent over this saying oraction. And when the Sunnah has been proven, then it is correct to educe it for the shari'a rules and beliefs. It is a proof to say that this thing established by the Sunnah is a Shari'a rule or one of the articles of belief. However, the authenticity ofthe Sunnah is either definite (qat'i), such as when a group of tabi-tabi'in transmit from a group of tabi'in from a group of sahaba who narrated it about the Prophet (saw) on the condition that each group is of a sufficient number such as to preclude thepossibility of an agreement on a lie. This is the mutawatir Sunnah (recurrently transmitted sunnah) or the mutawatir report. As for when the Sunnah's authenticity is speculative (zanni), such as when a single narrator or separate single narrators transmit from a tabi'i-tabi'in from a single tabi'i or separate single tabi'i's from a single sahaba or separate single sahabas who narrated from the Prophet (saw). Consequently, the Sunnah, with respect to its eduction, comprises of two categories ; the mutawatirreport and the solitary report (khabar al-ahad). As for the mashur or mustafid, it is the report transmitted via single narrators who narrated from them Prophet (saw), then the report became widely known in the age of the tabi'in or the tabi-tabi'in. So itis one of the solitary reports (khabar al-ahad), and it is not a third category. Because in eduction it is not higher than the level of a khabar al-ahad. It definitely does not reach the level of mutawatir. As long as the transmission is open to the presence of solitary transmitters in any tier whether among the Sahaba, Tabi'in or Tabi Tabi'in, then it is considered a solitary report even if the last two tiers composed of groups. Thus, the Sunnah is either mutawatir (recurrect) or ahad (solitary), there isnot third category.

The khabar al-ahad, if it is sahih (sound) or hasan (good), is considered a proof for all of the shari'a rules and it is obligatory to act upon them. Whether the rules pertain to 'ibadat (worships), mu'amalat (transactions) or punishments ('uqubat). Educing it as proof is correct. The use of solitary reports in establishing shari'a rules is proven, on which the Sahaba (r.a.) have a concensus (ijma'). The evidence for that is that the Shari'a has recognised testimony in establishing a legal case, which is a solitary report. So accepting the narration of a Sunnah and accepting the solitary report is compared with the acceptance of a testimony. That is because it has been proven by the text of the Noble Qur'an that a ruling can be passed onthe basis; of two male witnesses or one man and two female witnesses regrading money, on the basis of testimonies by four witnesses in zina and two witnesses for hadd punishments and equal retribution (qisaas). The Messenger of Allah passed judgement on the basis of a testimony by one witness and the oath of the sahib al-haqq, and he accepted the testimony of one woman regarding suckling and all of these are solitary reports. All the Sahaba proceeded on this and no one nrrated from them anything that is tothe contrary. The judgment is binding  by the preponderance of the truth over the lie as long as the uncertainties which make the report to be suspected as a lie are absent or not proven. This binding (ruling) is nothing other than acting upon the solitary report. It is obligated by qiyas that we act upon the solitary report narrated about the Prophet (saw) to outweigh the truth as long as the narrator is just ('adl), trustworthy (thiqa) and accurate (dabit) and he has met the person from which he has narrated the report.  Then the doubt of suspected lying is absent and this doubt is not proven. So the acceptance of the solitary report about the Messenger (saw) and educing it as proof for a hukm is like the acceptance of a testimony and giving the ruling according to the judgement that has been passed. Therefore, the solitary report is a proof as evidenced by what the Qur'an has guided us to.

Not to mention that the Messenger (saw) said:'May Allah make a servant radiant, the one who hears my saying and memorises it and deliver/transmits it. Perhaps the one carrying the knowledge is not a faqih and perhaps he will carry the knowledge to someone who is more knowledgeable than him'. The Messenger (saw) says 'may Allah make a servant radiant' and not 'servants'. ' a servant' ('abdan) is generic applicable to one or more persons. So he is praising the single and other single persons for transmitting his hadith.

Moreover, the Prophet (saw) is calling people to memorise his saying and transmit it. So it is fard on every Muslim who hears it (whether one or more persons) to transmit it, and his delivery and transmission of the Prophet's saying to others will have no effect if his statement is not accepted. So the call of the Prophet (saw) to transmit his sayings is acall for it to be accepted as long as the person to whom the hadith is transmitted believes that this is the speech of the Messenger. ie as long as the transmitter is trustworthy, honest, God fearing, accurate and he knows what he is conveying and what he is leaving out, until the suspicion of lying is gone and the truth is preponderant. This shows that the solitary report is a proof from the explicit text of the Sunnah and according to what the Sunnah has indicated.

In addition to this, the Prophet (saw) sent at one time twelve messengers to twelve kings inviting them to Islam. Every messenger constituted one person to the direction he was sent. If the conveyance (tabligh) of the da'wa was not obligatory to follow through a solitary report then the Messenger (saw) would not be content to send one person to convey Islam. So this is a explicit evidence from the action of the Messenger (saw) to say that the solitary report is a proof in the conveyance of Islam. The Messenger (saw) used to send letters to governors in the hand of solitary messengers, it did not occur to to any of his governors to abandone implementing his order because the messenger was a single person. Rather they adhered to what the messenger brought from the Prophet (saw) in terms of rulingsand orders. That is also an explicit evidence from the action of the Messenger (saw) for the fact that the solitary report is a proof to oblige us to act upon the shari'a rules and it is proof for for the orders and prohibitions of the Prophet (saw). Otherwise the Messenger (saw) would not be content to send just one person to the governor.

What is proven about the Sahaba in what has become well known about them and what has been narrated about them is that they used to take the solitary report when they trusted the narrator. The proven facts in this matter exempt/exclude any limitation or restriction and nor has anything been reported about any one of them that they rejected a solitary report because it has been narrated by a single narrator. Rather theyused to reject the solitary report because they did not trust its narrator. Therefore, the solitary report is a proof for shari rules and in conveying Islam as evidenced by the Kitab, Sunnah, Ijma' (consensus) of the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them).

2.14.8 The solitary report (khabar al-ahad) is not a proof for beliefs   p.186
The belief in the Messenger Muhammad (saw) obliged that we obey and follow him. And it obliges us to educe Islam, in terms of aqeeda and rules, from his Sunnah. Allah (swt) said:

'It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain manner'.[33:36]

And He (swt) said:'Obey Allah and obey the Messenger'.[4:59]

And He (swt) said:

'Whatsoever the Messenger [saw] gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain from it'.[59:7]

Allah (swt) in the Noble Qur'an has censured/rebuked the following of speculative knowledge (zann). He (swt) said:

'They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture (zann)'.[4:157]

And He (swt) said:

'And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture (zann) can be of no avail against the truth'.[10:36]

And He (swt) said:

'And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah's Path. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann)'.[6:116]

 And He (swt) said:

'They follow but a guess (zann) and that which they themselves desire'. [53:23]

And He (swt) said:

'While they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess (zann), and verily, guess (zann) is no substitute for the truth'.[53:28]

He (swt) said:

'They follow but a guess (zann) and that which they themselves desire'. [53:23]

'Have you then considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza. And Manat, the other third? Is it for you the males and for Him the females? That indeed is a division most unfair! They are but names which you have named, - you and your fathers, - for which Allah has sentdown no authority. They follow but a guess (zann)...' [53:19-23]

'And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah's Path. They follow nothing but conjecture (zann)'.[6:116]

As for what has been reported about the Prophet (saw) that he sent one messenger to the kings and one messenger to his 'Amils. Also what has been reported that the Sahaba used to accept the saying of a single Messenger in informing them of the shari'a rule such as (the oredr to) face the Ka'ba, the order prohibiting alcohol, the Messenger's sending of 'Ali (r.a.) to the people to read to them sura 'al-Tawbah', he was one person etc etc. This does not indicate the acceptance of the khabar al-wahid in 'Aqeeda. Rather they indicate the acceptance of khabar al-wahid in conveyance (tabligh), whether in conveying the shari'a rules or conveying Islam. It should not be claimed that accepting the conveyance of Islam is a conveyance of the Aqeeda. Because accepting the conveyance of Islam is an acceptance of a report and not the acceptance of 'Aqeeda. As evidenced by the fact that the one to whom a report is conveyed must use his intellect regarding that which has reached him. If the decisive evidence is established for him, he shouldbelieve it and he will be accounted if he disbelieves in it. Thus, the rejection of a report about Islam is not considered kufr, but the rejection of Islam for which the decisive evidence has been established for him is what is considered to be kufr. Therefore, conveying Islam is not considered part of 'Aqeeda. There is no dispute about the acceptance of a report of a single person in conveyance. All the reported incidents indicate that conveyance constituted either the conveyance of Islam, Qur'an or rules. As for the conveyance of 'Aqeeda, there is not a single evidence for aducing a belief with the khabar al-ahad.

Therefore, the evidence of 'Aqeeda must be certain, ie a definite evidence. Because the 'Aqeeda is definite, categorical and decisive. It is not definite, categorical or decisive unless it is a definite evidence. Therefore, the evidence must be Qur'an orhadith mutawatir such that both are definite in meaning. It has to be taken in 'Aqeeda and Shari'a rules. The one who rejects it is charged with kufr as well as the one who denies what it indicates, whether it is a belief or a Shari'a rule.

2.14.9 The difference between the 'Aqeeda and the Shari'a rule (hukm Shar'i)   p.191
Linguistically, aqeeda means the matter on which then heart has tied a knot. The meaning of tying a knot is to make up ones mind ie believe it decisively. This is general, it includes belief in everything. However, the belief in a thing is examined in terms of the thing in which conviction has taken place. If it was a fundamental matter or branching out from a fundamental matter then it is correct to call it an aqeeda and it is correct for one to take it as a fundamental criterion for other beliefs. By the heart tying a knot on it there will be clear effect. If the thing in which one has conviction is not a fundamental matter or branching out from a fundamental matter then it will not be part of the beliefs. Because the heart tying a knot around it will not have a clear effect. In believing in it one will not find in it any realityof benefit. As for when the heart's tying a knot on it has an effect, it will push him to specify his stance towards it in terms of belief and denial, then it will be part of 'aqeeda.

The 'aqeeda is a comprehensive thought concerning the universe, man and life, what preceded this life of the world and what is to follow it, and the relationship of this life with what preceded it and what is to follow it. This is the definition of every'aqeeda and it applies to the Islamic 'aqeeda. Included in it are the unseen matters. So the belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, the Last Day, divine fate and destiny (qada wal qadar), that good and bad is from Allah (swt) is the Islamic 'aqeeda. The belief in Paradise (jannah), Hellfire (nar), angels, shaytans etc is from the Islamic 'aqeeda, thoughts and whatever relates to it. Also reports and the non-sensible/perceptible unseen things that relate to them are considered from 'aqeeda.

As for the Shari'a rules; it is the address of the Legislator/Lawgiver relating to the actions of servants. In other words they are thoughts relating to an action or description of the human being as part of his actions. Thus, leasing, selling, dealing with usury, custody, representation (wikala), prayer (salah), establishinga khalifah or the Hudud (punishments) of Allah, the fact that the khalifah should be a Muslim and the witness be just and the ruler be a man etc All of these are considered to be from the Shari'a rules. Tawheed (Oneness of Allah), Message (Risalah), resurrection (ba'th), truthfulness of the Messenger, infallibility of the Prophets, that fact that the Qur'an is Allah's speech (kalam), reckoning (hisab) and torment ('azaab) etc. All of this is considered part of the 'Aqeeda.Thus, the articles of belief (aqaid) are thoughts that are believed. And the shari'a rules are the address which relates to the action of the human being. Thus, the two rakats of fajr  is a Shari'a rule in terms of praying them. And the belief that they are from Allah constitutes 'Aqeeda.So praying the two rakats Sunnah of fajr is Sunnah. If one does not pray it he is not blamed.  If he prays it he will get the reward like the two rakats of Maghrib prayer, both of which are the same in terms of the Shari'a rule. As for in terms of the 'Aqeeda, belief in the two rakats of fajr is definite/inevitable matter, rejecting them is disbelief (kufr). Because they have been proven by way of mutawatir (recurrent lines of transmission). As for belief in the two rakats of maghrib, it is requested but if one rejects them it is not considered kufr because they have been proven by a speculative evidence, which is the khabar al-ahad (solitary report). The solitary report is not a proof in articles of belief ('aqaid). Cutting the hand of the thief is a shari'a rule but the fact that it is from Allah and believing it is from the 'Aqeeda. The prohibition of usury is a Shari;a rule. But, believing that it is rule from Allah (swt) is 'Aqeeda etc.

Therefore, there is a difference between 'Aqeeda and the Shari'a rule. 'Aqeeda is Iman, which is the definite belief which is in agreement with the reality based on an evidence. In this decisiveness and certainty is required. The shari'a rule is the address of the Legislator/lawgiver pertaining to the actions of the servants. In this speculative knowledge (zann) is sufficient. Thus, comprehension of the thought and the belief in whether it has a reality or not is 'Aqeeda. And the comprehension of a thought and considering it or not considering it a solution for an action of a human being is a Shari'a rule. In order to consider the thought as a solution the speculative evidence is sufficient. As for in order to believe in the presence of a reality of a thought, one must to have a definite evidence (daleel qat'i).

From P 167
3 Ijtihad and Taqleed
Allah (swt) addressed the whole of mankind through the Prophethood of our master Muhammad (saw) He (swt) said: ‘O mankind ! Verily, I am sent you all as the Messenger of Allah.’[7:158]  And He (swt) said : ‘ O mankind ! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof  (Muhammad [saw]) from your Lord.’[4:174]And He (swt) said : ‘O mankind ! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger (Muhammad [saw]) with the truth from your Lord.’[4:170] And He addressed the people and the Muslims with his ahkam. He (swt) said : ‘O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him ! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of judgment) is a terrible thing.’[22:1] He said :‘O mankind ! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person’. [4:1] He said : ‘ O you who believe ! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them find harshness in you.’.[9:123]  And He said : ‘O you who believe ! Approach not the prayer when you are in a state of intoxication.’  [4:43] And He said : ‘ O you who believe ! When you go to (fight) in the Path of Allah, verify (the truth).’[4:94] And He said : O you who believe ! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against  yourselves.’  [4:135] So for the one who has heard the address it became incumbent on him to understand it and believe it. And the one believed in it became incumbant on him  to understand it and act upon it, because it is a Hukm Shar’i (Shari’a rule). So the basis for a Muslim is that he himself should understand the Hukm (rule) of Allah from the address of the Legislator. Since, the address has been aimed directly at the people by the Legislator and not aimed only at the Mujtahidin or the ‘Ulama but to all the mukallafin (legally responsible/capable). Thus it became an obligation on the mukallafin to understand this address until they are able to practise it since it is impossible to act according to the address without comprehending it. Thus, the inference (istinbat) of Allah’s hukm became fard on all the mukallifin. ie ijtihad became fard on all the mukallafin (legally responsible). Consequently, the basis of a mukallaf (legally responsible) is that he adopts the Hukm of Allah himself from the address of the Legislator because he has been addressed by this speech, which is the hukm of Allah.

However, the reality of the mukallifin (legally responsible) is that there is a disparity in their understanding and comprehension and in their (aptitude to) learn. And they differ in terms of knowledge and ignorance. Therefore, it is impossible for all of them to deduce all the Shari’a rules from the evidences.  ie it is impossible for all the mukallafin to be mujtahidin. Since the objective is to understand the address and act upon it then the understanding of the address ie ijtihad is fard on all the mukallafin (legally responsible). And since it is impossible for all the mukallafin to understand the address for themselves due to the disparity of their understanding and comprehension and the disparity in learning. Then the obligation of ijtihad becomes one of sufficiency (‘ala al-Kifaya). If some undertake it the rest are absolved of the sin. Therefore, it became obligatory on the legally responsible Muslims that there should be Mujtahidin amongst them who will derive the Shari’a rulings.

Therefore, the reality of the mukallafin and that of the Hukm Shar’i means that there would be  amongst the Muslims only the catagories of mujtahidin and muqallidin. Because, the one who adopts the hukm himself directly from the evidence is a mujtahid, and the one who questions the mujtahid about a hukm Shar’i’ is a muqallid irrespective of whether the questioner asked in order ; to learn and act upon it, to learn and teach it to others or to learn it only. He muqallid is considered a muqallid when he asks someone who is not a mujtahid but knows the hukm Shar’i and is able to tell others, whether the one who was asked was a learned person or a layman. Thus, they are all followers (muqallid) of others in this hukm even if he did not know the one who deduced it, because the mukallaf is required to adopt the hukm Shar’i and not follow any particular person. Being a muqallid means that he has adopted a hukm Shari, via a person, which he has not deduced himself. It does not mean he followed a particular person because the issue/subject matter is the hukm Shari and not the person. The difference between the muqallid and the mujtahid is that the mujtahid deduces the Hukm Shari from the shari’a evidence himself and the muqallid is the one who adopts the hukm Shari which has been deduced by someone other than him whether he knew the one who derived it or not, as long as he trusts that this is a shari’a rule. It is not lawful taqleed to adopt the opinion of any ordinary person [zayd min nas]  which originates from him or from such and such scholar, thinker or philosopher. Non of this is legitimate taqleed. Rather it is tantamount to adopting something which is other than Islam and it has been prohibited by the Shari’a.  It is not allowed for the Muslim to do that since Allah has ordered us to adopt from the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and not from anybody else whoever he may be. He (swt) said : ‘ And whatsoever the Messenger (saw) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).’ [59:7]

A prohibition has been mentioned with regards to adopting an opinion which originates from the people. So in the hadith : ‘Allah will not deprive you of knowledge after he has given it to you, but it will be taken away through the death of the religious learned men with their knowledge. Then there will remain ignorant people who, when consulted, will give verdicts according to their opinions whereby they will mislead others and go astray.’ ie they give fatwa according to their own opinions which emanate from them. The opinion which has been deduced is not considered as an opinion originating from the one who deduced it. On the contrary it is (considered) a hukm Shari. As for what is regarded as a (mere) opinion, it is the opinion which emanates from a person. That is why the Messenger (saw) called it a bid’a (innovation). And so in the authentic hadith the Prophet (saw) said : ‘The best speech is the Book of Allah and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (saw). And the evil matter are the newly invented issues and every bida (innovation) is a misguidance.’ The ‘newly invented issues’ are the innovations. They are whatever contradicts the Kitab, Sunnah, Ijma’ in terms of the ahkam whether by action or speech. As for what is other than the ahkam such as actions and things it does not fall under the word ‘innovation (bid’a)’.
3.1 Ijtihad    p.197
Linguistically ijtihad is the exertion of ones utmost to realise a matter which entails a measure of discomfort and difficulty. As for the definition of the Usuli scholars, it is specifically the expenditure of ones energies in seeking a preponderant opinion (zann) about a thing from the Shari’a rules in a manner  the mujtahid feels unable to exert any more.

Ijtihad is proven by the text of the hadith. It has been narrated about the Prophet (saw) that he said to Abu Musa when he sent him to Yemen : ‘Judge by the book of Allah and if you do not find (solution there) then by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. And if you do not find it there then exercise your own Ijtihad.’ And it has been narrated about him (saw) that he said to Mu’az and Abu Musa al-Ash’ari having dispatched them to Yemen : ‘ By what will you judge ?’ They said : If we do not find the hukm in the Kitab and the Sunnah we will make analogy between two issues. Whatever is closer to the truth we will act upon that. This analogy (qiyas) by them is ijtihad by deriving the hukm. The Prophet (saw) accepted that from them. It has been reported about him (saw) that he said to Mu’az when he sent as Wali (governor) to Yemen : ‘ By what will you pass Judgement ?’ He said : By the Book of Allah. The Prophet (saw) said : If you do not find it there ? He said : By the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) .He said : And if you do not find it ? He said: ‘I will exercise my own ijtihad’ He (saw) said: ‘Praise be to Allah who has made the messenger of the Messeneger of Allah to accord with what Allah and His Messenger loves.’ This is clear in the Prophet’s acceptance of Mu’az to practise ijtihad. One cannot find anyone who disputes the legality of ijtihad. An ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahaba has taken place on the question of judging by an opinion which has been deduced from the Shari’a evidence ie they have agreed on the use of ijtihad on any incidents that take place for which no (clear) text has been found. And this is what has reached us in successive reports in which there is no doubt. One such report is the saying of Abu Bakr when he was asked about the Kalala. He said : ‘I will speak about it according to my opinion. If it is correct then it is from Allah. If it is a mistake then it is from me and from Shaytan and Allah has nothing to do with it. Kalala is the one who has no children or parents left.’ His statement :‘I will speak about it according to my opinion’ does not mean this opinion is from him. Rather it means I will say according to what I understand from the expression ‘Kalala’ in the verse. Kalala in the Arabic language applies to three people; the one who did not leave a child or parent  [....] , and the relatives from other than the direction of the child or father. Which id these menaings apply to the word kalala in the verse ?  Abu Bakr (r.a.) understood it to have one of those meanings in His (swt)  saying : ‘If the man or woman whose in hereitence is in question has left niether  ascendents or descendents.’[4:12] kalala is the predicate (khabar) of the verb ‘to be’ (kana). ie if the man leaves no ascendents or descendents to inherit after him. He probably understtod this also from the second verse : ‘ Say : “ Allah directs (thus) about al-Kalala (those who leave niether descendents nor ascendents as heirs). If it is a man that dies leaving no child.’[4:176] And also from the hadith which has been reported about the cause of the verse : ‘ Say : “ Allah directs (thus).” [4:176] It has been reported that the Messenger (saw) visited Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah who was ill. He said : I leave no ascendents or discents (inni kalala). What shall I do with my wealth ? Thus the verse : ‘If it is a man that dies’ [ [4:176] was revealed. This opinion which Abu Bakr stated is an ijtihad and it does not emenate from himself. And from that ijtihad also Abu Bakr made the mother’s mother inherit to the exclusion of the father’s mother.

The application of the hukm on issues which are classified under it are not considered part of ijtihad but only as the comprehension of the Shari’a rule. Since ijtihad is the inference of a hukm from the text whether from its wording, understanding, from its indication or from the ‘illah which has been mentioned in the text. Whether the inference was an inference of a general hukm (hukm kulli) from a general evidence (daleel kulli) ; such as the inference that a punishment should be imposed on the looter/plunderer since the legislator made the cutting of the hand a hadd punishment for theft. Or if it was a inference of a partial/detailed hukm (hukm juz’i) from a partial/detailed evidence (daleel juz’i) ; such as the deduction/derivation of the hukm of employment/hiring since the Prophet hired/employed a worker from Bani al-Du’l as an experienced guide and from His (swt) saying : ‘  Then if they give suck to the children for you, give them their due payment.’ [65:6]  Or like the inference of the hukm of giving the worker his wage after he has finished his work due to the Prophet’s (saw) saying : ‘Give the worker his wage before his sweat dries.’ It is a detailed evidence for a detailed hukm. So this inference of a general hukm from a general evidence and the inference of a detailed hukm from a detailed evidence, all of this is considered ijtihad because it is the adoption of a hukm from a daleel whether the hukm was general which was extracted from a general evidence or the hukm was specific which was extracted from a specific evidence. All of it constitutes exerting one’s outmost in understanding the hukm from the evidence. As for the application of the hukm on new issues which fall within its meaning or is classified under it being one of its constituents, this is not regarded as ijtihad. For example, Allah has forbidden carrion. When a cow is killed by striking a blow to its head until it dies, its meat is not eaten because it has died as carrion and it was not lawfully slaughtered and the flesh of carrion is haram. And the hukm of tinned meat, which comes from the cow which has not been slaughtered lawfully, is that eating and selling it is haram in the Shari’a. This hukm has not been deduced yet it is classified under the word ‘carrion’. For example, the slaughtered animals of the Druse is not eaten because it has not been slaughtered by Muslim or someone from the people of the book. So this hukm, ie the prohibition of eating the slaughter animal of the Druse, has not been deduced. Rather a hukm which is already known has been applied on it, which is the prohibition of eating the slaughter animals of disbelieves who are not from the people of the Book. For instance, the permissibility of a woman being a member of the majlis al-Shura is a Shari’a rule. This hukm has not been deduced, rather the hukm of Wikala (representation) has been applied to it. The membership of the majlis al-shura is the representation of an opinion. It is allowed for the woman to delegate others to put forward opinions and she can represent others in their opinion. For example, Zakat is not given to anyone other than the one who is poor and his poverty is ascertained by speculative indications for which evidence has been furnished for its legal/lawful consideration. Judgement is not passed without the statement of a just person (‘adl) and his trustworthiness (‘adala) is known by (least amount of ) doubt. And similarly, someone making inquiries to find out the qibla (direction of prayer) until the qibla is known after the investigation and others such examples. These things are not arrived at by way of ijtihad which is the inference of rules from the Shari’a evidences but by way of applying the rules on the detailed/partial issues (juz’iyyat) or, by understanding the detailed/partial issues and the applying the rulings on them. This practise falls under the scope of the judiciary (qada) and does not come under ijtihad. This practise is not considered ijtihad because it does not determine a specific shari’a rule but only applies a Shari’a rule on an incident which has already been decided and understood, when another incident came which is of the same type as the initial incident itself. What is applied on it is that which was applied on the  initial incident and so it is not considered ijtihad. After understanding them from the evidence the shari’a rules require application and not ijtihad, which is contrary to the Shari’a texts which require ijtihad in order to adopt the hukm Shari. Therefore, the legitimate ijtihad which is regarded as such, is exertion of ones utmost to understand the shari’a texts in order to deduce the ruling from it. It is not the exertion of ones utmost in applying the Shari’a rules on the issues that are classified under it.

The texts of the Islamic Shari’a require the Muslims to perform ijtihad. This is because the shari’a texts have not come in a detailed manner but have come as general which are applicable to all  incidents resulting from human kind. Understanding them and deducing the hukm of Allah from them require the expending of effort to adopt the hukm Shar’i for each incident. Even the texts which have come in an elaborate manner and deal with details, they are in fact general (‘amm) and ambivalent/equivocal (mujmal). For example, the verses of inheritance have come in a elucidatory manner and deal with minute details, despite that in terms of the partial rules they still require comprehension and deduction in many issues such as the issue of kalala and issues of disinheritance (hajab). All the Mujtahidun take the view that the child (walad) [yuhjab al-ikhwa] whether it be a male or female because the word ‘walad’(child) refers to all children, boy or girl. Ibn ‘Abbas holds the view that the girl is not disinherited because the word ‘walad’ refers to a male only. This shows that even the texts which treat details have come as ambivalent/equivocal (mujmal), and understanding and deducing a hukm from them requires ijtihad.

However, these texts which deal with details require application to newly occurring incidents. This application however is not what is meant by ijtihad. What is intended is the inference of a hukm from its [ambivalent import-mujmaliha] even if they deal with details. They are general (‘amm) and ambivalent/equivocal (mujmal) and they the are legislative texts. It is the nature of legislative texts to be general and ambivalent/equivocal even if they touch on details. The shari’a texts, whether they are from the Book or from the Sunnah are ; the best shari’a texts for the field of thought, the widest of scope for generalisation, and the most fertile ground to cultivate general principles. And in themselves they are suitable as legislative texts for all peoples and nations. As for being the best texts for the field of thought that is observable from the way in which they encompass all types of relationships. This is because  relationships of all types, whether relationships between individuals or relationships between the state and citizens or relationships between states, peoples and nations. However new and multifarious these relationships may be, the thought is able to deduce rulings for them from those Shari’a texts.They are the best texts for the field of thought from all the Shari’a texts. As for it having the best scope for generalisation, that is clear from its sentences, words, style of formulating (expressions) in terms of its encompassment of the wording (mantuq), understanding (mafhum), meaning/indication (dalala) and justification (ta’leel) and analogy to the ‘illah which makes the inference for every action feasible, permanent and inclusive. This insures that it is able to encompass everything, being complete and general. As for it being the the most fertile ground to cultivate general principles, that is apparent from the plenitude of general meanings which these texts contain. It is apparent from the nature of the general meanings. That is because the Qur’an and the hadith have come along broad lines even when touching on details. The nature of these broad lines is that they give the Kitab and Sunnah general meanings under which general and specific issues can be classified. And it is from this the plenitude of general meanings come. In addition, these general meanings contain real and perceptible issues and not hypothetical issues that have been arrived at theoretically or logically. And at the same time they are there to solve the problems of man and not only for specific individuals ie to clarify the ruling for the action of human beings, whatever instinctual manifestation may have pushed them to this action. That is why they are applicable to diverse meanings and many rulings. Thus, the Shari’a texts are the most fertile ground for cultivating general principles.

This is the reality of the Shari’a texts from the angle of legislation. And when we include also that they have come for human kind in their capacity as human beings and that they are legislation for all nations and peoples, it becomes clear that the presence of Mujtahidin is essential ; to understand these texts legislatively and apply them in all ages and to adopt the shari’a rule for each incident.

New events take place every day and they are innumerable. The mujtahid must deduce the ruling of Allah for each event that takes place otherwise the events will remain as they are without knowledge of the ruling of Allah with regards to them, and this is not allowed.

Ijtihad is a fard of sufficiency (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) on the Muslims. If some undertake it then the rest are absolved from the sin. If no one performs it then all of the Muslims are sinful in the period in which there were no mujtahids.  Therefore, it is absolutely not allowed for any age to be devoid of a mujtahid because understanding the deen and ijtihad is a fard of sufficiency, where if everybody agree to leave it they will be sinful. Even if it was allowed for an age to be devoid of someone who will undertake it, then the people of that time will have to agree on misguidance ie on the abandonment of adopting the rules of Allah and that is not allowed. Not to mention the fact that the method of knowing the shari’a rules is only via ijtihad. If an age is devoid of a mujtahid it is possible that the reliance put on him to gain knowledge of the rules will lead to the suspension of the Shari’a and effacement/wiping out of the rules, and that is not allowed.

The mujtahid exerts his utmost to derive the rule. If he is correct in his Ijtihad then he has two rewards and if he makes a mistake he will have one. He (saw) said : ‘If  a judge passes judgment and makes ijtihad and he is right then he will have two rewards. And if he makes a mistake he will have one.’ The Sahaba have formed an ijma’ (consensus) that the sin is taken off from the Mujtahidin in the shari’a rules in terms of the speculative fiqhi (jurisprudential) issues. As for the definite issues such as the obligation of the worships, prohibition of fornication and murder. There is no ijtihad or dispute with respect to them. That is why the Sahaba disagreed on the speculative issues and not on the definite issues.

The mujtahid in the speculative issues is correct in what he has arrived at by his ijtihad even if he is liable to make a mistake in his opinion. However, being correct does not mean that he has hit the true target because this does not agree with the reality of a speculative rule since the Messenger (saw) called him a mukhti’ (one who has made a mistake). Rather what is meant by saying that the mujtahid is right is in terms that do not negate/rule out mistake and not in terms of hitting the true target (isaba) which is the opposite of mistake. So describing someone who makes a mistake in ijtihad as right (musib) is in the meaning that the text rewards the mujtahid even when he makes a mistake and not in the sense that he did not make a mistake. Therefore, every mujtahid is right according to what he thinks is right which does not rule out mistake. It is in terms of getting it right and not in terms of hitting the true target.

3.1.1 The Conditions (shurut) of Ijtihad   p.207
Ijtihad has been defined as the expenditure of effort, seeking the (preponderate) opinion about a thing, from the Shari’a rules in a manner in which the mujtahid feels unable to exert any more ie it is the comprehension of the Shari’a text from the Kitab and the Sunnah after exerting ones outmost in arriving at this comprehension in order to gain cognizance of the shari’a rule. This means three issues need to be fulfilled in the inference  (istinbat) of the shari’a rule until it can be said he has made the inference with a legitimate ijtihad ie three issues have to be met until the action can be called a ijtihad : First, exerting effort in a manner he feels himself unable to exert any more. Second, this exertion should be in search for a preponderate opinion about an issue from the shari’a rules. And third, this opinion about an issue should be from the shari’a texts because seeking a thing from the shari’a rules is not possible if it is not from the shari’a texts. Because, the hukm Shar’i is the address of the Legislator relating to the actions of the servants. This means the one who does not exert effort he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever exerts effort  seeking the (preponderate) opinion in other than the shari’a rules from disciplines and views, he is not considered a mujtahid. And whoever seeks an opinion from the shari’a rules from other than the shari’a texts he is not considered a mujtahid. So the mujtahid is restricted in what he exerts his utmost effort in understanding the shari’a texts on order to know the hukm of Allah. Anything other than that in terms of the Ulama ; who explain the sayings of the imam of their mazhab/school, attempt to comprehend his sayings and deduce rulings from it, or outweigh the opinion of some Ulama over the opinion of others without the medium of the shari’a evidences etc. None of them are considered mujtahids according to this definition. The order of ijtihad is restricted to the comprehension of the shari’a texts after exerting the utmost effort in the path of arriving at this comprehension in order to know the hukm of Allah. So the shari’a texts are the object of comprehension and they are the object of seeking the opinion about a thing from the shari’a rules.

What should be clear is that the Shari’a texts are the Kitab and Sunnah and none other. Any other text is not considered a Shari’a text whatever the status/position of the one who said it. So the sayings of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Ali or any other Sahaba are not considered as shari’a texts in any way whatsoever. Likewise the statements of Mujtahidin such as Ja’far, al-Shafi’i, Malik and other Mujtahidin are not considered shari’a texts at all. So exerting effort in deducing a rule, from the statements of those people or any other human being whoever they may be, is not considered ijtihad. Rather it is considered as the opinion of the person himself who made the inference and it has no value in the Shari’a. Not to mention that the deduction of a hukm from the saying of any individual from the Sahaba, Tabi’in, Mujtahidin and others is not allowed by the shari’a since it is an inference of a shari’a rule from a source other than the Kitab and Sunnah. This is haram in the Shari’a because it is judging by other than what Allah has revealed. And since what Allah has revealed is restricted to the Kitab and Sunnah. Any thing other than the Kitab and Sunnah, Allah has not revealed it. So adopting a hukm from it is nothing more than adopting something Allah has not revealed. And a hukm which is not according to what Allah has revealed is definitely haram.

The Kitab and Sunnah are in the Arabic tongue. The Kitab and Sunnah have come as revelation from Allah either in expression and meaning, such as the Qur’an or in meaning only. The Messenger (saw) expressed this meaning in his own words which is the hadith. In any case they -ie the Kitab and Sunnah- are in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) spoke. It is -ie the speech- either it has a linguistic meaning only such as ‘mutrafin’(affluent ones), or it has a Shari’a meaning only then the linguistic meaning is forgotten  as with the word ‘gha’it’, or it has a linguistic and Shari’a meaning like the word ‘tahara’ in examples of ‘tahhara’ (to purify) and ‘mutahhirun’ (the purified ones). So, to understand it one has to depend on the linguistic and Shari’a disciplines until it is possible to understand the text and arrive at an understanding of the hukm of Allah. Consequently, all conditions of ijtihad revolve around those two things and they are : the availability of the linguistic and Shari’a disciplines. Since the dawn of Islam until the end of the second century the Muslims did not need specific principles to understand the Shari’a texts, not from the linguistic or Shari’a perspective, because of the closeness of their time to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and because their only concern in life was the deen. This was also owing to the soundness of their linguistic disposition and the purity of their language. Therefore, there were no known conditions for ijtihad. But ijtihad as an issue was well known. And mujtahidin could be counted by the thousands. All of the Sahaba were mujtahidin and nearly most of the rulers, walis and judges were from the mujtahidin. However, when the Arabic language became corrupted and specific principles were laid down to rectify it. And when the people became occupied by the dunya and the number of people devoted to (the study) of the deen decreased and mendacity in attributing hadiths to the tongue of the Messenger (saw) became widespread. And principles were set down for abrogation (nasikh and mansukh), for the acceptance or rejection of ahadith, to understand the manner of deducing the rule from the ayah and hadith. When all of this happened the number of mujtahids decreased and the mujtahid began to proceed in his ijtihad according to specific principles through which he arrived at specific inferences which differed with the principles of others. And these principles came to be established either through a lot of practise in deducing rules from the texts. As though they were set down for him to proceed only according to one path. Or he used to follow certain principles and then he began to deduce (rules) according to them. This resulted in the mujtahid exercising ijtihad according to a specific methodology in understanding the Shari’a texts and in adopting the Shari’a rule from the Shari’a texts. And some mujtahids came to imitate a person in his method of ijtihad but they did not imitate them in rules but they deduced the rules themselves according to that persons methodology. And some Muslims became well versed about a certain thing from the Shari’a disciplines and they exerted effort in seeking a opinion from the Shari’a rules in specific issues that were presented to them and not in all the issues. In reality due to this we find three types of mujtahidin amongst Muslims : mujtahid mutlaq (one who performed absolute ijtihad), mujtahid mazhab (mujtahid in certain school of thought) and mujtahid mas’ala (mujtahid in a single issue).

As for the mujtahid mazhab he is someone who follows other Mujtahidin in their methodology of ijtihad, however he exercises ijtihad in ahkam but does not imitate the imam of his school. There are conditions for the mujtahid mazhab except having knowledge of the rules and evidences of the mazhab. He is able to follow the rules of the mazhab or disagree with them with his own opinion within the same mazhab. Due to this, it is allowed for the one who follows a mazhab to exercise ijtihad within this mazhab and disagree with the imam of the mazhab in some rules and issues if an evidence appears to him to be stronger. It has been reported about the imams that they used to say : If a hadith is found to be authentic, that is my mazhab and discard/throw my saying at the wall.’ One of the clearest example for this is that of imam Ghazzali who was a follower of the Shafi’i mazhab, but he had ijtihads in the mazhab of Shafi’i which contradicted the ijtihads of al-Shafi’i himself. The second is the mujtahid mas’ala. He has no specific conditions or method. However, it is allowed for whoever has knowledge of some of the Shari’a and linguistic disciples which enables him to understand the Shari’a texts, to exercise ijtihad in a single issue. So it is allowed for him, in a single issue, to study the views and evidences of mujtahidin, and their line of reasoning/argumentation. And from that he reaches a specific understanding of the hukm Shar’i which he presumes with the least amount of doubt/ with all probability to be the hukm Shar’i whether it agrees with the opinion of the Mujtahidin or disagrees with it. In a single issues it is allowed for him to study the shari’a evidences and understand from it what he deems with least amount of doubt/ with a degree of probability to be the hukm Shar’i whether this issue has been previously studied by the Mujtahidin or not. It suffices for the mujtahid in a single issue to be knowledgable about whatever relates to that issue, and it is essential that he is cognizant of that, but there is no harm if he is unaware of whatever does not relate to it, from what relates to foundational and jurisprudential issues and so forth.

And besides the state of affairs that took place in the days of the Sahaba and Tabi’in and what happened after the mazhabs and imams. There are people who used to understand the Shari’a texts and deduce rules from them directly without any conditions as was the case in the time of the Sahaba. There are people who continued as followers of a specific mazhab but they had ijtihads that went against the opinion of their imam. So the reality of what happened meant that the mujtahid  mazhab and mujtahid mas’ala did have a presence. This is in terms of the reality of what happened. As for the ijtihad itself , it can be divided into sections/parts. It is possible, therefore, for someone to be a mujtahid in some texts and not in others. As for the opinion of some people who say that the capacity for ijtihad is obtained when the person is cognizant of all the recognised disciplines. There is no basis for this definition and it does not accord with the reality. Since a person may acquire the capacity but not be a mujtahid because he has not set himself the hardship of studying the issue because capacity/aptitude (malaka) denotes the strength of understanding and linkage. This can be obtained by someone who is exceptionally intelligent with some knowledge of the linguistic and Shari’a disciplines and does not need to encompass the linguistic and Shari’a disciplines. A grasp of the Shari’a and linguistic disciplines may be present as knowledge due to study and instruction but the aptitude (malaka) is not present in this scholar because of the absence of thinking. However, ijtihad is a tangible process with tangible results ie exerting effort practically in arriving at a hukm. As for the presence of aptitude it is not designated as ijtihad. Thus, a person is able to perform ijtihad in some issues and not in others. He may be able to make ijtihad in the branches (furu’) but not in other areas. Therefore, it is clear that ijtihad is divided into parts/sections but sectioning of ijtihad does not mean the divisibility if ijtihad (tajzi’a al-ijtihad) in that a mujtahid is able to perform ijtihad in some subject areas of Islamic law/jurisprudence but not able in others. Rather the meaning of dividing (tab’id) ijtihad is the possibility of comprehending some evidences due to their clarity and absence of vagueness. And the inability of understanding evidences is due to their depth and  complexity  and the presence of various evidences which seem contradictory. They may happen in the jurisprudential/foundational principles (qawa’id usuliyya) or in the Shari’a rules. So the division of Ijtihad is with respect to the ability to deduce and not with regards to the subject areas of jurisprudence (fiqh).

All of this is with regards to the mujtahid mazhab and mujtahid mas’ala. As for the mujtahid mutlaq, he is anyone who performs ijtihad in the shari’a rules and in the method of his inference of the shari’a rules whether he had a specific method, as it is the case in some schools, or not. But he proceeds naturally in a specific manner of comprehension to deduce rules as was the case of the mujtahidin in the time of the Sahaba. Ever since the Arabic language became corrupted and people ceased to devote themselves to understanding the deen, it became inevitable that the mujtahid mutlaq fulfil conditions in order to become a mujtahid mutlaq. Consequently, they took the opinion that the mujtahid mutlaq does have conditions and the most important of which are the following two conditions :

First : knowledge of textual evidences (adilla sam’iyya) from which principles and rules have been extracted.

Second : knowledge of aspects of textual implication (dalala al-lafz) which are relied upon in the Arabic tongue and in the usage of the people of eloquence (bulagha).

As for textual evidences, their consideration are referable to the Kitab and Sunnah and Ijma’, and to the ability to compare and reconcile (jam’) evidences and outweigh the stronger evidence over other evidences when they contradict. That is because the evidences  may seem competing to the mujtahid and he sees them all mentioned as regarding the same issue, and each of them demands a hukm other than what the other evidence demands. So he is required to examine the aspects by which a facet of one of the evidences is outweighed in order to rely upon it in deciding the hukm. For example He (swt) said : ‘ And take for witness two just persons from among you (Muslims).’ [65:2] And He (swt) said : ‘ Then take the testimony of two just men of your folk or two others from outside.’    [5:106]  Both ayahs are about giving testimony. The first states that the witnesses should be from the Muslims. The second states that they should be from Muslims and from non-muslims. ie the first ayah stipulates that the witness be a Muslim while the latter permits the witness to be a non-muslim. It is essential to know the way in which they are reconciled ie it is essential to know that the first ayah is unrestricted (mutlaq) with regards to testimony and the second restricts (muqayyad) the testimony of bequests (wasiyya) on journeys. It must be known that the second verse permits the testimony of non-muslims at the time of the bequest and the like in terms of commercial transactions. It is by greater reason that this should be the case in other things. As well, those two verses indicate that the evidence/proof (bayyina) should be (from) two just witnesses. It is supported by another verse which is the saying of Allah (swt) : ‘ And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women.’[2:282]  How does that fit in with what has been established in the Sahih (of Bukhari) about the Prophet (saw) that he accepted the testimony of one woman in regard to fosterage (rada’a) ? And that he accepted the testimony of a single witness with an oath of the plaintiff ? Narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas : ‘That the Messenger of Allah (saw) pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath along with a single witness.’ Narrated by Jabir : ‘That the prophet (saw) pronounced Judgement on the basis of an oath along with a single witness.’ And narrated by Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib : ‘ That the Prophet (saw) passed judgement on the basis of a testimony of a single witness and an oath of the plaintiff (sahib al-Haqq).’ It seems that there is a contradiction between the evidences. However the  mujtahid who scrutinises the issue finds that what the ayah mentions is the most complete number in testimony. If the complete number is not met it does not mean any other number is not accepted, since the nisab (number) concerns taking up the responsibility of testimony. As for the judge’s discharging of his duty and ruling, the number of witnesses has not been stipulated but what is stipulated is the proof, which is whatever will demonstrate the truth even by the testimony of a single woman or single man along with the oath of the plaintiff (sahib al-haqq). However, if the Shari’a text has come specifying the number of witnesses as in the testimony for fornication, then it is restricted by the text. Also, the Prophet (saw) rejected the Mushrikin at the battle of Uhud. He did not accept them to participate with the Muslims in the battle. He (saw) said : ‘We do not seek the help of the disbelievers.’ But he accepted the help of the Mushrikin at Hunayn. How are those two evidences to be reconciled ? The mujtahid should know that the Messenger (saw) did not accept the Mushrikin at Uhud and refused to seek their help because they wished to fight under their own banner since they came distinguishing themselves with it [mutazzin biha]. So his refusal has an ‘illah, which is that they were fighting under their own banner and state. He accepted and sought their help in Hunayn because they fought under the banner of the Messenger. The ‘illah of refusing to seek help from them is absent so seeking help is allowed. And with this clarification and other such examples the conflict (tazahum) of evidences cease.

So the ability to comprehend the textual evidences and to compare them is a basic condition. Consequently, the mujtahid mutlaq must be conversant with discernment of the shari’a rules and their divisions, ways of establishing them, aspects of their textual implications from their meanings [wujuh dalalatiha ala madlulatiha,] difference of levels and recognised conditions. And he must know the angles of outweighing them when they contradict. This obliges him to be acquainted with transmitters (ruwwa), methods of invalidation and attestation (jarh wa ta’deel), and he should be familiar with the causes of revelation (asbab nuzul) and abrogation (nasikh wa mansukh) in the texts.

As for knowing the aspects of textual implications (dalala al-lafz), this requires knowledge of the Arabic language. Through the knowledge of Arabic one is able know the meaning of expressions, and aspects of their eloquence and implications, and knowledge of the current disagreement over the same word until it is referred to trustworthy narrators and to what the lexicographers/philologists say about it. It is not sufficient to know from the dictionary that qur’ indicates a state of purity and menstruation and that nikah denotes intercourse and contract of marriage. He should have knowledge of the Arabic language in a general manner in terms of the grammar, inflection, rhetoric and idiom etc. Knowledge of that will enable him to study the indication of a single expression and sentence according to the language of the Arabs and usage of the people of eloquence, which will enable him to check books about the Arabic language and understand from it what he needs to understand. However this does not mean he should be a mujtahid in the branches/minutiae of the language. It is not stipulated that he be proficient in language like al-Asma’i and proficient in grammar as Sibawayh. Rather it is sufficient for him to be knowledgeable about linguistic style so that he can distinguish between indications of expressions (dalala al-alfaz), sentences and style such as mutabiqa (conformity/harmony), tadmin (     ) haqiqa (literal), majaz (metaphorical), kinaya (metonymy), mushtarak (homonym, mutaradif (synonym) etc In a word, the level of absolute ijtihad (ijtihad mutlaq) cannot be attained except by someone who is characterised by two attributes : First, comprehension of the objectives (maqasid) of the Shari’a by understanding the textual evidences. Second, comprehension of the Arabic language and indications/implications of its expressions, sentences and styles. By that means, it is possible deduce rulings based on its understanding. Being mujtahid does not mean he should encompass every text and able to deduce any hukm, since the mujtahid mutalq may be a mujtahid in many issues reaching the level of absolute ijtihad. And even if he does not know some issues external to it, it is not a condition of the mujtahid mutlaq that he should be cognizant of all issues, all rules of issues and their discernment. Consequently, so the presence of a mujtahid mutlaq is not a difficult matter rather it is possible and feasible if one is truly determined. The level of mujtahid mas’ala is possible for all to attain after learning what is essential from the linguistic and Shari’a disciplines.
3.2 Taqleed  p.217
Taqleed linguistically is following others without scrutiny. It is said ‘he imitated him in such and such’ ie he followed him without scrutiny or examination. Legally, taqleed is acting according to the statements of others without binding proof/argument. Such as the layman’s adoption of the opinion of a mujtahid. Or the mujtahid’s adoption of the opinion of someone same as him. Taqleed (imitation) in ‘Aqeeda (creed) is not allowed because Allah has censured the muqallids (imitators) in ‘Aqeeda. He (swt) said : ‘ When it is said to them : “ Follow what Allah has sent down.” They say : “ Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following.” (Would they do that !) Even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided ?’[2:170]  And He (swt) said : ‘ When it is said to them : “Come to what Allah has revealed and unto the Messenger (Muhammad [saw] for the verdict of that which you have made unlawful).”They say :“ Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following,” even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance.’[5:104]

As for taqleed in the Shari’a rules it is legally permitted for very Muslim. He (swt) said :‘So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.’[21:7]  He subhanahu wa ta’ala has ordered the one who does not have the knowledge to ask the one who is more knowledgeable than him. Even though it is in the position of a refutation of the Mushrikin for their rejection of the Messenger being a human being. However, its wording is general and the consideration is for the generality of the wording and not the specificity of the cause (al-’ibra bi ‘umum al-lafz laa bi khususiyyat al-sabab). It is not about a specific subject such that it is said it is specific to this subject. It is general about the request from those who do not know to ask those who do know. Since it requests the mushrikin to ask the people of the Book, to teach them that Allah has not sent to the preceding nations messengers who were not human beings. They used to be ignorant of this information so He (swt) ordered them to ask those who know. The ayah says : ‘And We sent not before you (O Muhammad (saw) ) but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.’[21:7] The word ‘fas’alu’ (ask !) has come with a general import ie ask in order to learn that Allah has not sent anyone to the preceding nations other than human beings. It is related to knowledge and not to belief (iman). The people of zikr, even though the aforementioned in the verse are the people of the book, but the term has also come in a general manner and it includes all people of zikr. The Muslims are the people of Zikr because the Qur’an is a Zikr. He ta’ala said :   [16:44]  So those who know the Shari’a rules they are the people of Zikr whether they had knowledge of ijtihad or acquired knowledge. The muqallid only asks for the ruling of Allah in an issue or issues. Therefore, the ayah indicates the permissibility of practising taqleed.

Also, it has been narrated on the authority of Jabir (r.a.) : That a man was struck by a stone which fractured his skull. Then he had a wet dream. He asked his companions ; do you know of a permit (rukhsa) for me to perform tayammam (dry ablution). They said ; we do not find for you any permit and you are able to use water. He then had a bath and died. The Prophet (saw) said : ‘Verily, it would suffice for him to make tayammum, tie a piece of cloth around his head and wipe over it and wash the rest of his body.’ And he said, ie the prophet (saw) : ‘Why did they not ask when they did not know. Indeed, the cure for inability/incompetence is to ask.’ The Messenger instructed them to ask about the hukm Shar’i. It has been authentically reported that al-Sha’bi said : There were six companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) who used to deliver legal opinions to the people. Ibn Mas’ud, ‘Umar b. al-Khattab, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, Zayd b. Thabit, Ubayy b. Ka’b, and Abu Musa. Three used to leave their opinion for the opinion of the other three. ‘Abd Allah used to leave his opinion for ‘Umar’s opinion and Abu Musa used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. This also indicates that the Muslims used to imitate the Sahaba and some of them used to imitate each other.

As for what has been mentioned in the Qur’an in terms of the censure for taqleed. This is a censure for imitation in belief and not in the adoption of the Shari’a rules. Because, the subject matter of the verses is belief. Its text is specific to the subject of belief and they have no ‘illa. So the saying of Allah ta’ala : ‘ And similarly, We sent not a warner before you (O Muhammad [saw]) to any town (people) but the luxurious ones among them said : “We found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and indeed we will indeed follow their footsteps.” (The warner) said :“ Even if I bring you better guidance than that which you found your fathers following ?” [43:23-24]  And His ta’ala’s saying : ‘ When those who were followed, disown (declare themselves innocent of ) those who followed (them) , and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. When those who followed will say :  “If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare themselves ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us.” Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.’       [2:166-167] And His ta’ala’s saying : ‘ What are these images, to which you are devoted? They said : “We found our fathers worshipping them.”’  [21:52]

These verses are texts about the subject of belief (iman) and disbelief (kufr) and not general to all things. A text which still does not include any ‘illah and nor is there any justification found in any other text. Therefore, it should not be said that the consideration is for the generality of the wording and not for the specificity of the cause. This (principle) is correct with respect to the cause (sabab). It is the event which was the cause of revelation. but it is not correct in regard to the subject matter of the verse. The consideration is for the subject of the verse. And the generality (‘umum) is restricted to the subject of the verse only. It is general to everything that the meaning of the verse includes in terms of the subject. It is not general to everything that the verse does not include. Nor should it be said it is regarding belief and disbelief, but it is proper to interpret it as applicable to the muqallidin considering that the hukm revolves around an illah whether it was present or absent. This cannot be claimed since no ‘illah can be found in the ayah and no ‘illah can be found for the ayah. Because it does not include any justification and nor has there any justification come for it in any one of the texts of the Kitab and Sunnah. Therefore no no text can be found which prohibits taqleed. Rather the texts and the reality of the Muslims in the time of the Messenger and Sahaba and the reality of the Shahaba all indicate the permissibility of practising taqleed.

Taqleed is applicable to the follower (muttabi’) and to the layman (‘ammi) irrespectively. That is because Allah has defined taqleed as following the opinion of someone else. He (swt) said : ‘ When those who were followed, disown (declare themselves innocent of ) those who followed (them).’ [2:166] And since the hukm Shar’i that a person adopts, either he has deduced it himself or it has been deduced by someone else. If he himself deduces it then he is a mujtahid and if someone else deduces it and he adopts it then he has adopted the opinion of someone else ie followed the opinion of someone else. And following the opinion of someone else is taqleed whether he adopted without a proof or with a non-binding proof The muttabi’ (follower) therefore is a muqallid. As well, ittiba’ (following someone else) means that you follow the opinion of a mujtahid based on what has become clear to you in terms of evidence without you passing judgement on this evidence ie without you being bound by this proof. If you pass judgement on the evidence and you know the manner of deducing the hukm from it and you agree to the inference of the hukm and the hukm itself then the proof on which the hukm rests has become binding on you. Then you opinion has become like the opinion of the mujtahid. You are in this case a mujtahid and not a muqallid. From this it becomes clear that ittiba’ (following) is taqleed and that the follower (muttabi’) is a muqallid even though he knows the evidence.
3.2.1 The reality of Taqleed  p.221
The definition of taqleed, linguistically and legally, indicates that anyone who follows others in a matter will be a muqallid. So the consideration is following others. Therefore, there are two types of people with respect to the knowledge of the Shari’a rules : The first is the mujtahid and the second is the muqallid and there is no third. Since, the reality of the man is that he either adopts what he has arrived at himself by his ijtihad or what the other has arrived at by his ijtihad. The issue is limited to those two cases. Therefore, anyone who is not a mujtahid is a muqallid of whatever category. The issue in taqleed is the adoption of the rule from others irrespective of whether the one who adopted is a mujtahid or not a mujtahid. It is allowed for the mujtahid to imitate in a single issue other Mujtahidin even if he himself was qualified to do ijtihad. Then, he will be considered a muqallid in this issue. Thus, in a single hukm the imitator (muqallid) may or may not be a mujtahid. The same person may be a mujtahid and he may be a muqallid at the same time.The mujtahid when he comes to obtain a complete competence (ahliyya) for ijtihad in one of the issues, if he performs ijtihad on it and his ijtihad leads him to the hukm, he is not allowed to allowed to imitate other mujtahidin in a matter contrary to what his ijtihad has led him to. It is not allowed for him to leave his opinion in this matter except in four cases:
p. 222
First: When it appears that the evidence on which he relied in his ijtihad is weak (da’if) and the evidence of another mujtahid is stronger than the evidence he used. In such a case he is obliged to leave forthwith the rule to which his ijtihad had led and adopt the rule which is evidentially stronger. It is forbidden for him to continue on the first rule which he had reached by his ijtihad. He should not be prevented from adopting the new rule simply because the new mujtahid was the only one to hold such an opinion, or because this rule has not been espoused by anyone before. That goes against taqwa (the fear of Allah [swt]), because what matters is the strength of the evidence and not the number of people that have held it or how ancient they are. How many an ijtihad of the Sahaba there were whose error later became apparent to the Tabi’in or Tabi’-Tabi’in. When the weakness of the mujtahid’s evidence, and the strength of someone else evidence becomes apparent through outweighing (tarajjuh), without considering all of the evidences and the inference from them, then in such a situation, he will be considered a muqallid, because he has adopted the opinion of someone else by outweighing (tarjeeh). His example is that of the muqallid who is confronted with two rules, so he gave preponderance to one of them according to a Shari’a qualification (murajjih Shar’i). If the weakness of his evidence, and the strength of someone else’s evidence becomes apparent through judgement (muhakama), and pursuance (tatabbu’) of evidences and inference (istinbat). And through this he arrives at an opinion which is the opinion of another person. In that case he is not a muqallid but a mujtahid, to whom the incorrectness of the first ijtihad became apparent. So he retracts from it to another opinion which he has deduced himself as happened with al-Shafi’i in a number of times.

Second: When it appears to a mujtahid that another mujtahid has a greater capacity to link or has better awareness of the reality, or stronger comprehension of the evidences or is more acquainted with the textual evidences (adilla sam’iyya) etc. And it became preponderate to him that the other mujtahid is closer to the truth in understanding a specific issue or issues as they are. It is allowed for him in this case to leave the rule he has reached through his ijtihad and follow the other mujtahid in whose ijtihad he has more confidence than his own. It has been correctly reported on the authority of al-Sha’bi that Abu Musa used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. And that Zayd used to leave his opinion for Ubay b. Ka’b’s opinion, and that Abdullah used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Umar. Incidents have been reported about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar that they used to leave their opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. This indicates the retraction of a mujtahid from his opinion for the opinion of someone else based on his trust in the ijtihad of the other mujtahid. However, this is permitted for the mujtahid and not obligatory.

Third: If the Khalifah adopts a rule which conflicts with the rule arrived at through his ijtihad. In such an event he is obliged to leave the rule reached at by his ijtihad and take the rule which the imam (leader) has adopted. Because the Ijma’ of the Sahaba has been concluded that ‘the decree of the imam raises the disputes’ and that his decree is to be implemented on all Muslims.

Fourth: If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims, for the good of the Muslims. In such a situation it is allowed for the mujtahid to leave what he reached by his ijtihad, as happened with Uthman (r.a.) when he was given the bay’a. It has been reported that Abdur-Rahman b. ‘Awf, after he had consulted the people individually and in twos, together and separately, secretly and openly, he gathered the people in the Mosque, ascended the minbar and made a long supplication. He then called ‘Ali and took hold of his hand and said: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? Ali said: I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, but I will exercise my own ijtihad. So he let go of his hand and called for ‘Uthman and said to him: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? ‘Uthman said: By Allah, Yes! So Abdur-Rahman raised his head towards the roof of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman’s hand, and said three times: O Allah, hear and bear witness! Then he gave him the pledge and the people thronged to the mosque to give bay’a to him making Ali having to push his way through the people until he gave his pledge to ‘Uthman. Thus, Abdur-Rahman demanded from a mujtahid, ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, to leave his ijtihad and follow the ijtihad of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in all issues, whether he has exercised his own ijtihad regarding them and has an opinion which contradicts the opinion of both or one of them, or he has not exercised ijtihad yet. The Sahaba concurred with this and they gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. Even ‘Ali who refused to leave his ijtihad, gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. However, this is permitted for the mujtahid and not obligatory, as evidenced by ‘Ali refusal to leave his ijtihad for the ijtihad of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.

All of this is with respect to the mujtahid who has actually exercised ijtihad and his ijtihad has led him to a rule on an issue. As for the mujtahid who has not exorcised ijtihad on an issue, it is allowed for him to follow other mujtahidin and not make ijtihad on the issue, since ijtihad is an obligation of sufficiency (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) and not an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn). If he knows the rule of Allah on an issue, then it is not an obligation on the mujtahid to make ijtihad with regards to it. It has been correctly reported about ‘Umar that he said to Abu Bakr: ‘We hold opinions in accordance with your opinion.’ It has also been correctly reported about ‘Umar that when he found himself completely at a loss to find in the Qur’an and Sunnah what was needed when two disputing parties come to him, that he would see if Abu Bakr had a decision in the matter. If he found that Abu Bakr had passed a certain judgement on the issue he would pass the same judgement. It has been authentically reported about Ibn Mas’ud (r.a.) that he used to adopt the opinion of ‘Umar (r.a.). That used to take place before the eyes and ears of the Sahaba in numerous incidents and no one objected. Thus, it became a tacit ijma’(ijma’ sukuti).

This is the reality of the mujtahid’s practise of taqleed. As for the taqleed of the non-mujtahid whether he is a learned person or a layman, when an issue presents itself to him, on the whole, he is not permitted to do anything other than ask about it. Since Allah did not enslave (make them to worship him) the creation through ignorance, rather, He enslaved them (made them worship him) through knowledge. He ta’ala said: ‘So fear Allah; and Allah teaches you.’ [2:282] i.e. Allah teaches you whatever the case may be, so fear Him. So the knowledge comes before the taqwa (fear of Allah), since the order to fear Allah follows from the acquisition of knowledge in a natural order. This means that knowledge is acquired before involvement in the action. Just as when He (swt) said: ‘Fear Allah.’,  it comes to the mind the question of how is the taqwa. Thus, He (swt) said: And Allah teaches you so fear Him. Therefore, knowledge must come before action. Thus, it is fard on the Muslim to learn the rules of Allah which are necessary for action before he acts, since it is not possible for him to act upon it without knowledge. And this knowledge of the rules requires of people to ask about them in order to adopt the rules and act upon them. And through this knowledge, he will follow that rule. He (swt) said: ‘So ask the people of the Reminder (thikr) if you do not know.’ [21:7] It is a general instruction to all the addressees (mukhatabin). And He (saw) said in the hadith about the person whose skull was fractured: ‘Indeed, the cure for incompetence is to ask.’ This instruction continued to be general during the time of the Sahaba, where the mujtahidun used to be asked for legal opinions and followed in the Shari’a rules. They used to undertake the answering of questions without mentioning the evidence, and no one forbade them from doing that. All of this took place without any objection from anyone. Thus it was an ijma’. It was commonly practised by the Muslims also in the time of the tabi’in and tabi-tabi’in, and thousands of incidents have been reported to that effect.

Just as it is allowed for the learned person or layman to follow others in the Shari’a rule i.e. it is permitted to ask others. Likewise, it is permitted for him to teach this Shari’a rule to others as he understands it, when he is sure that he has understood it correctly, and he has adopted this Shari’a rule to act upon it himself i.e. he is sure that it is a Shari’a rule. As for if he does not trust this rule due to his lack of confidence in the authenticity of the evidence or lack of trust in the character (deen) of the one who has taught it to him. Then it is not allowed for him to teach it to others in order to act upon it. If he had to say it, he had to say what he knows about it (rule). It is permitted for the one who learns a rule to teach it to others because anyone who has knowledge even of a single issue he is considered to be knowledgeable about that issue, when he has trust in his knowledge of the rule and in the truthfulness of what he has said about the issue. The concealment of knowledge is forbidden. He (saw) said: ‘ Whosoever hides the knowledge which he knows, he will be restrained on the day of judgement with a bridle of fire.’ this is general and applicable to knowledge of a single or many issues.

However, the learned person (muta’allim) is not considered to be a follower of the one who has taught him the rule. Rather he is the muqallid of the mujtahid who has deduced the Shari’a rule. And the learning of this rule is considered only as learning. Since taqleed can only be made to a mujtahid and not to someone who has only knowledge of a rule. However much a non-mujtahid attains in terms of knowledge, it is not permitted to make taqleed to him in his capacity as learned person, because it is only permitted to learn from him, not make taqleed to him.

The muqallid is not given a choice when a difference of opinion arises, when for instance the mujtahidun differ on two opinions. So the different opinions reached the muqallid, i.e. the divine rule reached the muqallid as two opinions. Some people think that the two opinions with respect to a muqallid is tantamount to one opinion. They think he has the right to choose between them, so he follows his whims and desires and whatever serves his purpose and not the opinion that goes against it. However, the situation is not like that, since the Muslim is ordered to adopt the hukm Shari’. The hukm Shar’i is the speech of the Legislator. There is only one speech, there cannot be more than one. When there is more than one understanding of the speech then each understanding constitutes a shari’a rule with respect to the one who understands it and the one who makes taqleed to him. Anything other than that is not considered a hukm Shar’i with respect to him. So how is it possible then for him to adopt two different opinions?  When a muqallid finds two opinions from the mujtahidin which conflict with each other, then each mujtahid is a follower of an evidence which demands the opposite of what the evidence of the other mujtahid demands. They possess two conflicting evidences. Following one of them according to one’s whims is nothing short of following one’s whims and desires and this is forbidden. He (swt) said: ‘Follow not the lusts (of your hearts.’ [4:135] Thus, the muqallid has no option but to make taqleed. Two mujtahids with respect to the layman (‘ammi) are like two evidences with respect to the mujtahid. Just as it is obliged on the Mujtahid to outweigh two conflicting evidences, likewise it is incumbent on the muqallid to outweigh two contradictory rules. If whims and motives were allowed to arbitrate in something like this then it would have been allowed for the judge. It is invalid according to the ijma’ of the Sahaba. Also, in the issues of the Qur’an there is a general rule which altogether disallows the following of the whims and desires, as in His (swt’s) saying: ‘(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (saw).’ [4:59] This muqallid in whose issue two mujtahids differ, he must refer it (the issue) to Allah and the Messenger (saw), which is done by referring it to a preponderant which, for the muqallid, Allah and the Messenger are pleased with. Just as the mujtahid returns to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). And returning to what Allah and His Messenger are pleased with is far from following one’s whims and desires. The muqallid must choose one of the two opinions, and this choice must be based on the preponderant which Allah and His Messenger (saw) are pleased with. It is not possible for the muqallid to act upon both opinions since they conflict. And his choice of one of the two mazhabs, or one of the two different rules without a preponderant is a choice based on whims and desires. It is contrary to returning to Allah and the Messenger (saw). The preponderants (murajjahat) by which the muqallid prefers a mujtahid over another, or one rule over many other rules, the first and foremost of them are: the question of best knowledge (a’lamiyya) and understanding (fahm). It has come in the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud that he (saw) said: ‘O Abdullah b. Mas’ud. I said at your service. He (saw) said: ‘Do you know who are the most knowledgeable of people?’ I said: Allah and His Messenger (saw) know best. He said: ‘The most knowledgeable of people is the one most aware of the truth when people differ, even if he is deficient in deeds, and even if he crawls on his bottom.’ Therefore, the muqallid outweighs what he knows of the mujtahid’s knowledge and trustworthiness (‘adala) because trustworthiness is a condition in accepting the testimony of a witness. Conveying a hukm Shar’i through teaching is a testification that this is a hukm Shar’i. So for accepting the rule, the integrity of the teacher who teaches it is essential. So the integrity of the one who deduces it is by greater reason. So the a‘adala (integrity) is a condition which the person from whom we take the hukm Shar’i must qualify for, whether he is a mujtahid or a teacher. It is definite. As for knowledge it is the preponderant. Whoever believes that Shafi’i was more knowledgeable, and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to adopt a mazhab according to his whims and desires which contradicts it. And whoever believes that Ja’far al-sadiq is more knowledgeable and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to go against it based on his whims. He has the right, rather it is obligatory upon him to adopt what conflicts with his mazhab when the preponderant opinion becomes apparent after outweighing the evidence. Tarjeeh (outweigh) is necessary. That this outweighing should not be based on whims and desires is also necessary. The muqallid does not have the right to pick and choose from the mazhabs issues which are more agreeable to him. Rather this type of outweighing is like the outweighing of two conflicting evidences for the mujtahid. To perform tarjeeh (outweighing) he relies on the veracity of the information which comes with the qara’in (indications). This is the case when outweighing for adopting in total not for every single rule.

The preponderant in taqleed is two: First: a general preponderant, which relates to the the person he wishes to follow such as Ja’far al-Sadiq and Malik b. Anas for example. And second, the specific preponderant which is with regards to one hukm Shar’i which he wishes to follow. The question of best knowledge (a’lamiyya) comes in the second category. If an incident had taken place in Medina in the time of Malik, then he is regarded as more knowledgeable about it than Abu Yusuf. And the incident which took place in Kufa in the time of Ja’far, he is considered more knowledgeable about it than Ahmad b. Hanbal. So the information which reaches the muqallid about the mujtahid is  what is referred to.

Having the best knowledge (a’lamiyya) is not the only preponderant and nor is it the preponderant for taqleed in itself. Rather it is the general qualification for the one who wishes to make taqleed. And in general terms for the rule which is intended to be followed. As for the true qualification with regards to the rule, it is the strength of the evidence on which reliance is put. However, because the muqallid cannot understand the evidence, then the criterion of best knowledge (a’lamiyya) is considered instead. There are many recognised preponderants which vary according to the states of the muqallids.
3.2.2 The states of muqallidin and their preponderant qualifications p.229
Taqleed is the adoption of another person’s opinion without a binding proof (hujja mulzima). So the acceptance of another person’s opinion without a binding proof is considered taqleed just as acting according to the opinion of another without a binding proof is considered taqleed. That is like the layman’s adoption of the opinion of a mujtahid, or the adoption of the mujtahid of an opinion from someone like him. Referring to the Messenger (saw) is not taqleed to him and nor referring to the ijma’ of the Sahaba is taqleed to them. Because, that constitutes referring to the evidence itself and not adopting the opinion of another. Likewise, the laymen’s reference to a mufti is not considered taqleed to him, rather it constitutes seeking a legal opinion and learning and not adoption. So he either refers to him, to seek a legal verdict (fatwa) or to learn, i.e. the reference of a layman to a learned person is not considered taqleed to him because it constitutes either inquiring about a hukm Shar’i or learning it. As for the adoption of an opinion with knowledge of its evidence, it will be looked into. If the knowledge of the evidence is mere knowledge, like knowing that visiting the graves is permitted because the Messenger (saw) said: ‘ I used to forbid you from visiting the graves, (but now) visit them.’ Then in this situation he is considered a muqallid because he has adopted the opinion of another without a binding proof even if he knew the evidence. However, he himself did not use this evidence as proof so it is not a binding proof with respect to him. As for if an understanding of the evidence was arrived at after judging it and deducing the hukm from it, it is then regarded as an ijtihad which agrees with the ijtihad of the one who initially held this opinion. Because judging the evidence and deducing the hukm from it can only be done by the mujtahid, since this depends on the knowledge of it being free from conflict according to the necessity of studying it. This also depends on the scrutiny of the evidences. No one has the ability to do this except the mujtahid. Therefore, the muqallid is not a mujtahid. People with regards to the hukm Shar’i are either mujtahid or muqallid and none other. i.e. either he deduces the hukm himself whether some one else had deduced it before or he himself deduced it from the onset. Or he adopts the deduction of another mujtahid. Therefore, whoever does not have the capacity (ahliyya) for ijtihad he is a muqallid irrespective of whether he had knowledge of some of the legally recognised disciplines in ijtihad or not. So he falls under the category of muqallid ‘ammi (layman) or muttabi’. However, the muttabi’ imitates on condition that he knows the evidence of the mujtahid. While the ‘ammi he imitates without any condition.

It is permitted for the muqallid, whether follower or ‘ammi to adopt the opinion of any mujtahid once it is established that this opinion of his is an ijtihad, even if it was established by a solitary narration (khabar ahad). When he is confronted with an issue and he has not acquainted himself with the opinions of the mujtahidin but he knows the opinion of a single mujtahid. It is permitted for him to adopt the shari’a rule which this mujtahid had deduced because what is required from him is the adoption of a shari’a rule in an issue and not the pursuance of the opinions of mujtahids. In such an instance outweighing is not required from him. As for if he is familiar with the opinions of the mujtahidin and he wishes to adopt one of them then it will not be correct for him to do anything other than perform tarjeeh (outweighing). And this tarjeeh (outweighing) should not be according to the conformity of the hukm to his whims or apparent benefit. Since the intention of the Shari’a is to take the mukallaf (legally responsible) from the motive of his whims and desires so as to become a true servant of Allah. Indeed, the tarjeeh should be according to a Shari’a preponderant qualification i.e. the qualification should be linked to Allah and the Messenger of Allah (saw). He (swt) said: ‘(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (saw).’ [4:59] Referring to Allah and to His Messenger (saw) is either to the word of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) i.e. to the shari’a evidence, either to what Allah or His Messenger (saw) has ordered. Consequently, the preponderant qualifications differ according to the different states of the muqallids. Yes, the general preponderant qualification for the layman is, subsequent to the evidence, the one who has the best knowledge (a’lamiyya) and comprehension (fahm). And this is the primary preponderant qualifications for all muqallids. However, there are different preponderant qualifications which people use to outweigh, with or without the preponderant qualification of best knowledge (a’lamiyya). So the layman follows a mujtahid according to his trust of the understanding and taqwa (God fearing) of the ones who follow him, from the people he knows, like when he trusts his father or one of the ‘Ulama, so he follows the ones who follow him. This outweighing (tarjeeh) for the ‘ammi (layman) is from the perspective of the deen and not the perspective of his whims. Or, another preponderant qualification is that the layman knows the shari’a rules and the evidences by attending lessons on fiqh, hadith etc. At that point he is able to distinguish between rules and their evidences. This person outweighs in taqleed according to his acquaintance with the evidence. So he follows the hukm the evidence for which he is familiar with, when it contradicts a hukm the evidence for which he is not acquainted with. He will, then, have a hukm which is linked to an evidence which is preferable to a hukm which is not linked to an evidence. Those two situations apply to the layman; who is anyone who does not have knowledge of some of the recognised disciplines in ijtihad. Therefore, the layman in all of these situations, when an evidence becomes manifest to him, he must leave the taqleed that is based on his trust of the knowledge and taqwa of those who follow the mujtahid whom he follows. And adopt the hukm which is linked to an evidence, because now he has a stronger preponderant qualification. So whoever used to follow Shafi’i or others because his father used to follow him, when the evidence of a hukm Shar’i, which had been deduced by a mujtahid other than the one he followed, becomes manifest to him and he believed in it. Then he must adopt that hukm due to the presence of a stronger preponderant qualification which is the Shari’a evidence. As for if he did not believe in it, then he does not have the right to leave the hukm he has been following since he has no preponderant qualification to warrant it. In the outweighing (tarjeeh), he relies on the hearing of indications (qara’in). He does not have the right - i.e. the layman - to adopt different mazhabs based on whims. And nor does he have the right to follow the mazhabs in every issue which is easier for him, rather he must seek a preponderant qualification when there is more than one understanding for the ahkam.
3.2.3 Moving (tanaqqul) from one mujtahid to another p.232
Allah has not ordered us to follow any mujtahid, imam or mazhab. Rather He ordered us to adopt the hukm Shar’i. He ordered us to adopt what the Messenger (saw) brought and to abstain from what he has forbidden us.  He (swt) said: ‘And whatsoever the Messenger (saw) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).’ [59:7] Therefore, the Shari’a does not deem it right for us except to follow the rules of Allah and not the people. However, the reality of taqleed has led the Muslims to follow the rules of certain mujtahids whom they have assigned as imams for themselves, and they made the rules these mujtahids have deduced by their ijtihad, as a mazhab for themselves. So the Shafi’is, Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, Ja’faris and Zaids etc have an actual presence amongst the Muslims. Even though these people follow the shari’a rules which have been deduced by these mujtahids, their action is legitimate because it constitutes following a Shari’a rule. As for if they followed the mujtahid as person and not his deduction, then their action is not lawful and what they follow is not considered a shari’a rule. Because is a statement of a person which is not from the orders and prohibitions of Allah which have been brought to us by the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (saw). Consequently, all those who follow mazhabs must understand that they are following only the rules of Allah which have been deduced by those imams. If they have a contrary understanding, then they will be answerable to Allah for leaving the rules of Allah and following people who are themselves the servants of Allah.

This is from the perspective of following the rules of a mazhab. As for the perspective of leaving these rules, it has to be examined. If someone adopted a hukm but has not acted upon it yet, then he has the right to leave it and adopt another hukm based on one of the preponderant qualifications which is linked to seeking the pleasure of Allah. If he, in actuality, practised it then this hukm has become the rule of Allah with respect to him. It is not permitted for him to leave it and adopt another hukm except when the second hukm is linked with an evidence and the first hukm is not linked to an evidence. Or if it was proven to him by way of learning that the evidence of the second hukm is stronger than the first and he is convinced of that. Then it is incumbent on him to leave the first hukm. Because his conviction and trust in the shari’a evidence has made it the rule of Allah with respect to him. Which is analogous to the mujtahid, when he finds an evidence stronger than the evidence from which he deduced the hukm. Then he must leave the previous opinion and adopt the new opinion due to the strength of the evidence. In any other situation, it is not allowed for the muqallid to leave the hukm he had followed and adopt a different hukm after he had already acted according to the first hukm.

As for making taqleed to another mujtahid for another hukm that is permitted due to the ijma’ of the Sahaba which has taken place on allowing the muqallid to seek legal verdicts from any learned person in an issue. As for when the muqallid selects a mazhab such as the mazhab of Shafi’i or Ja’far for example, and he says; I follow his mazhab and adhere to it, there are some details for this: he is not allowed to follow any other mujtahid in a question he has already practised according to the mazhab he is following; while any questions he had not acted upon before, he is allowed to follow other mujtahidin in those questions.

However, it should be made clear that the question which is allowed for him to leave it hukm that he has been following for another hukm, it is stipulated that the question should be separate from other questions, and that leaving it does not entail infringement of other Shari’a rules. As for when the question is connected to other questions then it is not allowed for him to leave it unless he leaves all the questions connected to it, because they are all considered as one question. For instance; if the question was a condition in another hukm, or one of the pillars (arkan) of a complete action such as the prayer (salah), wudu (ablution) and pillars (arkan) of the Salah. Thus, it is not correct for a Shafi’i to follow Abu Hanifah’s opinion that touching the women does not invalidate the wudu and continue praying according to the mazhab of al-Shafi’i. It is not right for him to follow the one who takes the opinion that constantly moving in prayer (to whatever extent this may be) does not invalidate the prayer. Or that the recitation of the Fatihah is not one of the pillars of prayer and then he continues to pray as a  muqallid of the one who holds the opinion that constantly moving in prayer does invalidate it or that the Fatihah is one of the pillars of the prayer. The hukm which is allowed to leave is that hukm whose relinquishment does not affect the actions which are undertaken according to other shari’a rules.
3.3 Learning the Shari’a Rule
The one who seeks a legal verdict (mustafti) is not a muqallid, because the muqallid is the one who adopts the Shari’a rule and acts upon it. As for the mustafti (one who seeks a legal verdict), he is the one who learns the hukm Shar’i from a person who knows this hukm, whether that person was a mujtahid or not, and whether the mustafti learned it in order to practise it or just for the sake of knowledge. The mustafti is anyone who seeks to know the rule of Allah pertaining to an issue. So anyone who is not a mujtahid with regard to a hukm is seeker of a legal verdict in regard to that hukm. Thus the one who is not a mujtahid in any issue he is a mustafti (seeker of  a legal verdict) in all issues. Whoever is a mujtahid in certain issues he is a mustafti in the issues he has not exercised ijtihad in. As for the one who explains the rule of Allah to a mustafti (seeker of a legal verdict) he is a mufti. It is said in the Arabic language: He gave a legal verdict pertaining to an issue: he explained its rule. And he sought a legal opinion from an ‘alim regarding an issue means he requested him to give a legal opinion about it. The legal opinions of the Sahaba and the Tabi’in are the rules they clarified to the people. And since having knowledge of Allah’s rule is fard, there must be people, whether mujtahids or not, who can teach the Shari’a rules to others, irrespective of whether they teach the people the rules with or without the evidences. Since it is not stipulated that the one who teaches the rules should be a mujtahid, just as it is not stipulated for the Muslim who teaches others to clarify the evidences. It is allowed for someone who knows a hukm to teach it to others when he becomes conversant about that hukm. Since it is not stipulated for the one who gives legal opinions to people regarding the shari’a rules or teaches them himself to be a mujtahid. On the contrary this is permitted for a non-mujtahid. It is allowed for a non-mujtahid who is acquainted with the shari’a rule of a mujtahid to deliver a legal opinion using that hukm because he is a carrier of the hukm even if he did not make that known. In performing this action there is no deference between an expert and others, such as in the reporting of ahadith.  Just as it is not stipulated that the transmitter of a hadith be an expert it is not stipulated either for the one who conveys a hukm Shar’i to others to be an expert. So it is by greater reason (min bab awla) that there should be no stipulation for him be a mujtahid. Even though it is stipulated that he should know, the hukm that he conveys, in a clear and accurate manner since he cannot convey it to others if he is not precise and unable to convey it properly. Likewise, it is not stipulated for the person who teaches people the hukm Shar’i or gives them legal opinions to teach them the evidence or convey it to them. Rather it is allowed for him to limit himself just to conveying the hukm Shar’i without quoting the evidence. i.e. it is permitted for him to give fatwa with the hukm Shar’i and teach it to people without clarifying to them the evidence. However, he is required to explain to them that what he transmits to them is a hukm Shar’i or the inference (istinbat) of someone else i.e. of a certain mujtahid. However if he conveys an opinion and he says to them: ‘This is my opinion’ or he conveys to them an opinion and says: ‘This is the hukm because so-and-so mujtahid said such and such thing’. What he imparts is not considered a shari’a rule since the statement of a mujtahid is not a shari’a evidence. Using their speech as an evidence for a hukm invalidates its status as a hukm Shar’i. However, if he ascribes the hukm to a mujtahid’s deduction. It is a hukm a Shar’i even if he does not expound the evidence.

This was common practise in the time of the Sahaba. The people used to seek legal opinions from the mujtahidin and follow them in the shari’a rules. The learned among them used to respond to their questions without alluding to the evidence and they were not forbidden from doing that. Not one Sahaba objected. Thus it became an ijma’ (consensus) on the legality of a layman following a mujtahid without mentioning the evidence. It was also an ijma’ on the permissibility of learning the rules of Allah and teaching them without learning or teaching the evidence. The layman (‘ammi) and the follower (muttabi’) are the same with regards to that. It is allowed for any one of them to seek verdicts from the other and teach the hukm shar'i he correctly understands to the other. Whether he knew the evidence or not. That is because anyone who gains knowledge of a hukm he is considered to be knowledgeable about that hukm. So it is allowed for him to teach it to others. However, the layman (‘ammi) limits himself to conveying what he knows exactly as he learnt it. As for the follower (muttabi’) he teaches what he knows and he gives verdicts according to what he knows because he possess some of the recognised disciplines in ijtihad. He comprehends the rules and he knows how to teach them and how to give legal opinions with them. However, learning the rules and giving opinions with them does not constitute making taqleed to the teacher or the mufti. This is considered only as the giving of opinions or learning a hukm. Taqleed should be made to the one who deduced the hukm and not the one who teaches it or gives verdicts by it. However, it has been stipulated that the teacher, in analogy to the witness, be just ie without manifesting any transgressions of the Shari’a. Since the witness informs about an incident and the teacher also informs about the hukm of Allah. So both inform about something, for which trustworthiness (‘adala) is a stipulation. Also, Allah has forbidden the Muslims to accept the statement of a fasiq (transgression) and ordered them to check it. He (swt) said: “O you who believe! If a fasiq (rebellious person) comes to you with a news, verify it” [49:6] The use of the word ‘fasiq’ (transgressor) and ‘news’ (naba’) in their indefinite (verbal noun) forms indicate that when any fasiq (transgressor) comes with any news, the people should desist from adopting what he says and seek to verify the matter and discover the true reality and not simply accept what he says. The opposite meaning (mafhum al-mukhalafa) of this verse is that the statement of the upright and just person is taken whether for the purpose of giving legal opinions or learning etc.
3.4 The strength of the Evidence (quwwa al-daleel)
The Shari’a evidence is a proof that the hukm it denotes is a hukm shar’i. Therefore, the consideration of a hukm as a Shari’a rule depends on the consideration of its evidence. Consequently, the discussion about the judgement of an evidence is the basis in considering the Shari’a rules. When there is a suitable evidence for an incident to prove its hukm is such and such. Then this hukm is considered a Shari’a rule for that incident based on the consideration of its evidence. However, if there are two appropriate evidences for an incident; one indicates a certain hukm, a prohibition (hurma) for example and the other indicates a different hukm such as permissibility (ibaha). Then we must outweigh (tarjeeh) one of the evidences over the other until it becomes possible to adopt a hukm on the premise that its evidence is stronger than the other. Therefore, one must know the angles of outweighing (tarjeeh) the appropriate evidences that are used as proof so as to facilitate adopting the strongest evidence by outweighing it over other evidences. The evidence for the obligation of outweighing and acting upon the preponderant evidence, i.e. the strongest evidence, is the ijma’ of the Sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them for that). So, they (the Sahaba) outweighed the report of ‘A'isha with regards to the touching of the two circumcised parts. Her statement: “When the circumcised part touches the circumcised part ghusl is obligatory. I and the Messenger of Allah (saw) did this, so we made ghusl.” They outweighed her saying over the report of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet (saw) said: “It is with the seminal emission that ghusl becomes obligatory.” This is because the wives of the Prophet (saw) were more versed about these matters than the men. As well they outweighed the report of one of his wives who narrated that he used to wake up in the morning in a state of janaba (major ritual impurity) over what Abu Hurayra reported from al-Fadl b. ‘Abbas that the Prophet (saw) said: ‘Whoever wakes up in a state of major impurity, there is not fast for him.’ Just as ‘Ali b. Abi Talib found the report of Abu Bakr stronger. Thus he did not put him to oath but someone else. And just as Abu Bakr found the report of al-Mughira about the inheritance of the grandmother stronger due to what was narrated in addition to it by Muhammad b. Maslama. Also, just as ‘Umar found the report of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari about the isti’zan (seeking permission) stronger after it has been corroborated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s narration. The Sahaba used not to outweigh opinions and analogies except after studying the texts up to the point that it was not possible to go (in study) any further. Whoever scrutinises their situation and observes the facts of their ijtihadat will come to be aware, without any doubt whatsoever, that they used to oblige the use of a preponderant evidence as opposed to a weaker one from two speculative (zanni) evidences. That is also indicated by the Prophet’s (saw) acceptance of Mu’az, when he sent to Yemen as judge, on the order of evidences and the precedence of one evidence over the other.

However, when two evidences conflict it will not be correct to resort to the outweighing of one evidence over the other except in the event when it not possible to use both of them together. If it is possible to act upon both of them that is better, since it is better to act upon both evidences than to disregard one of them altogether. Because an evidence in principle is to act upon it and not disregard it. Although it is not correct to act upon both evidences through excuses and pretexts but according to the indication of the text. An example of using two conflicting evidences is the saying of the Prophet (saw): “Shall I tell you who are the best of witnesses? He is the one who comes with his testimony before he is asked to do so.” And his saying (saw): “Then lies will become widespread until a man will take an oath without being asked and will give witness without being asked to give witness.” So the Messenger (saw) praised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony, and he (saw) criticised the one who gave witness before he was called to give testimony. Thus, the Prophet’s praise of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give it indicates that it has been ordered by the Legislator. And the Prophet’s (saw) criticism of the one who gave witness before he was asked to give testimony indicates that it has been prohibited by the Legislator. This is a contradiction between the two evidences, and their reconciliation is: that giving testimony regarding a right of Allah, the Shari’a has ordered to be provided without being requested to do so. And giving testimony regarding a right of the servant, the Shari’a has forbade that the witness testifies before he is asked to do so. Like his saying (saw): “There is no prayer for the one who lives next to a mosque except in the mosque.” But the Messenger’s (saw) acceptance of the prayer to be performed in other than a mosque has been established. One evidence contradicts the other. The reconciliation is that the hadith is taken to mean the negation of the perfection of the prayer. The Messenger’s (saw) acceptance of the prayer to be performed in other than a mosque is taken to mean that such a prayer is correct (sahih).

It is absolutely essential that one attempts to act upon both evidences. If it is not possible to practise them both together and they contradict despite being equal in strength and generality, then it must be looked into. If the later evidence is known then it abrogates the earlier one whether both evidences were definite (qat’i) or speculative (zanni), whether from the Kitab or Sunnah. Both evidences cannot be from the Kitab and Sunnah at the same time because the Sunnah does not abrogate the Kitab, even if it is mutawatir (recurrent report). As for when the later evidence is unknown; then both of them must be speculative (zanni) because definite evidences (qat’i) do not contradict each other. If they are speculative (zanni), then one must return to outweighing them. And so the stronger evidence is used. The strength of the evidence means its strength in terms of the order of the evidences, and in terms of the level of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences. As for the order of the evidences; the Kitab is stronger than the Sunnah even if the Sunnah is mutawatir (recurrent). The recurrent (mutawatir) Sunnah is stronger than the ijma’ (consensus). And the ijma’ which has been transmitted recurrently is stronger than the isolated hadith (khabar al-ahad). The isolated hadith (khabar al-ahad) is stronger than the qiyas (analogy) if its ‘illah was taken by way of indication (dalala), deduction or analogy. As for when its ‘illah is taken explicitly, it is treated as the text which has indicated the ‘illah explicitly, and it takes its rule in terms of the strength of the evidence. If the text was Qur’anic then its hukm is that of the Qur’an, and if it was the Sunnah then its hukm is that of the Sunnah. If it is indicated by the ijma’ then the rule of the ijma’ is taken. In terms of considering the deduction in each type of the speculative evidences. The speculative evidences are two evidences; the first is the Sunnah and the second is the analogy (qiyas). Each one has specific considerations in the outweighing of evidences. i.e. considering the strength of the evidence. As for the Sunnah, the strength of the evidence with respect to it means its strength in terms of the chain (sanad) of transmission, its strength in terms of the text, and its strength in terms of the meaning. As for the strength of the Sunnah evidence in terms of the chain (sanad) they will be from the following issues:

First: pertaining to the transmitter (rawi). The transmitter who was in direct contact is preferred to the transmitter who was not in direct contact. Because the former is more aware of what he narrates. That is like the narration of Abu Rafi’ that the Prophet (saw) married Maymuna when he broke his state of ritual consecration. It is preferred to the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas that he (saw) married her when he was in a state of ritual consecration. Because, Abu Rafi’ was the mediator between them and he was the representative of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in her marriage to him. And the hadith is outweighed according to the legal comprehension of the transmitter. The report of a transmitter who is a faqih (jurist) is preferable over the report of a transmitter who is not a faqih (jurist). The hadith which has been transmitted by a rawi through memorisation is preferred to the hadith which has been transmitted by a rawi through the medium of written materials. So when one of the two transmitters relies on his memorisation of the hadith and the other relies on written materials. The one who has committed it to memory is more preferable because he is more free from suspicion. The hadith narrated by a well known transmitter is preferred to the hadith narrated by a lesser known transmitter.

Second: Pertaining to the same report. The recurrent hadith (khabar mutawatir) is preferred to the isolated hadith (khabar al-ahad). The report which has a complete chain (musnad) is preferred to a mursal  report because we know the transmitter of the musnad and we do not know the transmitter of the mursal.

Third: Pertaining to the time of transmission. The transmitter who narrated the hadith in his adolescence is preferred to the hadith which has been narrated by a transmitter at the time of his childhood i.e. when he was a child.

Fourth: Pertaining to the manner of transmission. The report on which there is agreement over its continuous link (raf’ihi) to the Prophet (saw) is preferred to the report about which there is disagreement over its continuous link to the Prophet (saw). The report which cites the actual words (khabar mahki) of the Messenger (saw) is better than the report which has been transmitted by meaning.

Fifth: Pertaining to the time in which the hadith was mentioned. So that hadith which has been transmitted generally without a date is preferred to a hadith which is dated as early, because the general hadith is more similar to the later hadith. The report which is mentioned in the last days of the Prophet (saw) is preferred. So the report mentioned during the illness when he died is preferred to the general report.

Sixth: Pertaining to the words of the report. The report whose words indicate reality (haqiqa) is preferred to the one whose words indicate metaphor (majaz). The report which contains (includes) the divine reality (haqiqa shari’a) is preferred to the one which includes the linguistic reality (haqiqa inghawiya) or the traditional reality (haqiqa urfiya). Because the Prophet (saw) was sent to explain the divine (facts). The report which includes a reason (‘illah) for the hukm, whether it was explicit, indicative or deduced is preferred to the one which does not point to a reason (‘illah) for the hukm. Because the reasoned hukm is stronger from the legislative point of view.

As for the strength of the evidence in terms of the matn (text) they are from the following issues:

First: If one of the reports is a command and the other is a prohibition. The prohibition is preferred to the command. Because the predominant situation of the prohibition is to seek the repulsion of an evil (mafsada). And the predominant situation of the command is to obtain a benefit (maslaha). And averting evils (mafasid) is more preferable to the acquisition of benefits (masalih).

Second: If the one of the reports commands a thing and the other permits a thing. The hadith which permits is preferred to the one that commands. Because acting upon the hadith of permission necessitates the interpretation of the command by diverting it from the command to act to a permitted action, which is one of its established meanings. Acting upon the command necessitates the suspension of the entire hadith of permission. Acting upon both evidences is better than suspending one of them.

Third: When one of them is a command and the other is [khabar]. So the [khabar] is preferred to the order, because the [khabar] is stronger in meaning than the command. Therefore, abrogation of the [khabar] is prevented as opposed to the command which can be abrogated.

Fourth: If one of them forbids and the other permits. The one that permits is preferred to the one that forbids due to the same reason of preferring the hadith of permission to the hadith of command.

Fifth: When one of them is a prohibition and the other is a [khabar]. The [khabar] is preferred to the prohibition for the same reason the [khabar] is preferred to the order.

As for the strength of the report in terms of the meaning they are in the following issues:

First: If one of the reports conveys ease (takhfif) and the other conveys harshness (taghleez). Then the report which includes ease is preferred to the report which includes harshness due to His (swt) saying: “Allah intends for you ease, and He does not want to make things difficult for you.” [2:185] And His (swt) saying: “And He has not laid upon you in religion any hardship.” [22:78] And due to his (saw) saying: “Islam is easy.” And his (saw) saying: “There is no harm or reciprocating harm in Islam.”

Second: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys a permission. The report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates a permission due to his (saw) saying: “The lawful and the unlawful do not come together except that unlawful prevails over the lawful.” And his (saw) saying: “Leave what you doubt for that which you do not doubt.”

Third: If one of the reports conveys a prohibition and the other conveys an obligation. The report which indicates a prohibition is preferred to the report which indicates an obligation. Because, in most cases a prohibition repulses an evil and an obligation in most cases obtains a benefit. The repulsion of evils takes precedence over the acquisition of benefits.

Fourth:  If one of the reports conveys an obligation and the other conveys a permissibility. The report which indicates an obligation is preferred to the report which indicates a permissibility. Because leaving an obligation entails a sin and leaving a permissibility does not entail anything. So, being further from the sin is more proper than being further from a thing that does not entail anything. Because, the report which indicates an obligation has a decisive request and the report which indicates a permissibility is either a request giving choice or it is itself a choice. The decisive request is preferred to other requests.

This is with respect to the considerations of tarjeeh in the Sunnah. As for the considerations of tarjeeh in analogy (qiyas). They are according to the evidence of the reason (‘illah). So the analogy (qiyas) whose reasoning of its description (‘illayat wasfihi) is proved by the definite text is preferred to the one whose reasoning of its description is established by non definite text. Because the definite text is inconceivable to indicate other than reasoning (‘illah), while the indefinite text is not. The analogy whose ‘illah is proved explicitly (sarahatan) is preferred to the one whose ‘illah is established through induction, deduction or analogy. That whose ‘illah is established by deduction is preferred to that whose ‘illah is established by analogy. Thus the outweighing (tarjeeh) of analogy is according to the ‘illah and its evidence.

These, briefly, are the preponderant qualifications. Through them the stronger evidence is known so that the Shari’a rule is outweighed. This is possible in two cases: firstly, in the case of the muttabi’ (follower) in his judgement of two evidences without possessing the ability to deduce (istinbat) due to the absence of exerting the effort seeking the preponderant opinion. Secondly, in the case of the mujtahid when he is confronted with two evidences. In both cases, when there are two evidences then one must be outweighed over the other. When one evidence is outweighed he is obliged to adopt the hukm whose evidence is stronger and act upon it, and leave the hukm whose evidence is proven to be weak.
3.5 al-Shura : The adoption of an opinion in Islam
The shura, or the adoption of an opinion can be undertaken by the Khalifah, ameer, or anyone who has authority whether he is a chief, leader or official, as they are all ameers. Or, it can take place between spouses due to His (swt) saying: “If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation.” [2:233] As for putting forth an opinion to a person in authority, whether he was a judge, leader etc, this is quite obvious. It was performed by way of giving advise (nasiha), which is a legitimate matter (amr mashru’) that is presented to the leaders of the Muslims and the masses. As for the referring of a person in authority to adopt an opinion of the people, whether he was a judge, ameer, or president. That is an object of ambiguity especially after concepts of democracy have spread and have almost changed the mentality of many Muslims. The seeking of an opinion is what is termed in Islam as: ‘Shura’ and ‘tashawur’. Since it is permitted to listen to an opinion expressed by Muslims and non-Muslims because the Messenger (saw) accepted the opinion that was included in the hilf al-fudul (fudul confederacy), where he said: “If I were invited I would respond, for I do not like to break an agreement which is more appealing to me than herds of cattle.” Even though it was an opinion of the Mushrikin. Yet seeking of an opinion cannot be for anyone except for the Muslims i.e. shura is not a right of anyone except the Muslims. Because Allah (swt) addressed the Messenger saying: “And consult them in their affairs.” [3:159] i.e. the Muslims. And He (swt) says: “And who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.”  [42:38] i.e. the Muslims. Because the first verse says: “And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (Allah’s) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in their affairs.” [3:159] This consultation by the Messenger (saw) cannot be for anyone except the Muslims. The second verse says:  “And those who answer to the Call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.”  [42:38] This cannot be a description of anyone other than the Muslims. Therefore shura is specific to Muslims with each other. Practising shura amongst Muslims is a well-known matter. It has been mentioned in the noble Qur’an and sacred hadith and in the sayings of the Muslims. It has been narrated that Abu Hurayra (r.a.) said: “I have not seen anyone more willing to consult others than the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) consultation of his companions.” It has been narrated also that al-Hasan (r.a.) said: “There is not a people who consult each other, except that they are guided to the best decision in their affairs.” So seeking of an opinion is tashawur or shura which is proven in the text of the Qur’an and the hadith. However what many people do not know is; in which opinion can there be a shura or tashawur? i.e. in which issue is an opinion adopted? Then, what is the rule on this opinion. Should it be adopted according to the opinion of the majority irrespective of right or wrong? Or, is he obliged to adopt the correct opinion irrespective of whether it is the opinion of the majority or minority or a single person?

In order to comprehend the answer, it is inevitable that we should understand the reality of the opinion as it is and what it is? And understand the detailed Shari’a evidences mentioned about seeking of opinions and apply these evidences on the reality of an opinion from a legislative perspective.

As for the reality of opinions existent in the world they do not number more than four types only. Any opinion in the world, is either one of these opinions or it has branched out from or classified under one of them. The four types of opinions are:

First: either the hukm is a Shari’a rule i.e. legislative opinion.

Second: Being the definition of a certain issue. Either a Shari’a definition such as the definition of what a hukm shar’i is or the definition of a reality, such as the definition of the ‘mind’, ‘society’ and other such things.

Third: it is an opinion which indicates a thought in a subject or it indicates a thought in a technical matter which is understood by specialist people.

Fourth: An opinion which indicates an action that needs to be undertaken.

These are the opinions existent in the world and this is their reality. So is shura (seeking of an opinion) is carried out in all of these opinions or only in some of them? Is the opinion of the majority preferred irrespective of being right or wrong? Or is the opinion preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority? In order to arrive at an answer, we must examine the evidences mentioned in the Qur’an and hadith first. And then apply these evidences on these opinions.

As regards shura the text of the Qur’an indicates that shura applies to all types of opinions because the verse says: “And who conduct their matters (affairs) by mutual consultation.” [42:38] And says: “And consult them in the matter.” [3:159] The speech here is general. So the word ‘matter’ means the affairs of the Muslims, which is a general designation for all affairs. And in the word ‘al-amr’ (the matter), the definite article (alif lam) is generic i.e. to the category of affairs. The general thing remains general as long as there is no evidence to specify it. And here there is no evidence to specify shura to anything. Therefore, it remains of general designation for all affairs.

As regards the abidement by an opinion which is sought by the Shura i.e. whether the majority opinion is preferred irrespective of right or wrong or the opinion is preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority being given any consideration. Certainly, there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should be adopted and complied with. And there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should not be adopted. Rather it gives the person in authority the right to execute what he has decided irrespective of the majority position. The Messenger (saw) said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar: “If both of you agree on a mashura, I will not go against it.” And he complied with the opinion of the majority in Uhud. Allah (swt) says to the Messenger (saw): “And consult them in the matter. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah” [3:159]

In order to arrive at an understanding of when it is binding to adopt the opinion of the majority and when it is not binding. We must examine the evidences which are mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith first, and then apply these evidences on the  existing opinions in the world.

As for the evidences mentioned in the Qur’an, there are two ayats. The first is His (swt) saying: “And consult them in the matter.” [3:159] It is an order from Allah (swt) to His Messenger (saw) to refer to the Muslims to obtain their opinion. However, Allah (swt) gave him (saw) the right to choose the opinion. So He (swt) said in completion of the same verse: “Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah”. [3:159] i.e. after you have decided on a matter after consultation (shura), then put your trust in Allah in carrying out your matter in the most sensible and appropriate manner. And He (swt) said: “When you (singular) took a decision” (‘azamta) and not when “you (plural) took a decision” (‘azamtum). As for the second verse, His (swt) saying: “And their matter is run by mutual consultation.” [42:38] It is a commendation from Allah (swt) for the Muslims because they do not adopt an opinion on their own but consult each other about it. It encourages the practise of consultation (shura). The saying is also ambivalent (mujmal). Therefore, we need to refer to the Sunnah to see if there is anything there in terms of the sayings and actions of the Messenger (saw) which will elucidate the ambivalent meaning (mujmal).

By referring to the sayings and actions of the Messenger (saw) we find that he (saw) said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar: “If both of you agree on a mashura, I will not go against it.” He (saw) is obliging himself not to go against what they have agreed upon, though he restricted their agreement to the mashura. He (saw) said: “If both of you agree on a mashura” The word ‘mashura’ is a description which serves as a restriction and it has an opposite understanding (mafhum mukhalafa). Which means that if they made an agreement on anything other than mashura it will not be binding to refrain from going against it. So here the Messenger (saw) demonstrated that the opinion of the majority should not be opposed when they are two persons and he is one.

We also find that the Messenger (saw), on the day of the battle of Uhud, brought together the people of opinion, those amongst the Muslims and those who pretended Islam and they started to consult each other. The Prophet (saw) took the opinion that they should take siege in Madina and force the Quraysh to stay outside. The head of the Munafiqin (hypocrites) ‘Abdullah b. Ubay b. Salul was of this opinion. And this was the opinion of the senior companions. The opinion of the zealous youth who had not witnessed Badr was to go out to confront the enemy. The majority then appeared to be on the side of the youth. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) yielded to their opinion and followed the opinion of the majority. So this incident indicates that he (saw) gave in to the opinion of the majority and acted according to their opinion and he left his own opinion and that of the senior companions because they were the minority. So when the people began to feel remorse and say: “We have forced the Messenger of Allah (saw) to follow our opinion and we do not have that right.” They went to him (saw) and said: “We have compelled you but we do not have that right. If you wish you may remain (in Madinah). May Allah bless you.” The Prophet (saw) refused their request to go back to his opinion and that of the senior companions and he continued to insist on compliance with the opinion of the majority.

However, we see him (saw) also in Badr where he complied with the correct opinion and he was satisfied with a single opinion when he found the opinion to be true. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Muslims with him came down at the nearest spring of Badr, al-Habbab b. al-Munzir did not like that place. He said to the Prophet (saw): “O Messenger of Allah. Has Allah inspired you to choose this spot over which we have no say or is it an opinion, war and strategy?” The Prophet (saw) replied: “It is a matter of opinion, war and strategy.” So he said: “O Messenger of Allah. This is not a good place.” Then he pointed to another place. The Prophet (saw) and those with him lost no time in following the opinion of al-Habab. In this hadith the Prophet (saw) left his opinion and he did not refer to the opinion of the majority but followed the correct opinion. He was content to adopt it from one person about a subject the Messenger (saw) himself said was: “a matter of opinion, war and strategy.”

Then we find the Messenger (saw), in expedition (ghazwa) of Hudaybiya, that he stuck to his opinion single handily and he rejected the opinion of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Furthermore, he rejected the opinion of the Muslims and forced them to comply with his opinion despite their anger and grievances. He told them: “I am the Messenger of Allah (saw). I will not disobey Him, and He will not neglect me.”

From these four hadiths we find that the Messenger (saw) held on to his opinion solely and rejected all other opinions. We also find him referring to the correct opinion and adopting the opinion of a single person alone whilst leaving his own opinion and not referring to the opinion of the people. We find him also complying with the majority opinion and making a statement which indicates that the opinion of the majority should be referred to and not opposed. If we scrutinise these hadiths and the context in which they came. We find that the Prophet (saw) referred to the Shari’a evidence, i.e. the wahy (revelation), in Hudaybiya. And that he referred to the correct opinion in the battle of Badr, but referred to the majority in Uhud, and his compliance with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. What the action and saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw) indicates is no more than three situations: First, referring to the strength of the evidence as perceived by the one who deduces from it and not how the people perceive it. Second, referring to what is correct irrespective of the opinion of the majority and not even giving it any consideration at all. Third, referring to the majority opinion regardless of whether it was right, and not ? giving it any consideration at all.

When we apply these three rules, which have been deduced from the action and saying of the Prophet (saw), on the reality of the existing opinions in the world we find the following:

Firstly- The Shari’a rule is outweighed only on the basis of the strength of the evidence. For, the Messenger (saw) only preferred what was sent down by revelation and absolutely rejected everything else. Therefore, he said: “I am the Messenger of Allah (saw). I will not disobey Him and He will not neglect me.” The Shari’a evidence is only the Kitab and Sunnah and whatever the Kitab and Sunnah indicate as an evidence. Because, it is the matter upon which the order or prohibition of Allah applies. The strength of the evidence is not what the people perceive or what they define and understand it to be. Rather, the strength of the evidence is only according to what the one who educes (mustadill) perceives it. Even if the sense of deduction was his own understanding and the definition was his own, as long as he relied on the semblance of an evidence (shubhat daleel). This is because how the strength of the evidence is perceived differs from people to people due to their disparate perceptions of the shari’a evidence itself and due to the manner by which they understand the Arabic language and the Shari’a. The strength of the evidence does not mean the strength (authenticity) of the hadith only. Rather, the strength of the evidence, whether it be the Kitab or the Sunnah, is in terms of the meaning (diraya), narration (riwaya), understanding (fahm) and consideration (i’tibar). And there is no difference among the Muslims about this.

Secondly - The opinion which indicates a thought about a subject, is outweighed from the angle of what is right. Such as the issue of revival. Will it be realised by an intellectual elevation or through an economic one? Or, is the international situation favourable to the side of this or that state? Is the internal and international situation suitable for the undertaking of political actions or military actions in addition to the political action or are they not suitable. In all of these things what is referred to is the correct opinion. Because, whatever category they may be, they fall under the saying of the Messenger (saw): “It is a matter of opinion, war and strategy.” The correct opinion is referred to just as the Prophet (saw) referred to the opinion of al-Habbab b. al-Munzir. Al-Habbab was familiar with that place, so the Prophet (saw) referred to his experience. So in the technical opinion reference is made to the correct opinion.

Thirdly - The opinion which leads to undertaking an action, the opinion of the majority is preferred. Because he (saw) complied with the majority opinion in Uhud and he went outside of Madina even though he saw this opinion as mistaken. Likewise, the senior companions took a contrary view because they held the Prophet’s view that they should remain in Madinah. Despite this, the Prophet (saw) acted according to this opinion, which is to go outside of Madinah because the majority had taken this opinion. So this action of the Messenger of Allah (saw) clarifies the meaning of his statement to Abu Bakr (r.a.) and ‘Umar (r.a.): “If both of you agree on a mashura, I will not go against it.” This is regarding the opinion over the same category as in the case Uhud i.e. an opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. So in any opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action the majority is preferred such as in the election of a leader, or deposition of a governor (wali) or to decide on a project etc. It is incumbent that the majority opinion is adopted and that it is binding irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.

After the application of the evidences on the reality of opinions in the world, it becomes clear that the binding opinion, i.e. in which the majority is preferred, is of the same category as in the case of Uhud. It falls under the ‘al-mashura’ mentioned in his (saw) saying: “If both of you agree on a mashura...” It is the opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. Anything besides that is not binding and it is not obligatory to act upon it based on the view of the majority. Thus, the binding opinion i.e. in which the majority opinion is preferred, is restricted to one type of the actions that exist in the world, which is the opinion that discusses the action which needs to be performed. Due to this application it also becomes clear that for the Shari’a rule and the opinion which leads to a thought or technical matter no attention is given, in both cases, to the majority opinion. For the Shari’a rule, only the strength of the evidence is taken into account. And in the opinion which leads to a thought or technical matter, i.e. which is of the type of opinion, war or strategy, only the correct opinion is given attention and nothing else

Therefore, definition is an opinion which is not binding i.e. the majority opinion is not followed, since in no way does it fall under ‘mashura’, because the incident of Uhud does not apply to it. However, the question of definition also belongs to the opinion which indicates a thought. Because the study of the hukm shar’i in order to define it and the study of the mind to define it; is the study of an actual thing in order to arrive at understanding of its reality i.e. understanding of its true nature. Whenever it is in agreement with reality then that is what is preferred. Therefore, in defining a thing what is preferred is the correct opinion. In this the shari’a rule is not studied and nor is any importance attached to the opinion of the majority. There is no difference between the shari’a definition and the definition of any other thing. So when the definition is inclusive (jami’) of all components of the object being defined, without exception or exclusion of any components of the definition. And it restricts (mani’) the inclusion of any component which is does not come under the meaning of the definition. Then this definition is preferred over other definitions i.e. the correct opinion is preferred. Because it agrees with the reality of the object being defined, and gives true description of this reality.

This is the hukm of shura in Islam and it is clear from the texts of the Qur’an and hadith and it has been elaborately described in the actions of the Messenger of Allah (saw). However, for the purpose of gaining a precise understanding, someone may become confused, when discussing the reality of opinions, about the difference between an opinion through which a thought is reached and the opinion through which one arrives at an action. The question of the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud in applying the evidences on the opinions prevalent in the world may also become confused. It might be said, when discussing the reality of opinions, that there is no difference between the opinion which leads to an action and the opinion which leads to a thought. In the end, all of them revert back to an action. So from where does this difference arise? The answer to that question is that there is a subtle difference between them. With respect to the opinion which leads to a thought, only the subject matter is discussed without considering the action. So the area of discussion is the subject and not the action. What is intended from the discussion is to arrive at a thought over a subject which is studied without considering the action irrespective of whatever this thought may entail in terms of actions. For example, the Muslims going forth in the apostasy (ridda) wars was discussed by Abu Bakr as being in the sphere that a faction under his rule had rebelled against the implementation of the laws of the Shari’a. ‘Umar discussed it in the sphere that it constitutes fighting a faction which is strong and is challenging the state and the state may not be able to fight them. Thus, Abu Bakr said: “By Allah! If they withhold from me the cord of a camel which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (saw) I will fight them!” When the issue became clear to him ‘Umar had no choice but to retract from his previous opinion and follow the correct opinion, which was the opinion of Abu Bakr. Because, in reality, the issue was that a faction under the Islamic rule had rebelled. The issue was not that a large faction was challenging the state. The real discussion is not about going out to war or not going out as was the case in Uhud. Rather it is about whether the bedouin’s refusal to pay Zakah after the death of the Messenger (saw) and their challenge to state constitutes rebellion against the Shari’a rule or a challenge to the state by a large faction. This is the actual discussion. Therefore, it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to a thought, for which reference is only made to the correct opinion. The correct opinion is that a faction under the rule of the Islamic state had rebelled against the implementation of the Shari’a rules. For example, Mu’awiyya’s request for the arbitration (tahkeem) of the Qur’an between him and sayyidina ‘Ali by raising aloft the mushafs: was that a true arbitration of the Qur’an or was it a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali ? ‘Ali (r.a.) saw it as a ploy and many people with him viewed it as an arbitration of the Qur’an. So, this subject/issue should be studied in order to arrive at the true significance of raising the mashafs (scripts); which constitutes an opinion that leads to a thought. So the correct opinion is referred to which is that it was a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali. For example, does the increase in the number of rulers weaken a state or strengthen it? In other words, as the number of rulers decreases, does the state become stronger, or whenever their numbers decrease does the state become weaker, and whenever their number increases the state become stronger? In other words, does the cabinet in the democratic system become stronger whenever its members decrease and weaken whenever its members increase or is it the opposite? Does the state in the Islamic system become stronger whenever the number of the khalifah’s assistants (mu’awwinin) decrease and weaken whenever their numbers increase, or is it the opposite? This issue is studied in order to arrive at the true reality. So it is an opinion which leads to a thought, and in this subject the correct opinion is accredited. Which is that whenever the number of rulers increases the state becomes weaker and whenever their number decreases the state becomes stronger.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to a thought. It is clear from this that the area of discussion is the subject and not the action. Though the discussion in the subject would ensure actions, yet the discussion is not focussed on the action but on a thought which, upon becoming clear, entails the undertaking or non-undertaking of an action. Or, undertaking an action in a manner which is necessitated by the thought which has been discussed. So the discussion is for the purpose of arriving at an opinion in a subject i.e. to a thought. When a thought is reached a decision will be made on the subject of the action, in light of the thought arrived at after study. This opinion which is studied will not lead directly to an action, rather it will only lead to a thought. The thought which is reached may entail the undertaking of an action or it may not. Consequently, it is an opinion which leads to a thought. As for the opinion which leads to an action, the undertaking of an action is discussed, considering the subject upon which this action depends. So the area of discussion is the undertaking of an action and not the subject. The purpose of discussion is to determine whether or not to undertake an action or to undertake an action in a specific manner. The purpose is not to discuss a subject. So when it is intended to elect a Khalifah and give Bay’a to him the subject of Khilafah is not discussed. Whether this is obligatory (fard) or preferred (mandub). And nor is the discussion; should we elect a president (of a republic) or a khalifah? What should be discussed is: should so-and-so be elected and given Bay’a or should a different person be elected and given Bay’a? When the state’s action of taking out a loan is discussed, the discussion should not be the issue of whether or not it is allowed to take the loan. But rather what should be discussed is: whether the loan is to be taken or not. And when the opening of a certain road is discussed, it should not be discussed whether or not it is allowed to open this road due to the presence of another road taking its place. But what is discussed: is whether the road should be opened or not. i.e. the action itself is discussed in terms of whether or not to undertake it. The subject which is entailed by this action is not discussed. The discussion of a subject is an opinion which leads to a thought. But the subject is not the area of discussion. Rather the subject under the area of discussion is whether to undertake an action. Then it will be considered a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. So the opinion will be put forward in order to undertake an action. For example, when Abu Bakr consulted the Muslims with regards to who will be khalifah after him, it was a discussion about the election of a khalifah ie should so-and-so or so-and-so person be elected. Definitely, the discussion was not about the issue of Khilafah. It was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example when the agreement of arbitration (tahkeem) between Mu’awiyya and sayyidina ‘Ali took was finalised. A discussion took place about selecting an arbiter (hakam) on the side of ‘Ali (r.a.). ‘Ali (r.a.) chose ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas (r.a.) but most of the people with him chose Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. This discussion was about who will be the arbiter (hakam) and not about the issue of accepting arbitration. So it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example, if the Muslim populace take the view that they should establish heavy industry to manufacture all types of machinery and equipment in order to fulfil the elements necessary for the  state to carry the Message (of Islam). But their rulers take the view that they should establish dams and encourage agriculture in order to improve the livelihood of the farmer. This discussion is about whether to pursue heavy industry or to undertake the construction of dams. The discussion should not be whether the state should carry the Message (of Islam) or not. So the discussion is about an opinion which leads to an action.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to an action, and it is clear that the area of discussion is the action and not the subject. These actions, even if they depend on certain issues, their discussion, however is not  focused on these issues, rather on the undertaking of the action. So the discussion is about the action and not about the opinion.

From this discussion and from the above examples, it is clear that there is a difference between the opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action. Even though this subtle difference requires reflection and scrutiny. All this is in relation to the confusion that can occur with respect to the difference between an opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action. As for the confusion that may occur with regards to the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud; it might be claimed that there is no difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud. Why should the incident of Badr be considered as an opinion which leads to a thought and the incident of Uhud be considered as an opinion which leads to an action when both involve going into battle and there is no difference between them? The answer to that is that there is a clear distinction between the two incidents since the reality of the incident of Badr is different to that of Uhud. The issue in Uhud was: Should they go out or remain in Madina? It was to do with zeal and cautiousness. The discussion was not about a (strategic) position in war. That is why we find the Prophet (saw), when he came to organise the army in a strategic position on the mountain of Uhud, that he assumed the task of organising them himself. He made the marksmen wait in the rear and ordered them not to attack. For this action he did not refer to the opinion of the people. As for the reality of Badr the issue was purely the question of arranging the army in a strategic position. So for this action the Messenger of Allah (saw) referred to the correct opinion. This is from one angle. From another angle, the evidence for this is not just the action of the Messenger (saw) but it is his action and his saying as well. So the Messenger’s (saw) saying, “It a matter of opinion, war and strategy,” is also an evidence.

One issue still remains; who will be the one to expound what is right, while his opinion is considered to be the preponderant? We have explained that in the Shari’a rules the strength of the evidence is preferred, and in the opinion which leads to an action, the view of the majority is preferred. And that in the opinion which leads to a thought, the technical matters and questions of definition, in all these matters the correct opinion is preferred. It remains for us to identify who will expound the right opinion and whose opinion will be preponderant. The answer is that the one who outweighs the correct opinion is the one who has jurisdiction over that thing in question. He is the one who leads the people i.e. their leader, since he is the one who assumes the task of consulting the people. When the community consults each other, it only does that to reach an opinion so as to proceed according to it. To proceed according to it as a community, it becomes necessary to have a leader over them.  So only he should have the authority over the matter for which the consultation took place. The one to outweigh the correct opinion should be only him, the one who leads the people. The evidence for this is the verse which states: “And consult them in the matter. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah” [3:159] So the shura was performed by the Messenger (saw) and he was the leader of the Muslims. Allah gave him the right to decide, to implement what he decides after the consultation. i.e. what he views as being correct. So he was the one who outweighed what was correct. Likewise, it is the same situation with any leader of a people, since this is not special to the Messenger (saw) but general to all Muslims. That is because the speech of the Messenger (saw) is a speech to his Ummah as long as there is no evidence to specify it to him. And here, there are no evidences to make it specific to the Messenger (saw). So it is general (‘amm).

As for when the community does not have a leader and it wishes to select some one who will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. In this situation the community should choose a single person only so that he will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. The community is not allowed to choose more than one person. That is because outweighing the correct opinion cannot be embarked to other than one person. Yes, the majority might state the correct opinion and the correct opinion might lie more with two persons as opposed to one. But the issue is not the possibility of with whom the correct opinion lies, but rather who will outweigh the correct opinion. Is it one person or two? That cannot be possible for the majority, because following the majority (opinion) is contrary to adopting the correct opinion. They are two opposite issues. Thus, the majority is adhered to irrespective of the correct opinion, and the correct opinion is adhered to irrespective of the majority.

As for the fact that only one person should outweigh the correct opinion, and that it is not permitted for more than one person to do so. This is obligatory due to a number of reasons:

First: That reality of the correct opinion makes it inevitable that there should be one person because if the outweighing is left to two, three or more persons they will only disagree. And this disagreement of theirs will force them to refer to an arbitration (tahkeem). If they appoint two people as arbitrators they will only disagree so the judgement will have to go to one of them. Then the right to judge will have been referred to only one person. If they appoint three arbitrators then their disagreement will be unavoidable. Then the judgement will be given either to one or two persons. If they refer to two persons then they would have referred to the majority opinion, when it is required that they refer the correct opinion. Then it becomes necessary to refer to one person. Therefore it is imperative, that from the beginning, the judgement is given to only one person. i.e. the one who outweighs the correct opinion should be one person only. The disagreement that occurs between two or three persons occurs between people of greater number than that. So passing judgement should not be given to more than one person. Because, when more than one person are given the right to pass judgement, the judgement goes to the majority and not to what is right. What is intended is the arbitration of the correct opinion and not the majority.

Second: The basis in outweighing the correct opinion is that it should only be for the one in authority, and he can only be one person. Because if he is ameer i.e. leader then he can only be one person. And if he is implementing the thing for which consultation took place then he can only be one person. Since two persons will unavoidably disagree about of styles of implementation. Then their disagreement will obstruct the implementation. So the person in authority should only be one. Consequently, the person who outweighs the correct opinion should be only one person.

Third: For the Muslims the post of the Khilafah is the greatest thing. The Islamic Law has granted the Khalifah the sole authority to outweigh one rule over another in the adoption of rules. And it has given him the right to be alone in his adoption based on the strength of the evidence. And it has given him the sole right to outweigh the correct opinion. He has the sole right to declare war, conclude a treaty, define the relationship with the Kafir nations and anything else that comes under the authority of the khalifah. The looking after of the affairs has been made subject only to his opinion, according to what he sees as being correct to undertake. The ijma’ of the Sahaba has taken place on this. The opinion of the Khalifah is the opinion of one person only. So by greater reason (min bab awla), for things of lesser importance than that grave task - i.e. the job of the khalifah- the correct opinion should be outweighed by a single person.

This is the issue of shura (consultation) and tashawur (mutual consultation) i.e. the adoption of opinions and this is the rule of the Shari’a with regards it. This rule differs completely with the democratic rule. This rule of Allah concerning the adoption of opinions is the only true one. Anything else emanating from democracy is false and it is not permitted to adopt it.

4 Science and Culture
In Arabic tongue it is said: the man (alima) has obtained knowledge (‘ilm). This means that the true reality of knowledge occurred to him. He gained knowledge of a thing means he became cognisant of it, i.e. he became informed of a matter or acquainted with it. Also in the language it is said: He (thaqifa) has gained comprehension, which means that he has become proficient, thus he is clever and adroit (thaqif). He has understood [thaqifa/thaqufa] a language, (means) he has mastered and understood it swiftly. These linguistic meanings are the basis of the use of words. However if these words were used to indicate other meanings that relate to the linguistic meaning; that is permitted, such as, the adoption of the word fa’il (subject) in grammar for example. The linguistic meaning (of the words) was prevailing, and that is why the ancients used to apply the word ‘ilm on all forms of knowledge without differentiating between the sciences and disciplines. Then, people began to consider intellectual and natural disciplines as being general to all peoples whilst other traditional (textual) disciplines were considered specific to the nation from which it was transferred. Subsequently, each of science (‘ilm) and culture (thaqafa) began to be defined according to different specific disciplines, acquiring terminological meanings which were different to their linguistic meanings. According to this terminology they have the following meaning: So, science (‘ilm): is the knowledge which is acquired through observation, experimentation and education, as in physics, chemistry and the rest of the empirical sciences. And culture (thaqafa): is the knowledge which is acquired by way of transmission, learning and deduction as in (the study of) history, languages, jurisprudence (fiqh), philosophy and the rest of the non-empirical disciplines. And there are other non-empirical disciplines which are included as sciences (‘ilm) even though they come within culture such as arithmetic, engineering and industry. Even though they come under culture (thaqafa) they are regarded as part of science because they are universal to all peoples and not specific to any one nation. As well anything from the culture relating to crafts which resemble industry such as trade and shipping; they are considered as part of science and they are universal. As for the arts such as; painting, sculpture and music they are part of culture. They follow a particular viewpoint; which is a specific culture. The difference between culture and science is: that science is universal to all nations and not specific to any nation to the exclusion of another nation. As for culture it might be specific, being ascribed to the nation from which it resulted or it may be part of the nation’s specific and particular characteristics. Such as literature and biographies of heroes, and their philosophy concerning life. Or they may be universal such as trade, shipping etc. Therefore, science is adopted universally i.e. from all nations because it is universal and not specific to any particular nation. As for culture, the nation should begin with its own culture, when she has studied it and is cognisant of it until it becomes focused in their minds, then she can study other cultures.

The Muslims used to differentiate between the sciences which a person used to attain by himself and the sciences he used to receive from others. Ibn Khaldun says in his al-Muqaddima: “The sciences are of two types: A natural type which is for man to arrive at through his thinking. And a textual type which he takes from the one who authored it. The first: are the philosophical and aphoristic sciences which he can seek by the nature of his thought and be guided, through the human faculties, to its subjects and issues and all its decisive proofs and aspects of its teachings. So as in his discernment and study, he attains the correct (opinion) from the incorrect, in his capacity as a human being possessing the faculty of thought. The second: are the textual and written sciences (‘ulum naqliyya wad’iyya). They depend on the report coming from a shar’i source. In this regard, the mind has no scope except to relate the branch issues to the usul (foundation).” He also said “The rational or natural sciences are common to all nations since man arrives at them through the natural (disposition) of his thought. As for the textual sciences they are specific to the Muslim religion (millah islamiyyah) and its adherents.” It appears that what Ibn Khaldun meant by specifying the textual sciences with the Islamic millah is was only by way of example. Or else other nations other than the Islamic nation have textual sciences specific to them such as their legislation and language.  Ibn Khaldun’s statement does not indicate that he distinguished between science and culture. It only indicates that he distinguished between textual and rational sciences. His comments are not an evidence to say that the Muslims used to differentiate between science and culture. Rather they are an evidence to prove that the Muslims used only to differentiate between disciplines. Thus, they divided them into two sections. However their division was in terms of their general acquisition and not in terms of the manner of acquisition. So they designated them as rational sciences i.e. acquired via the mind. And textual sciences acquired from the text. However, people today differentiate between disciplines in terms of the manner in which they were received. Thus, they apply the term ‘science’ (‘ilm) on anything that is acquired through the empirical method and they apply the term ‘culture’ (thaqafa) on anything acquired by means other than the empirical method.
4.1 The Islamic Culture
The Islamic culture: is the disciplines the study of which was occasioned by the Islamic aqeeda. Whether these disciplines included the Islamic aqeeda and were studied such as theology (ilm al-Tawheed) or they are based on the Islamic aqeeda such as fiqh (jurisprudence), tafseer and hadith. Or, whatever became necessary for the comprehension of rules emanating from the Islamic aqeeda such as the sciences of the Arabic language, terminological classification of hadith (mustalah al-hadith) and science of the foundations of jurisprudence (‘ilm al-usul).

All of the Islamic culture is referable to the Kitab and Sunnah. And it is from them, and through their comprehension, and according to them that all the branches of the Islamic culture have been acquired. They (kitab and Sunnah) are also from the Islamic culture because the Islamic aqeeda obliges their adoption and adherence to whatever has been mentioned in them. The Qur’an has been revealed to the Messenger (saw) so that he may clarify it to the people. Allah (swt) said: “And we have sent down unto you (Muhammad [saw]) the reminder and the advice (Qur’an), that you may clearly explain to men what was sent down to them.” [16:44] And He ordered the Muslims to take whatever the Messenger (saw) brought. He (swt) said: “And whatsoever the Messenger (saw) gave you, take it, and whatsoever he forbade you, abstain (from it).” [59:7] Adopting whatever the Messenger (saw) has brought cannot be possible without comprehending and learning it. Owing to presence of disciplines which were required to understand the Kitab and Sunnah; many types of Islamic disciplines arose. And the Islamic culture came to have a specific meaning which included: the Kitab, Sunnah, Arabic language, conjugation (sarf), grammar, rhetoric (balagha), tafseer, hadith, classification of hadith, foundations of jurisprudence (usul), tawheed (theology) and other Islamic culture disciplines

No FH check from here yet.
4.2 The Method of Study in Islam
The Islamic culture has a method of study, and this method is summarised in three issues :

Firstly : That you should study things deeply until you correctly comprehend their true state. Because this culture is conceptually deep rooted, and its study requires patience and forbearance. Since culturing oneself with it is an intellectual process, which requires mental exertion to comprehend them because it requires the comprehension of its sentences, cognizance of its reality and its linkage with information through which this reality is understood. That is why it is essential to acquire it intellectually. For instance, the Muslim is obliged to adopt his creed through ration and not by unquestioning submission. So, the study of whatever relates to the basis of the creed inevitably requires an intellectual process at the time of study. The Shari’a rules have been addressed in the Qur’an and hadith. So, to deduce the Shari’a rules the use of the intellectual process is imperative. Through it the problem, the relevant text and its application on the problem is understood. For this the intellectual process is indispensable. Even the layman, who adopts the hukm without knowledge of its evidence, needs to understand the problem. And understand the hukm which has been brought to solve it. So that he does not adopt the hukm which is for another problem, other than the problem to which the hukm applies. It is imperative that he utilises the intellectual process. Therefore, to culture oneself with the Islamic culture, whether he is a mujtahid or layman, he must receive the culture intellectually. This will not be possible except through the intellectual process and by exerting of ones utmost.

Second : The student should believe in what he studies so that he acts upon it. ie he definitely believes the truths he is studying without any doubts creeping in, if it relates to the aqeeda. And he should have least amount of doubt that it applies to the realty, if it is from the non-aqeeda issues such as rulings and morals. But they must be founded on a basis in which he believes definitely, admitting no doubt. Whatever the case, belief in what the student adopts from what he studies is a condition. Belief, either in what he adopts or in the origin of what he adopts. The adoption of culture in any other manner is not permitted. It is through making the belief the basis of adopting culture that the Islamic culture is found to be set down in an excellent and distinguished manner. It is deep and at the same time stimulating and effective, giving the student a blazing energy thereby igniting a fire which devours corruption and emits a light which illuminates the path to well-being. The definite belief in these thoughts ensures a definite linkage, which naturally takes place within man, between his reality and the concepts has has about things which are linked to these thoughts in their capacity as meanings about life. So with these thoughts he moves with eagerness and zeal, towards action. This extraordinary effect of the culture on peoples minds will take place when the emotions (contained by the thought) move towards the reality. Because, to believe in it constitutes the linkage of emotions with their concepts, then the movement (towards action) takes place.

Third : The student should study the process of treating the reality that is comprehended and perceptible. It should not be a study based on a theoretical suppositions, so that he describes things as they are in their true form, in order to treat it and change it. He should take the existing facts about man, life and universe which he senses or he can sense, and study them in order to treat them and give the ruling with regards to them, until he can determine his position regarding it in terms of whether to adopt it, leaving it or have the choice whether to adopt or leave it. Thus, Islam does not allow people to follow theoretical assumptions. For example : What if people live on mars, how can they fast the month of Ramadhan there ? There is no moon there so as to have the month of Ramadhan! Only the person on earth he is subject to the address (khitab), and he must witness the month of Ramadhan and he must fast that month. However, the cloud might prevent the people from seeing the moon so he passes a judgement for this event when it occurs. Hence, the Messenger (saw) said: ‘When you see the crescent (of the month of Ramadhan), start fasting, and when you see the crescent (of the month of Shawwal), stop fasting; and if the sky  is overcast (and you can't see It) then regard the crescent (month) of Ramadhan (as of 30 days).’ Therefore, it is stipulated in adopting the culture that it be real and not fanciful or theoretical. And that it should be studied in order to act upon it when its reality occurs in his life, not for the purpose of knowing its beauty or for the sake of mere intellectual gratification.

This is the method of Islam in study, which is: an in-depth study and belief in what is arrived at by study or belief in what is being studied. And realistically adopting that to apply it in the battlefield of life. If the conditions of the method of study are met then the Muslim who has cultured himself with the Islamic culture will have deep thinking, with a sharpened sensitivity and be able to solve lifes problems. This ensures the Muslim naturally follows the path of perfection, willingly and with choice. He is unable to deviate from this method as long as he proceeds according to this method because the Islamic thoughts he adopts from this culture are stimulating, effective, based on reality, true and effective solutions for problems. In addition to setting the one cultured by it aflame with zeal, it gives the Muslim an extraordinary ability to face the problems of life with solutions however great or small, easy or difficult they may be. Thus, a mentality (‘aqliyya) forms within him which can only be content when the mind is convinced and the heart is filled with tranquillity. At the same time an Islamic disposition (nafsiyya) forms within him filled with a belief which is consummate. And through this mentality (‘aqliyya) and disposition (nafsiyya) the person is characterised by excellent qualities which Islam demands from the Muslim. And through this mentality (‘aqliyya) and disposition (nafsiyya) he overcomes all the difficulties that stand as obstacles in his way. This is due to what we see in the substance of this Islamic culture in terms of deep and enlightened thoughts and due to them being based on the aqeeda which represents man’s comprehension of his relationship with Allah (swt). So, the Islamic culture is either from Allah (swt) or deduced from that which is from Allah in terms of the Kitab and Sunnah. It has an intellectual aspect in terms of it being a thought, and at the same time it has spirit (ruh) in terms of realising the relationship with Allah when he adopts the culture in its capacity as coming from Allah. Thus, it ensures that anyone cultured by it has deep and enlightened thought with a burning, fiery enthusiasm. He sells himself to Allah in the path of Islam, seeking the Good Pleasure of Allah. Also, you will find that the one cultured by the Islamic culture knows what he wants and knows how to solve the problems of life because he has learnt the truth with which he faces the battlefield of life. Thus, he plunges into the trials and tribulations of life. He has been endowed with the best of provisions which is the enlightened thought, taqwa (fear of Allah), and knowledge which solves all problems. This is the culture which brings together all that is good.
4.3 Acquisition of Culture and Sciences
Encouraging the study of Islamic culture does not mean restricting the Muslims only to its study. Rather, what is meant is that it should be made the basis for culturing, teaching, and the basis for the permissibility of studying other cultures and sciences. The Muslim has the right to learn whatever he wants from the cultures and learn the sciences that appeal to him. However, the Islamic personality (shakhsiyya islamiyya) must be the basic premise around which the acquisition of any culture revolves. The Muslims endeavoured to teach their sons the Islamic culture first, and only after they were assured that this cultured was consolidated in their minds did they open the doors to the study of other cultures. And it is only this method of learning which keeps the Islamic personality Islamic and none other,  having specific attributes which distinguishes it from the remaining personalities of humankind.

What has been stipulated in taking from non-Islamic cultures is that it is not taken except after becoming satisfied that the Islamic culture has been consolidated and has become deep rooted/entrenched in the minds. This is not stipulated for sciences, because sciences do not have a bearing on the Islamic culture since they are universal. It is essential that Muslims continue to persevere with utmost effort in the path of learning sciences since they are of the means of life. It should be noted however, with regards to the teaching of sconces, that its results should concur with the viewpoint of Islam so that it strengthens the aqeeda and not shake peoples conviction in it. When a scientific theory or law contradicts the text of the Qur’an which is definite in meaning and authenticity, then it is not taken and nor is any topic of learning adopted, since it is speculative (zanni) and the Qur’an is definite (qat’i). For example, the theory of Darwin regarding the origin of human beings contradicts the text of the Qur’an with respect to the creation of Adam (a.s). Therefore, this theory is rejected because it contradicts the Qur’an. Even though Islam did not make the Qur’an a basis of acquiring scientific knowledge, however it must be noted that these sciences should not contradict the Islamic aqeeda.

In short, the Islamic aqeeda must be adhered to completely when provided with  cultures and sciences by making this Islamic personality the basic premise in acquiring any culture, making sure that the sciences do not contradict the Islamic personality when acquiring scientific knowledge. It is this adherence which will maintain the presence of the Islamic personality in the Muslims and make the Islamic culture effect other cultures. And ensure its continuation as an Islamic culture which is distinguished from the  rest of the cultures of the world. And when this adherence vanishes and the Muslims become negligent regarding it, they will acquire other cultures on a basis other than Islam. They did not heed the Islamic aqeeda when taking the sciences. This led to the presence of an evident danger on the Islamic personality. Nay, on the whole Muslim Ummah when it goes on for a long period and it continues for a generation or more.
4.4 The Cultural Movement
The Muslims used to open up lands in order to carry the Islamic da’wa to  its peoples. The nature of carrying the Islamic Call necessitates the presence of a cultural movement. Since Islam is a message which requires study, research and reading. And since its very nature necessitates that it is studied and understood. It requires the one who has conviction in it to study anything that has an effect in elevating the standard of life. Thus, many of those people who opened up lands were scholars (ulama), proficient in the recitation of the Qur’an (qari’een), and those who could write (katibeen). They were accompanied by the scholars, reciters and scribes so as to teach in the newly conquered lands. Because, in every conquered land a mosque would be built for prayer and for the purpose of teaching men, women and children. The Ulama were the ones who assumed the responsibility of teaching the people the Qur’an, hadith and ahkam. They also assumed the responsibility of spreading Islam. Thus, the cultural movement aimed at teaching and spreading Islam. It was an Islamic cultural movement. However, in addition to that it also used to include historical, linguistic and literary aspects.
4.5 The position of Muslims with regards to non- Muslim cultures
The Muslims conquered Persia, Iraq, the Sham region, Egypt, north Africa and Spain. These countries had different languages, nationalities, cultural norms, laws and traditions. They also used to have different cultures (thaqafat). When the Muslims entered these lands they carried to them the Islamic da’wa and they applied on them the system of Islam. However, they did not coerce people until they became believers but the strength of the Islamic ideology, its truthfulness, simplicity of its creed and nature had effected them. So they entered into the deen of Allah in crowds. Not to mention that the understanding of Islam was easily accessible to all. The Ulama used to accompany the armies in the state of war and travel to the newly conquered country to teach the people the deen. Owing to this a strong Islamic cultural movement took form in the conquered country. This had a big effect on people’s understanding of the reality/truth of the deen and its culture. Islam effected the thoughts and also effected the cultures which were present in the conquered countries. All the mentalities were fused together and made into one Islamic mentality (‘aqliyya islamiyya).

Although Islam assumes the role of the universal intellectual leadership and works to save mankind, it does not however impose itself on the people by force, even though it does prepare the power to protect its da’wa (Call) and to carry it to the people. Likewise, it prepares the minds and intellects of people with the Islamic culture so that they are able to comprehend the truth of Islam. Thus, its attitude with people regarding its culture was in a definite manner. The Muslims understood this when they emerged from the Arabian peninsula to spread Islam through conquest. They entered these lands and carried Islam to them : they carried to them the Qur’an, the Prophet’s Sunnah and the Arabic language. They used to teach the people the Qur’an, hadith, the rules of the deen and they used to teach them the Arabic language also. They used to restrict their attention the Islamic culture. That is why the period of rule over these countries did not continue until the old culture of the conquered countries began to disappear and die away. The Islamic culture became the sole culture of the country. And the Arabic language became the sole language of the Islam.  It was the only language used by the state. Therefore, the culture of all the Islamic lands, despite the disparity in their peoples and languages, became one culture which is the Islamic culture. And this after the sons of Persia had culture different to that of the sons of al-Sham. And the sons of Africa had a different culture to that of the sons of Iraq. And the culture of the sons of Yemen was different to that of the sons of Egypt. All of their mentalities became one mentality which is the Islamic mentality. And their culture became one which is the Islamic culture. Due to this, all the conquered countries along with the Arab countries became one country, the Islamic country after they had been different countries. And these different peoples became one Ummah which is the Muslim Ummah after being different and scattered peoples.

The orientalists rely on a disgraceful error, and some Muslim scholars themselves have fallen prey to it, when they claim that foreign cultures such as the Persian, Roman, Greek and Hindu cultures etc had an effect on the Islamic culture. And the justification is a manifest misguidance when they claim that many of these foreign cultures had penetrated the Islamic culture. The reality is that the Islamic culture entered the conquered countries and, in its capacity as the culture of that country, it completely effected the (indigenous) culture such that these cultures generally ceased to exist. It assumed the place of the original culture and became the sole culture of the country.

As for the suspicion that the Islamic culture was effected by the non-Islamic cultures. This suspicion comes from the intentional distortion on which the non-Muslims depend when changing the concepts about things It also comes from the shortsightedness of some researchers. Yes, the Islamic culture did benefit from, and make use of, the foreign cultures. It made them a means for its own productivity and growth. However, this does not constitute effect (ta’aththur) but rather benefiting (intifa’) from them. This is necessary for all cultures.

The difference between effect and deriving benefit from something is : that being effected by the culture is to study it and adopt the thoughts that it contains and incorporate them into the thoughts of the first culture due to the mere presence of a similarity between them and due to the mere preference for these thoughts. Being effected by a culture leads to believing in its thoughts. If the Muslims were to be effected by the foreign culture in the beginning of the conquests then they would have transferred, translated and incorporated Roman Law into the Islamic Law considering it as a part of Islam. They would have also made Greek philosophy a part of their beliefs and in their lives the would have followed the way of the Persian and Romans by allowing the affairs of the state to be guided by what they saw as beneficial to them. If they did that then Islam would have followed a disorderly and confused course from the beginning of its emergence from the Arabian peninsula and its thoughts would have become completely mixed up, causing it to cease being Islamic. This is what it means to be effected by another culture, if indeed that is what happened.  As for benefiting from another culture, it constitutes the deep study of another culture and knowledge of the difference between its thoughts and the thoughts of the Islamic culture. Then taking the meanings in that culture and the similarities that it contains and enriching the literary culture, and improving the rendition of these meanings and similes/allegories without allowing any contradiction to enter the thoughts of Islam. And without taking any thoughts from its concepts about life, legislation, aqeeda. The restriction of benefiting from the culture and not being effected by it means that its study constitutes only information which does not effect the viewpoint about life. Since the beginning of the Islamic conquests until the era of decline in which the cultural and missionary campaign took place during the middle of the eighth century A.H. The Muslims used to make the Islamic culture the basis of their culture and they used to study the non-Islamic cultures to benefit from them in terms of the meanings about things in life. Not to have conviction in their thoughts and that is why they were not effected by them. Rather, they only benefited from them. Which is contrary to the situation of the Muslims after the western cultural onslaught against them. They studied the western culture and they came to like its thoughts. Amongst them there were those who came to be convinced of such thoughts and abandoned the Islamic culture...and those who liked these thoughts and included them in the Islamic culture as being part of it, and some of which came to be considered as Islamic thoughts even though they contradict Islam. Many of them, for example, used to consider the well known democratic principle ‘ the Ummah is the source of authority’ as an Islamic principle even though it meant that the sovereignty would be for the people and that the Ummah would pass legislation and enacts canons. This contradicts Islam because the sovereignty is only for the Shari’a and not the Ummah and the laws are from Allah and not from the people. There were many who tried to make Islam democratic, socialist or communist. Even though Islam contradicts democracy because the ruler only implements the Shari’a and he is restricted by it. He is not employed by the Ummah and nor does he implement their will. Rather, he looks after their interests according to the Shari’a. Likewise, Islam contradicts socialism because for it ownership is restricted to the mode and not restricted by the amount. Also, it contradicts with communism because Islam makes the belief in Allah the basis of life and advocates  private ownership and acts to protect it. Making Islam democratic, socialist or communist by preferring those thoughts constitutes being effected by the foreign culture and not benefiting from it. What is worse, is that the western intellectual leadership is a creed which contradicts the creed of Islam. Some were effected by it and the educated amongst them began to say that religion should be separate from the state! And the uneducated amongst them would say religion is contrary to politics !! And do not enter politics into the religion...which indicates that the Muslims, in the era of decline after the cultural invasion, had studied the non-Islamic culture and were effected by it contrary to the situation of the Muslims before who studied the non-Islamic cultures and benefited from them but were not effected by their thoughts.

By examining the manner in which the Muslims studied the non-Islamic culture and the manner in which they used to adopt it, the nature of benefiting from it and becoming effected by it becomes clear. Someone who scrutinises the Islamic culture will find that it has Shari’a disciplines like tafseer (Quranic exegesis), hadith, jurisprudence etc, and it has disciplines relating to the Arabic language in terms of grammar, declension, literature and rhetorics (balagha) etc. And it has rational disciplines such as logic (mantiq) and theology (tawheed). The Islamic culture does not go beyond these three categories. As for the Shari’a disciplines, they were not effected by the non-Islamic cultures and nor did they benefit from them at all. Since their basis is restricted to the Kitab and Sunnah. The Fuqaha (jurists) did not benefit from the non-Islamic cultures and nor did they study them because the Islamic Law has abrogated all the previous shari’as and their adherents have been ordered to leave them and follow the Shari’a of Islam and if they did not do that they will be considered as disbelievers. Therefore, the shari’a does not permit the Muslims to adopt those Shari’as or to be effected by those cultures because they are restricted to adopting the rules of Islam only, because anything else is considered kufr (disbelief) and it is forbidden to adopt it. However, Islam has a single method in adopting rules which cannot be surpassed. This method involves the understanding of the existing problem and the inference of a ruling for it from the Shari’a evidences. Therefore, there is no scope for studying any jurisprudential culture in relation to the Muslims adopting rules. Thus, the Muslims were not effected by Roman Law or any other law. They definitely did not adopt from it and nor did they study it. Even though the Muslims did translate philosophical and some scientific works, but they did not translate anything from the non-Islamic jurisprudence or legislation whether Roman or anything else. Which indicates decisively that the non-Islamic cultures did not have a presence amongst the Fuqaha (jurists), whether for the purpose of study or benefiting from them. Indeed, the law did grow and expand. Its growth and expansion is attributable to what took place in front of the Muslims in terms of problems which needed a solution. The extensive economic problems faced by the Islamic state and the issues occurring in different aspects relating to this state pushed the Muslims, by virtue of their deen, to perform ijtihad regrading these issues according to the principles of Islam and pushed them to deduce rules, to solve these problem, from the Kitab and Sunnah or whatever the Kitab and Sunnah allude to in terms of evidences. This is what their deen ordered them to do and this is what our Master Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw) made clear to them. It has been narrated about him (saw) that when he sent Mu’az to Yemen he said to him : ‘ By what will you pass judgement ?’ He said : By the Book of Allah. The Prophet (saw) said : If you do not find it there ? He said : By the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) .He said : And if you do not find it ? He said: ‘I will exercise my own ijtihad’ He (saw) said: ‘Praise be to Allah who has made the messenger of the Messenger of Allah to accord with what Allah and His Messenger loves.’ Thus, it was fard on the Muslims to perform ijtihad to deduce the Shari’a rule for each issue that occurred. And the rules that were deduced were Islamic Shari’a rules, deduced from the Kitab and Sunnah or whatever the Kitab and Sunnah alluded to in terms of evidences.
As for tafseer (Quranic exegesis), they used to explain the verses of the Qur’an and attempted to expound the meanings of verses. Either according to what was indicated by the words and sentences, in terms of the linguistic and Shari’a meanings or by admitting things occurring which fell within the meanings of those words and sentences. Even though the tafseer began to expand and  the clarification of the meanings of verses became more detailed, but Roman and Greek concepts relating to the viewpoint about life or legislation,considering them as coming from non-Islamic cultures, were not inserted into the tafseer literature.Yes, there were fabricated and weak hadiths used by some Mufassirun. They inserted their meanings into the tafseer of the Qur’an even though they were not Islamic. However, that is not to be considered as an example of being effected by non-Islamic culture but as interpolation of the Islamic culture, such as the interpolation of hadiths the Messenger (saw) did not actually utter. There is a difference between interpolating something in Islam with respect to the fabrication of ahadith and being effected by a non-Islamic culture by adopting its thoughts and inserting them into Islam as part of Islam. In a word, the Shari’a disciplines were not effected by non-Islamic cultures. As for the literary and linguistic disciplines etc, the influence of the Arabic language on the rest of the languages in the conquered lands was strong until the other languages disappeared from common usage in lifes affairs. The Arabic language was the only dominant language over all affairs of life in its capacity as a political component in the understanding of Islam, because it is the language of the Qur’an. That is why you will find that the conquered nations, after having conviction in Islam, participated in strengthening this influence because it was one of the requirements of Islam, the deen they came to profess. Therefore, the Arabic language was not effected by the languages and culture of the conquered countries. On the contrary, the language itself influenced the country that was conquered and weakened its original languages until some of them disappeared altogether or almost disappeared with the Arabic language remaining as the only language of Islam, the only language used by the state, the common language, the language of culture, science and politics. Though, Arabic literature came across material forms in the conquered countries such as gardens, palaces, seas, rivers, scenery etc. It grew with the increase in its meanings, imagination, similes/allegories and topics. It benefited from that but it did not become effected by thoughts which contradicted Islam. Thus, we find the sections which relate to the creed and contradict Islam, not one of the Muslim literate was effected by them, rather they completely opposed them. Although the Greek philosophy was translated and attention was given to it, however the Greek literature which professed belief in a plurality of gods and gave them anthropomorphic attributes did not gain much currency amongst the Muslims, in fact they did not give it any attention at all. Yes, some individuals/personalities did overstep the requirements of what was befitting the Islamic culture. They became vulnerable/susceptible to meanings not recognised by Islam. Just as the morally depraved amongst the writers and poets did, they included meanings in their poetry which Islam did not agree with. But those were an insignificant few who are not worth mentioning in relation to the Islamic society. However much their literature may have been effected by meanings forbidden by Islam, this was not an influence that effected the Islamic culture. Rather, the Islamic culture continued as did the Arabic culture and the Arabic language free from any suspicion.

As for the rational disciplines, the Muslims due to the nature of their original mission/duty in life, which is the da’wa to Islam, used to clash with the people of other religions and cultures, who used to arm themselves with Greek philosophy. Refuting and destroying their beliefs and demonstrating their fallacy was imperative. They had to explain the Islamic aqeeda in style/manner those people would understand. That is why the Muslims instituted the science of Tawheed (belief in the oneness of Allah) in order to clarify the Islamic aqeeda and explain it to the people. Thus, ‘ilm al-tawheed (science of Tawheed) came to exist. Even though it comes under the Shari’a disciplines in terms of the subject, which is the Islamic aqeeda, but it is considered part of the rational disciplines in terms of form and delivery. The Muslims benefited from mantiq (logic) and they translated it into Arabic. Consequently, it is clear that the foreign cultures did not effect the Islamic culture, whether in the shari’a disciplines, Arabic language or rational disciplines. Only the Islamic culture remained, until the end of the period of decline, as a purely Islamic culture. As for the Muslims, they also were not effected by any other culture, not in terms of their way of thinking or in their understanding of Islam. The mentality of the Muslims continued purely as an Islamic mentality. However, there were some individuals who were effected by the foreign rational disciplines. So, new thoughts arose amongst them. And there were individuals for whom the study of foreign philosophies was initiated as a veil over their minds which led them to fall into error in understanding some of the thoughts of Islam or led them to falling into misguidance in their intellectual discussions. They attempted to understand some of the thoughts without restricting themselves to the Islamic aqeeda and the thoughts of Islam. They are two groups : The first group, it was the error in their understanding which caused them to fall into the situation they found themselves in, but they continued to have an Islamic mentality (‘aqliyya islamiyya) and Islamic disposition (nafsiyya islamiyya). Therefore, their intellectual contribution is considered part of the Islamic culture even though it contained erroneous thoughts, but it was a misunderstanding. The second group, the misguidance in their comprehension was what cause them to fall into the situation they found themselves in. They had completely deviated from the Islamic aqeeda and came to carry a non-Islamic mentality (‘aqliyya). Therefore, their intellectual contribution is not considered to be part of the Islamic culture.

As for the first group, the effect of the Hindu philosophy was the reason for their error in their understanding.  That is because the Hindu philosophy advocates ascetism and renunciation of the world. Some Muslims became confused and thought ascetism was the same as zuhd (pious austerity) which has been reported in some hadiths. It is from this understanding that the Sufis arose. This effected the understanding of what it means to take or renounce the world. Even though, zuhd (living an austere life) in this world means that one should not take the world as ones goal in life, for example making the procurement of wealth for its own sake the highest goal. It does not mean however that one should not enjoy the good and halal things in life. Which is contrary to ascetism and the renunciation of the world, both of which mean the abandonment of pleasures and delights (tayyibat) in life despite having the ability to attain them. This contradicts Islam. This erroneous understanding originates due to the veil that covered the minds of some Muslims owing to their study of the Hindu philosophy.

As for the second group, their becoming effected by the Greek philosophy was the reason for their misguided understanding. That is because the Greek philosophy came with thoughts and discussions about things that were beyond the natural world. It set out to discuss the existence of God and His attributes (sifat). Those well-versed in it amongst the non-Muslims in the conquered lands attacked Islam which led some Muslims to translate their works and study them so as to respond to those attacking Islam.The tried to reconcile philosophy with Islam. This led to debates whose proponents were effected by the Greek philosophy such as the debate about the creation of the Qur’an (khalq al-Qur’an). And such as the debate about whether the attribute (sifa) was the same as the object being described or external to the thing described, and other such discussions. But these discussions stopped at the limits of the Islamic aqeeda. Their proponents adhered to the creed and restricted themselves to its thoughts. The reasons for their discussions was the Islamic aqeeda, they did not deviate from it. They did not proceed blindly into philosophy outside the applicability of the aqeeda. Their thoughts were Islamic thoughts and their discussions are considered part  of the Islamic culture. That is why they did not deviate or become misguided. Their adherence to the Islamic aqeeda protected them from becoming misguided. Examples of such people are the Mu’tazila from scholars of tawheed. But there were a small number of people who plunged headlong into Greek philosophy without restricting themselves to the Islamic aqeeda. They studied the Greek philosophy on a purely rational basis without adhering to Islam. They delved into the study of Greek philosophy and began to imitate and emulate it. As well they had begun to initiate their own philosophy based on their very own brand of philosophy. They did not permit the Islamic aqeeda to have any effect on their discussions and nor did they acknowledge its presence. Rather their discussion was a purely philosophical discussion. Even though in their capacity as Muslims certain Islamic aspects did appear in their discussions. But that was due to the deep-rooted Islamic concepts they held as was the case with some of the Jewish philosophers. This does not take their philosophy a single step closer to Islam. Rather it is a rational philosophy proceeding according to the methodology of Greek philosophy. They are the Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd and their likes. This philosophy of theirs was not Islamic and nor was it the philosophy of Islam concerning life, indeed it had no relationship to Islam. It is not considered as Islamic culture because the Islamic creed was not a part of its study. Rather, when they discussed it they did not give Islam any attention. Only Greek philosophy was the object of study. It had no relationship to Islam or the Islamic aqeeda.

This, briefly, is the position of Muslims with regards the non-Islamic cultures.  So, the Muslims were not effected by it, they did benefit from it, and they definitely did not study the foreign cultures relating to legal rulings. In the Shari’a disciplines nothing can be found relating to the non-Islamic cultures. They benefited from the meanings, allegories and creativity present in the foreign cultures. But that had no effect on the Arabic language or Arabic literature. So, from this perspective their study of non-Islamic cultures was by way of benefit and not effect. As for the rational disciplines, they studied them and benefited from them in terms of the style of delivery in logic (mantiq) and in ‘ilm al-tawheed. However, Islam and the thoughts of Islam were not effected. But some Muslims were effected in their understanding of Islam and this showed in their behaviour and writings but not in the Islamic culture or Islamic thoughts. As with the Sufis and Muslim philosophers.

This is with respect to the culture, as regards the sciences such as the natural sciences, mathematics, astronomy, medicine etc. The Muslims studied them and adopted them universally. They do not fall under culture which actually effects the viewpoint about life. They are experimental/empirical sciences only and general to all people. They are universal, not specific to any particular nation to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the Muslims took from them and benefited from them.

As for the manner of compiling the sciences and Islamic culture. It grew naturally until it was organised. The Islamic culture began orally, the people transmitted it to each other through hearing, they did not devote themselves to writing down anything other than the Qur’an until the area of the state had expanded and there arose an urgent need to have the sciences and disciplines written down. Then, gradually the practise of writing increased though it was not according to any specific system. They would write about an issue in tafseer, hadith, jurisprudence, history, literature etc all in one book without arrangement or division into chapters because it all constituted knowledge in their view. There was no difference between one science and another or between one piece of knowledge and another. Rather, all were one science. A scholar was not distinguished by any particular science. Then there was a concentration on writing when the scope of the disciplines widened/expanded and most became unable to encompass it all. So a specific inclination towards one type of science and discipline prevailed amongst each group. Thus, similar issues came to be gathered together. And the sciences and disciplines became more distinct and the Ulama began to slowly arrange it in an organised manner. Due to this the thoughts took the course of being arranged and written down until we have examples of such works as the Muwatta in hadith, Kalila wa Dimna in Arabic literature, al-Risala in foundations of jurisprudence (usul), the books of Muhammad in jurisprudence (fiqh), the book al-’Ayn in Arabic language, and the book of Sibawayh in grammar, the book of Ibn Hisham in Sira, the book of Tabari in history and so on and so forth....rather there were books for each branch of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Like the example of Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf regarding economics, and the book al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya of al-Mawardi in ruling. Then the compilations included all branches of sciences and disciplines and the arrangement of issues (masa’il)and chapters gradually progressed until it came to include all the sciences and disciplines. Then in writing culture (thaqafa) became separated from science in the classes of higher education in the universities and so forth...

What is worth mentioning is that the Muslims took the style of compilation from others because the style of compilation is like science and not specific but general.
5 The Islamic Disciplines   p.287
The Muslims saw their lives as only for the Islam. And their existence was only for the purpose of carrying the Islamic Call. Islam was the only basis for their unity and reason for their revival. It is the only source of their dignity, glory and hope. That is why their souls and minds became possessed by it, so they devote themselves to it and embark upon studying it and understanding it. They dedicated themselves to the Qur'an, to its understanding and explanation. They devoted themselves to the ahadith, to its transmission and collection. And they began to deduce rules which solved the problems of people. And they followed/pursued reports about the Prophet (saw) and his campaigns, memorising them and transmitting them. They gave their attention to the militaryexpeditions (maghazi), conquests, by documenting them and transmitting them. Since the Qur'an cannot be understood without the Arabic language, due to the mixing of Arabs with non-Arabs in the conquests which led to a corruption in the pronunciation of Arabic by the Arabized population and by the Arabs. The Muslims devoted themselves to the Arabic language, studying it, explaining it and putting down principles (for grammar). And studying the jahili poetry and the traditions of the Arabs, their speeches and times in order to understand the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Then, when the people of other religions entered into Islam, who still possessed intellectual cultures and carried traces of kufr thoughts. It was due to the Muslims carrying the Islamic da'wa that the intellectual struggle between them and the enemies of Islam took place. They dedicated themselves to the rational sciences, studying them to explain the aqeeda of Islam to the people and demonstrate it with the rational evidence. The types of disciplines Muslims had came to be divided into branches and the Islamic disciplines became diversified as a result. They dealt with many things and came to be enriched every time the conquests expanded even further and developed each time people embraced the deen of Allah. When the Islamic state became vast and the aspect of concentrating on the countries that had been opened was preferred over the aspect of conquest, many Muslims began to devote themselves in research to the disciplines, sciences, lessons and in-depth study. A multi-faceted Islamic culture took shape with the Muslims, the people dedicated themselves to learning it so long as it served Islam and elevated the position of Muslims. Generally, the Muslims were only interested in this culture and not in other cultures despite their interest in the universe in terms of science and industry/crafts. Each scholar whatever type of culture he specialised in, and every writer whatever his literary orientation/approach, and even every mathematician, scientist or craftsman whatever his path, they most definitely cultured first by the Islamic culture, then they learnt other things. As for some scholars who became famous for science like Muhammad b. al-Hasan in mathematics, IbnBatuta in geography, Ibn al-Athir in history, Abu Nuwas in poetry etc.This fame does not imply that they only studied the science for which they became famous. Rather, they and others like them studied all of the Islamic culture and then turned to a branchof knowledge and became famous for it even though they had grasped the rest of the branches of Islamic culture as well. As for this Islamic culture, it contained topics that were fundamental to the culture because the meanings mentioned in them is what was intended for the Muslim, like tafseer, hadith, sira, history, jurisprudence (fiqh), foundations of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) and tawheed. And it contains what are actually tools for understanding those topics that are fundamental, like the sciences ofthe Arabic language and logic (mantiq). The Muslims used to devote themselves to all of them. And since the sciences serving as tools are a means of understanding the intended fundamental meanings, then the knowledge of the intended meanings is what should be intended. Therefore, we shall restrict ourselves to presenting a glimpse of the tafseer, hadith, sira, history, jurisprudence (fiqh), foundations of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) and tawheed in order to give a brief illustration of each.
5.1 Tafseer (Quranic Exegesis)  p.290
The word tafseer is the form taf'eel from the word al-fasr which means to explain (bayan). You say I explained the thing (without pronouncing the tashdeed) ; 'afsuruhu fasran', and I explained it (with the tashdeed) ; 'ufassiruhu tafseeran' when I explained it. The difference between tafseer and ta'weel is that tafseer is the explanation of what is intended by the wording and ta'weel is the explanation of what is intended by the meaning. The word tafseer has chosen when applying to theexplanation of the verses of the Qur'an. The Qur'an has been revealed in the Arabic language. So, its expressions are Arabic, even the expressions which are of a foreign origin like istabraq (brocade). It is has been Arabized according to the principles of Arabic and it become part of the Arabic expressions. The style of the Qur'an is the style of the Arabs in their speech. He (swt) said :'An Arabic Qur'an.'[39:28] The Arabs used to recite/read it, comprehend the strength of its eloquence and understand its meanings. But not all of the Qur'an can be approached by all Arabs who would understand it generally and specifically just by merely listening to it. Since, by revealing the Qur'an in the language of the Arabs does not mean that all Arabs will understand its words and phrases. Since not every book written in a certain language can be understood by the people of that language. Because, understanding the book does not require language only but also a level of intellect in understanding and comprehension which agrees with the level and elevation of the book. The reality of the Arabs when the Qur'an was being revealed was that not all of them were able to understand the Qur'an generally and specifically. Rather, they used to differ in their understanding according to their intellectual elevation. Because of that reason the Sahabah's ability to explain and understand the Qur'an was at variance due to the disparity of their understanding of the Arabic language and also due to the disparity in their intelligenceand comprehension. Though, the Quranic expressions themselves, and their meanings were not all understood by all Arabs. Anas b. Malik narrated that a man asked 'Umar b. al-Khattab about His (swt) saying :'And fruits and abba (herbage, etc).'[80:31] What isthe abb? 'Umar replied : We have been forbidden from over-burdening ourselves and going excessively deeply  into things. It has also been narrated about 'Umar that he was on the minbar and he read :' Or that He that he may catch them with takhawwuf (gradual wasting of their and health).'[16:47] Then he inquired about the meaning of takhawwuf? A man from Huzayl said : takhawwuf for us is the gradual decrease (tanaqqus).

Furthermore, there are many verses in the Qur'an for whose understanding knowledge of linguistic expressions and styles is not sufficient. Rather, they require information about certain expressions because these expressions point to specific meanings such as in His (swt) saying :' By (the winds) that scatter dust.' [51:1]' By the (steeds) that run, with panting (breath).' [100:1]' Verily ! We have sent it (this Qur'an) down in the night of al-qadr (decree).' [97:1]' By the dawn ; by the ten nights ( i.e. the first ten days of the month of Dhul-hijja).' [89:1-2] And other such verses which point to well known meanings. Also there are verses whose understanding requires knowledge of the causes of revelation.
There are verses in the Qur'an which are muhkama (explicit) and clear in meaning. They are the verses, especially the Makkan verses, which pertain to the fundamentals of the deen in terms of the aqeeda, and the verses which pertain to the fundamentals of the rules which are the Madinan verses, especially those relating to transactions (mu'amalat), punishments ('uqubat) and testimonies (bayyinat). As well, there are mutashabihat (non-explicit/ambiguous) verses in the Qur'an which are ambiguous in meaning for many people, especially the verses that are open to a number of meanings or necessitates leaving the obvious/apparent meaning for another meaning because of the contradiction with the creed which should be free of anthropomorphic elements.

Even though the Sahaba were the most competent in understanding the Qur'an because they were the most knowledgeable in the Arabic language and because they witnessed the circumstances and events around which the Qur'an was revealed. However, they differed in their understanding and they differed in their ability to explain (tafseer) the Qur'an due to the disparity in the level of their familiarity with the Arabic language, and due to the disparity in their closeness to the Messenger (saw). The most famous Mufassirun from the Sahaba were 'Ali b. Abi Talib, 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas, 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud and Ubay b. Ka'b. They are the four who fed the most amount of exegetical material to the different Muslim cities. What enabled them to have such a deep knowledge of tafseer was their strong understanding of the Arabic language, their grasp of its rhetorical form and styles, their mixing with the Prophet (saw) andbeing close to him which  enabled them to know the events for which verses of the Qur'an were revealed, and their faculty of intellect and intelligence, a faculty which enabled them to link meanings together in the best manner and come out with correct results. That is why they did not refrain from making ijtihad in understanding the Qur'an according to what the mind demanded. Rather, they made ijtihad in tafseer and spoke about it within their own opinions (ijtihads) and they made decisions based what they had arrived at by their understanding and ijtihad. Therefore, the tafseers of those people are considered as one of the highest forms of tafseer. But, many have lied about them and sayings have been inserted/interpolated in their tafseer which they did not say. That is why you will find many fabrications in their tafseer. What has been authenticated by trustworthy narrators is one the strongest of tafseers. As for the everything else from the fabricated reports, it is not permitted to take them since ithas not been proven that they said them. However, the warning/caution of taking fabricated tafseers of those four does not mean it is a warning/caution for reading their tafseers. Rather, it is a caution against taking them and practising them given the consideration that these are fabrications. As for reading them and determining a correct understanding by the language, Shari'a and intellect with what has been mentioned in them. That is a useful thing. Because there are valuable explanations (tafseers) inthese fabricated reports in terms of understanding even though their chains of transmission are weak in terms of their ascription to the Sahaba.

After the Sahaba came the Tibi'un. Some of them became famous for transmitting from the Sahaba, from the four mentioned above and from others. The most famous from those Tabi'un are Mujahid, 'Ata b. Abi Rabah, 'Ikrama freedman of Ibn 'Abbas and Sa'id b. Jubayr. The 'Ulama have differed on the degree of trust put on those Mufassirun from the Tabi'un. So, Mujahid isthe most reliable even though he had the fewest narrations and some imams and muhaddithun like Shafi'i and Bukhari rely on his tafseer. However, some of them observed that Mujahid used to ask the People of the Book. So from this perspective they would give his sayings thorough consideration before taking them though they are agreed on his honesty. Both 'Ata and Sa'id were trustworthy and honest and no one has questioned their honesty. As for 'Ikrama, most scholars trust him and believe him. And Bukhari transmits from him but others view him as taking risks in tafseer thinking that he knows everything about the Qur'an. And that was due to the huge amount of Quranic tafseer he has narrated from the Sahaba. From the four 'Ikrama was the one who transmitted mostly from Ibn 'Abbas. There are those who used to narrate from rest of the Sahaba like Masruq b. al-Ajda' the student of 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud, he used to narrate tafseer from him. From the Tabi'un, Qatada b. Da'ama [..suddus akma] also became well known fortafseer. He had an extensive knowledge of the Arabic language and well versed in Arabic poetry, the era of the Arabs and their genealogy. After the end of the era of the Tabi'un, the 'Ulama began to compile books of tafseer following a specific method, which is to mention the verse and then quote what has been reported from the tafseers of the Sahaba and the Tabi'un along with their chains. Some of them who were famous for this method were Sufyan b. 'Uyayna, Waki' b. al-Jarrah, 'Abd al-Razzaq and others.Though the tafseers of those people have not reached us in their entirety. Rather what has reached us are statements found in some of the books of tafseer like the tafseer of al-Tabari. Then after them came al-Farra' and then came al-Tabari. Then scholars of tafseer came one after another in every age until our time.
5.1.1 The Exegetical Approaches of Mufassirun   p.294
The Sahaba made tafseer for the verses of the Noble Qur'an either as their own ijtihad in tafseer or from hearing it from the Messenger of Allah(saw). Many a time they would explain the cause of revelation for a verse or explain with respect to whom it had been revealed. In explaining a verse they would restrict themselves to elucidating the linguistic meaning which they understood from the verse with the most concise of words like their saying : ghayr mutajanif li ithm (not inclined to sin) ie not liable/predisposed to sin (ghayr muta'arrid li ma'siyya). Like their statement regarding His (swt) saying :'(Forbidden) also is to use arrows seekingluck or decision.'[5:3] : The people of jahiliyya when one of them wanted to go out (on a journey) he would take an arrow and say : This one orders me to go out. So if he goes out on his journey will meet good luck. And he will take another arrow and say :This one orders me to stay, so he will not be lucky in his journey. The unlucky arrow is one of the two arrows. So Allah forbade them from this practice. If they added anything to that it would be what has been narrated about the cause of revelation and with regards to whom the verse in question was revealed. An example would be what has been narrated about Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.) regarding His (swt) saying :' He will surly bring you back to the ma'ad (place of return).' [28:85] He said : to Makkah. It has been narrated about Abu Hurayra (r.a.) regarding His (swt) saying :' Verily ! You (O Muhammad [saw]) guide not whom you like.' [28:56] that he said the verse had been revealed concerning the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he tried to win over his uncle Abu Talib to Islam. Then came the Tabi'un after the Sahaba who reported everything the Sahaba mentioned in this manner. From among the Tabi'un themselves there were those who explained the verses of the Noble Qur'an or stated the cause of revelation, either as their own ijtihad in tafseer or by hearing it from (other authorities). After the Tabi'un the 'Ulama came and expanded the tafseer and quoted reports from the Jews and Christians. The mufassirun succeeded one after another in every age and generation, who explained the Qur'an and expanded the tafseer in each age on what had come before. The mufassirun began to give their attention to the verses to deduce rulings from them and explain their schools of thought in terms of freewill (ikhtiyar) and predestination (jabr). And they began to explain verses proving their opinions according to their inclinations in legislation, theology/scholasticism ('ilm al-Kalam), rhetorics/eloquence (balagha), declension (sarf) and grammar etc. What is apparent from an examination ofthe tafaseers, through the different ages since the time of the Sahaba until now, is that the tafseer of the Qur'an in every age was influenced by the scholarly movement of the time. A picture which reflected the views, theories and schools of thought of the time. Seldom were there tafseers that were free from the influence of opinions, thoughts and rules of the time.

However, all of these tafseers were not compiled in books from the first day mufassirun came to exist ie from the time of the Sahaba. Rather, they changed from situation to situation through the ages. In the beginning, the tafseer used to be a part of the hadith and one of its chapters. The hadith was the all-extensive topic which encompassed all the Islamic disciplines. So the transmitter ofa hadith, just as he would narrate a hadith containing a legal ruling, he would also narrate a hadith which contained the tafseer of a Quranic verse. Then writers, in the beginning of the Abbasid era and towards the end of the Umayyad era ie in the beginning of the second century hijri, began to bring together all the similar and relevant hadiths in/under a topic and separate them from other topics. So the disciplines such as tafseer and fiqh which the hadith contains were separated from each other. What resulted from the sciences is what resulted in terms of hadith, sira, jurisprudence and tafseer. Thus, the science of tafseer came to exist and it became an independent science which was studied on its own. However, the tafseers did not take any organised form, in that verses of Qur'an were not mentioned in an ordered manner like the arrangement found in the mushaf (Qur'an) and then followed by their tafseer. Rather, the tafseers narrated were scattered here and there. They were tafseer for miscellaneous verses as was the case with the hadith. This situation continued until the tafseer became separated from the hadith and began to stand up as a science in its own right. Tafseer was given for each ayah of the Qur'an or part of an ayah, arranging these verses according to the order in mushaf. The fist one to undertake the tafseer of the Qur'an quoting ayah after ayah and explain them one after another was al-Farra' (d.207 A.H.). Ibn al-Nadim reports in his Fihrist that:' 'Umar b. Bakir/Bukayr wrote to al-Farra' that al-Hasan b. Sahl perhaps may ask me one thing after another from the Qur'an but I will not be able to recall al the answers. I think you should bring together the essential points and compile them in a book I will refer to...[fa'altu]  So al-Farra' said to his students ; gather together so that I can dictate to you a book about the Qur'an. He gave them a day. When they came he went to them. In the mosque there was man giving azan and reciting the Qur'an with the people in prayer. Al-Farra' tuned to himand said : recite the opening chapter of the Qur'an (fatihatul kitab), we will explain it and then we will speak fully about the whole book. The man recited and al-Farra' made tafseer. Abu al-'Abbas said : no one did anything like him before and I don't think anyone can add to that.' Then, after him came Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310 A.H.) and wrote his famous tafseer. A number of tafseers before the tafseer of Ibn Jarir became well known. Such as the tafseer of Ibn Jurayj. His situation was the situation of the first muhaddithin who compiled everything that reached them without differentiating between the correct (sahih) and incorrect reports. They said 'that Ibn Jurayj's aim was not authenticity, rather he reported everything that was reported about every ayah whether it was correct (sahih) or weak (saqim).' Also from these tafseers is  the tafseer of al-Suddi (d.127 A.H.) and the tafseer of Muqatil (d.150 A.H.). 'Abd Allah b. al-Mubarak said about the tafseer of Muqatil : How excellent is his tafseer, if only it/he were reliable (thiqa).' Amongst them is also the tafseer of Muhammad b. Ishaq. He used to transmit from the Jews and Christians and he used to quote sayings of Wahb b. Munabbih, Ka'b al-Ahbar and others, who reported thing from the Torah, Bible and their commentaries. These tafseers have not reached us. Although Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has collected most of it and included it in his book. Then came mufassirun one after another explaining the Qur'an in an complete and well-ordered manner in books that were complete and systematic/well-arranged.

However, anyone who inspects the tafaseer will find that the mufassirun approached the tafseer from various perspectives/angles. Some were interested in looking at the styles and meanings of the Book and whatever it included in terms of the forms of rhetorics (balagha) to know the highest and distinguished forms of speech as compared to other types of speech. So the the rhetorical aspect prevailed in their tafseers. One of those people is Muhammad b. al-Zamakhshari in his tafseer entitled al-Kashaf. There were those who looked into the foundations of belief, the fighting of zaifeen and debating the those who disagreed (with Islam) like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his famous tafseer : al-Tafseer al-Kabir. And some of them studied the Shari'a rules and were interested in deducing them from the verses. So they channelled their interest towards the verses of ahkam like Abu Bakr al-Razi commonly known as al-Jassas in his well known tafseer Ahkam al-Qur'an. There were those who went after stories and added to the Quranic stories from the books of history and israilyyat (Judaica) and began to collect everything they heard however meagre or abundant without editing/revising the things that contradicted the Shari'a, did not agree with the mind and contradicted  Qur'anic ayahs which are definite in meaning. One such person is 'Ala' al-Din 'Ali b. Muhammad al-Baghdadi the sufi otherwise known as al-Khazin who did this in his tafseer Bab al-ta'weel fi ma'ani al-tanzeel. And there were those that concerned themselves with supporting their mazhab (school) and explaining the verses in accordance with whatever supports their faction like the tafseer al-Bayan of al-Shaykh al-Tibrisi and the tafseer al-Tibyan of al-Shaykh al-Tusi. Both of them supported the views of the Shi'a and their mazhab regarding belief ('aqaid) and ahkam. And there were those that were only concerned with the tafseer in order to explain the verses and rulings of the Qur'an regardless of any perspective. They are the mufassirun whose tafseers are considered the core/essence of the books of tafseer. And they are considered the imams of tafseer and other topics. Like the tafseer of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, the tafseer of Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad al-Qurtubi, and the tafseer ofal-Nasafi and others. As for the tafseers written in this day and age and towards the end of the period of decline, like the tafseer of Muhammad 'Abduh, the tafseer of Tantawi Jawhari, and the tafseer of Ahmad Mustafa al-Muraghi and others. They are not considered part of the tafseer literature and nor is there any trust put on them. That is because there is a risk to the deen of Allah in the explanation of many verses like Muhammad 'Abduh's tafseer of the verse :'And whosoever does not judge by what Allahhas revealed, such are the Fasiqun (transgressors).'[5:44] He permitted the Muslims of India to adopt English laws and submit to the rulings of English judges. Shaykh Muhammad 'Abduh mentioned in volume six from the Tafseer of the Wise Qur'an widely known as al-Manar in the tafseer of sura al-Maida when he explained His (swt) saying :'And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Fasiqun (transgressors).'[5:44] When in pages 406-409 he was asked : Is it permitted for a Muslim to be employed by the English to rule by English laws some of which constitutes ruling by other than what Allah has revealed ? He gave long reply: 'In short, the abode of war (dar al-harb) is not a place for the establishment of the rules of Islam, therefore it is obligatory to make hijra unless there is an excuse or benefit for the Muslims due to which he will be safe from the fitna (test) on his deen. It is incumbent on the one who resides (in India) to serve the Muslims according to the best of his abilities andto strengthen the rules of Islam as much as he can. And there is no means of strengthening the influence of Islam and protecting the interests of the Muslims like the assuming of government posts especially if the if the government is lenient and fairly just between all nations and religions like the English government. It is well known that the laws of this country is closer to the Islamic Shari'a more than others because it delegates most matters to the ijtihad of judges. So whoever is qualified to be a judge in Islam and takes up a post in the judiciary in India with the correct aim and good intention, it is possible for him to do a great service for the Muslims. It is obvious that the abandonment of the judiciary and other government posts, by the people of knowledge and insight due to being sinful for working according to their laws, will forfeit the interests of the Muslims in their deen and dunya.' Then he said : ' It is obvious from all of this that the Muslim's acceptance to work in the English government in India 'and any other similar work' and his ruling according to their laws is a dispensation (rukhsa) which comes under the principle of doing the lesser of two evils if there is no 'azeema by which support of Islam and protecting the interests of Muslims is intended' And also like the tafseer of Tantawi Jawhari where he mentioned that there are modern sciences and disciplines in the Qur'an and he filled his tafseer with pictures of birds and animals to demonstrate that the Qur'an did explain such things. And like the tafseer of Mustafa Zayd who rejected the existence of angels and Shayateen which he interpreted (away). So he committed kufr by his tafseer and took himself outside of Islam. These tafseers and their likes are not considered books of tafseer by the Muslims and nor are their explanations given any consideration.
5.1.2 Sources of Tafseer  p.300
What the mufassirun used to rely on when explaining the Qur'an according to the idea they carried such as tawheed, jurisprudence (fiqh), rhetorics (balagha), history etc. is not what is meant by the term 'sources of tafseer' (masadir al-tafseer) These are not sources of tafseer. Rather, they are matters which had an effect on the mufassir which led him to lean towards a specific thing in tafseer. What is intended by 'sources of tafseer' are the authoritative sources that the mufassirun qouted. What they quoted they wrote down in their tafseers, irrespective of their orientation in tafseer. If we study the sources of tafseer we find that they are confined to three :

First : tafseer which has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as the narration that the Messenger (saw) said : The median prayer (salat al-wusta) is the afternoon prayer (salat al-'asr). For instance what has been narrated by 'Ali that he said : I asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) about the great day of Hajj (yawm al-hajj al-akbar). He said (it is) the day of sacrifice (yawm al-nahr). And what  has been reported ; 'Of the two ajals (fixed life-span) whose ajal did Musa take. He (saw) said : He killed the one who had the longest and best ajal.' However this genre of tafseer cannot be relied upon as a source of transmission save what has been reported in the books of Sihah (books of hadith such as Bukhari and Muslim) because the storytellers and fabricators gave greatly added to the material. That is why this type of source material has to be investigated due to the great number of lies against the Messenger of Allah (saw). The scrutiny of the Salaf (early generations of scholars) of this genre of tafseer reached the point where many of them rejected the whole genre altogether...They held that no tafseer had been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (saw). It has been reported about Ahmad b. Hanbal that he said:'Three (categories of reports) have no basis; tafseer, battles (malahim)and military campaigns (maghazi).' That is why we find the mufassirun due to their lack of trust for what is  mentioned did not stop at the limit of what has been reported. Rather, they followed that with what they reached through their own ijtihad. They did not stop at the limit of the text. What has been mentioned about the Sahaba in terms of tafseer was added to the hadiths about the Messenger of Allah (saw). It began with the transmitted tafseer and likewise with the tafseer of the tabi'un. This genre/category of transmitted tafseer became huge and it began to include what has been transmitted about the Messenger of Allah (saw), the Sahaba and Tabi'un. Each one came to be suffice as a tafseer. Nearly all the books of tafseer written in the early ages were restricted to this manner of tafseer.

Second : One the sources of tafseer is the opinion (ra'y). Or what is termed as ijtihad in tafseer. That is because the mufassir knows the speech of the Arabs and their mannerisms in the spoken language. He knows the Arabic expressions and their meaningsby being acquainted with the same thing in jahili poetry, prose etc. And he familiarises himself with what he finds to be correct from the cause of revelation of a verse. Using these tools he explains the Qur'anic verses in accordance with what he has reached through his ijtihad. Tafseer by opinion does not mean saying whatever one likes about the verse or whatever our own desires demand. Rather, the opinion,according to which the tafseer takes place, depends on the jahili literature in terms of poetry, prose, the customs and speech of the Arabs. At the same time it relies on the events that took place in the days of the Messenger (saw) and whatever the Prophet (saw) faced in terms of hostility, conflicts, migration (hijra), wars and afflictions. And whatever happened during that period which required hukms and demanded the revelation of the Qur'an. Therefore, what is meant by making tafseer by opinion is to understand the sentences by understanding its meanings which are indicated by the information the mufassir has at his disposal in terms of the language and events. As for what has been narrated about siyyidina 'Ali b. Abi Talib (r.a.) that he said:'The Qur'an is open to (many) viewpoints'. This does not mean that the Qur'an is open to any viewpoint you wish to explain from it. Rather, what is meant is that any one expression or sentence is open to a number of viewpoints in tafseer but the viewpoints are restricted to the meanings the expression or sentence is open to, which does not overstep that limit. Consequently, tafseer by opinion means the understanding of a sentence within the limits of the meanings its expressions are open to. That is why they calledit tafseer by ijtihad.

The great majority of the mufassirun from the Sahaba used to explain the Qur'an by opinion and rely on it in the first degree when making tafseer. They used to disagree in tafseer even in the explanation of a single word which indicates that they used torely on their own particular understanding like much of what has been reported about Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid and others. For example they used to explain the word tur in His (swt) saying:'And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Tur.'[2:63] with different explanations. Mujahid explained tur as a mountain, Ibn 'Abbas explained it as the mountain itself and another person said that tur is what spreads (lava ?) from mountains andas for what does not spread, it is not tur. This difference in tafseer is a result of a difference of opinion and not attributable to the difference in what  has been transmitted. Although the expression is linguistic so what about when the opinion concerns the meaning of the sentence and not the meaning of an expression. That is why in addition to their disagreement with the meanings of expressions, they also disagreed with regards to the meanings of verses. It is apparent from studying the tafseers of the Sahaba, especially the well known mufassirin, that on the whole they would rely on (individual) opinion when making tafseer. As for what has been narrated about some of them that they would refrain from making tafseer by opinion and confined themselves tomaking tafseer by what has been transmitted (manqul). It is taken to refer to the opinion of somebody who has not acquired the tools of tafseer such as having knowledge of the Arabic expression he wishes to clarify and knowledge of the events pertaining to which verses were revealed. It is not taken to mean that one should refrain from understanding the Qur'an, since it has been revealed so that people may understand it and not so that they restrict themselves to the limit of the transmitted tafseer. By going back to the texts with regarding this, the reason for why they refrained becomes clear. It has been reported about Sa'id b. al-Musayyab that when he was asked about something from the Qur'an he said: 'I will not say anything about the Qur'an.' He declined to say anything about the Qur'an but he did not say he would decline to say anything about the Qur'an by opinion. Ibn Sirin said : I asked Abu 'Ubayda about something in the Qur'an. He said:' Fear Allah and stick to what is correct. For those who knew the events surrounding which the Qur'an was revealed have all gone.' It is well known that Abu 'Ubayda was on of the eminent/senior Sahaba, he is requesting that people adhere to what is correct and have knowledge of the events regarding which the Qur'an was revealed. The reason for this cautiousness and reluctance to speak about the Qur'an is made clear by his statement:'For those who knew the events surrounding which the Qur'an was revealed have all gone'. When someone is able to examine the correct opinion and knows the events for which the Qur'an was revealed, then there is not doubt that he should speak about the Qur'an with this own opinion and ijtihad. Therefore, we cannot say that the Sahaba were divided into two groups. One group refraining from saying anything about the Qur'an by opinion and the other speaking about the Qur'an according to their opinion. Rather, all of them used to speak about the Qur'an with their opinion. They used to be wary of someone saying anything about the Qur'an by his opinion without having sure knowledge of the expression being explained and the sentence being elucidated from the ayahs of the Qur'an. Also, this was the position of the Tabi'un. However, after them there were people who came to know about these sayings and understood them as admonition for speaking about the Qur'an with ones own opinion, so they avoided saying anything about the Qur'an from their own opinion. And there also people who became acquainted with the the tafseer of the Sahaba by opinion and they advocated tafseer by opinion. That is why later scholars became divided into two groups regarding the tafseer. One group  would avoid saying anything with their own opinion and restrict themselves to what has been transmitted and a group that would give itsown opinions. As for the Sahaba and the Tabi'un they were not two groups. Rather, they used to speak about the Qur'an with what they knew in terms of the narrations and opinion, and they refrained from that which they did not know and they warned people from speaking about the Qur'an with their own opinions without having knowledge.

Third : The israiliyyat. This is because certain Jews and Christians had entered the fold of Islam. Among them were scholars of the Torah and Bible. Amongst them most of the Jews that entered were dishonest because the Jews hated and loathed the Muslims more than the Christians. From the Jews many scholars of Jewish fables infiltrated the Muslims. It entered the tafseer of the Qur'an to supplement the explanation of the Qur'an. That is because the mind and its inclinations are fond of inquiry which invited it, when listening to many verses of the Qur'an, to inquire about things surrounding them. When they heard the story about the dog and the companions of the cave they asked what colour was the dog? When they heard:' So We said : Strike him (dead man) with a piece of it.'[2:73] They inquired as to what was that piece with which they struck the dead man? When they read:' Then they found one of Our slaves, unto whom We had bestowedmercy from Us, and whom We had taught knowledge from Us.'[18:65] They asked who is this righteous servant that Musa met, whom he asked to teach him. From here the story of Khidr arose. You find them asking about the boy the righteous servant had killed and the boat he had scuttled. And about the village that did not entertain him. They inquired about the story of Musa and Shu'ayb and the size of Noah's ark etc. What answered these questions and satiated their greed for this kind of information was the Torah and its commentaries and exposition. And whatever fables/legends were inserted which were transmitted to them by the Jews whether through good or bad intention. Some Christians who had embraced Islam inserted certain stories and  reports from the Bible but that was little compared to what the Jews had interpolated. In this manner the volume of stories and reports expanded greatly until it exceeded the reports of the transmitted tafseer. Until many books of tafseer came to be loaded with this huge amountof israilyyat, stories and other reports. The one who inserted the greatest amount of israilyyat, and the most famous were Ka'b al-Ahbar, Wahb b. Munabbih, 'Abd Allah b. Salam and many others. Due to this activity these israilyyyat, stories and other reports became one of the sources of tafseer for the mufasssrun.
5.1.3 The Ummah's need today for Mufassirun p306     (incomplete)
The science of tafseer (Quranic exegesis) in its capacity as a discipline from the prominent Shari'a disciplines is one of the most important of Shari'a sciences. Therefore, it is imperative that attention  is given to it in every age and in every generation. The Ummah today is in need of Mufassirun because new things have come up which did not exist before. They must be understood if they come under comprehensive and general principles mentioned in the Qur'an or if it is possible to apply detailed/partial/elaborate rulings on them. However, the style of the classical tafseers in its capacity as a collection of tafseers is one genre of writing in terms of form and presentation. It is like the style of the classical works which the sons of this generation do not have a desire or love to read these tafseers except by those accustomed to reading classical books. And they are very few indeed. Therefore, the style has to be such that it awakens desire and love in the Muslims first, let alone in anyone else, for reading tafaseers as an intellectual book which is deep and enlightened. In addition to that, the path followed by mufasssirun in the agewhich followed the translation of the books of philosophy and being effected by them, and in the age of decline which came after the Crusades, led to the presence of tafseers for which much effort was expended in giving attention to things which did not constitute tafseer and had no relationship to the verses of the Qur'an. Not to mention the  israliiyyat that accumulated until it became a third source of tafseer for the mufassirin. It is imperative that the tafseer of the Qur'an should proceed accordingto the Sahaba's ways of tafseer  in terms of ijtihad in understanding the Qur'an seeking the aid of the tafseers of the Sahaba that have been transmitted. As for the tafseer transmitted about the Messenger (saw), even if it is authentic it is considered part of the hadith. It is not considered as tafseer since then it is a legislative text like the Qur'an which is not counted among the tafseers.

As of the style according to which the mufassir should proceed. That depends on his creativity. Since it is in one form or one genre/category of compilation each mufassir chooses according what he sees as a medium of rendering the tafseer in terms of the arrangement, chapters and presentation. That is why it is not correct to clarify the style of writing the tafseer. As for the methodology of tafseer that requires clarification. After study, research and thought we have found a method for tafseer. We shall present it here so that tafseer of the Qur'an can take place according to its methodology (minhaj). It is a method necessitated by the reality of the Qur'an. We only call it a  method for anything that is decided and permanent, we do not call it a style (uslub). Because it is like the method of tafseer which is understood from the reality of the texts and from the evidences the Qur'an has guided to. Likewise, tafseer is the same. It is a method in terms adhering to it and not in terms of it being a Shari'a rule. Because the method is not by way ahkam. As for this method which we deem proper to proceed on in the tafseer of the Noble Qur'an. They are summarised in the following :

Tafseer of the Qur'an is the clarification of the meanings of its vocabulary in its syntax/construction (tarakib) and the meaning of its syntax in itself. To know the method of its tafseer we must present the reality of the Qur'an first and study it comprehensively by which the truth/nature of this reality becomes apparent. Then study whatever applies to this reality in terms its words and meanings and then study what is the subject matter/contents that it has brought. With this knowledge of the reality and whatever applies to it, and knowledge of the subject of discussion brought by the Qur'an, the method that should be followed in making tafseer of the Qur'an becomes clear. Thus, he is guidedto the right path on whose methodology the tafseer should proceed.

As for the reality of the Qur'an, it is in the Arabic tongue, its reality in its capacity as the Arabic language has to be understood. Since we must comprehend its vocabulary as being in Arabic and its syntax must be understood in terms of an Arabic syntax consisting of Arabic words. And the reality of the usage of vocabulary in its syntax must be understood in its capacity as syntax only, and in terms of being an Arabic usage of Arabic vocabulary in Arabic syntax or Arabic usage in Arabic syntax in terms of the syntax generally. And in addition to that comprehend the higher appreciation/sense of the manner of address and speech in the Qur'an in terms of the Arabic method of higher appreciation of the manner of address and speech in the language of the Arabs. When all of that has been comprehended ie the reality of the Qur'an on this Arabic basis has been comprehended in a detailed fashion then it is possible to make tafseer, or else it is not possible. Because the whole of the Qur'an in its words and expressions proceeds according to the words,expressions and customary usage in the language of the Arabs. The Qur'an does not overstep that by a hairbreadth. One cannot make its tafseer except with this comprehension and according to this reality. As long as that is not fulfilled, the Qur'an cannot be explained correctly at all. Therefore, tafseer of the Qur'an in its capacity as an Arabic speech and text, depends on the comprehension of its Arabic reality in terms of the language:' And thus We have sent it down as a Qur'an in Arabic.'[20:113]' And thus have We sent it (the Qur'an) down to be a judgement of authority in Arabic.'[13:37]

This is in terms of the reality of the Qur'an and whatever applies to the reality in terms of its expressions and meanings ie from the perspective of the language. As for in terms of the subject matter that the Qur'an brought, it is a Message from Allah (swt) for humankind conveyed by the messenger from Allah. It contains everything relating to the Message : in terms of beliefs, ahkam, glad tidings, admonitions and stories for the purpose of exhortation and remembrance. And description to the one who observes the day of judgement, al-Janna (Paradise), Hellfire in order to rebuke and incite desire (for Paradise). It contains rational issues to be comprehended and perceptible and non-perceptible issues founded on a rational basis. For iman and action. And whatever else a universal message to mankind necessitates. One cannot be correctly acquainted with this subject except by the way of the Messenger (saw) who actually brought it. Not least when Allah (swt)has clarified that He revealed it to the Messenger (saw) so that he may explain it to the people. He (swt) said:' And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad [saw]) the reminder and the advice (the Qur'an), that you may explain clearly what is sent down to them.'[16:44] The way of the Messenger (saw) is his Sunnah. ie whatever has been correctly narrated about his sayings, actions and consent. Consequently, it is necessary to be acquainted with the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) before the beginning and during the tafseer of the Qur'an. Since the content/subject matter of the Qur'an cannot be understood without being acquainted with the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw). Though this acquaintance should be one of awareness of the text of the Sunnah irrespective of ones acquaintance with the sanad. ie the acquaintance should be one of awareness of thinking about its thoughts in their capacity as concepts and not one of memorising its words. ie it does not harm the mufassir not to concern himself with the memorization of words or have knowledge of the sanad (chain) and transmitters so long as he trusts the authentcity of the hadith from just the reference/source/extrapolation (takhrij) of the hadith. Rather it is incumbent on him to comprehend the  meanings of the hadith. Since, tafseer is relates to the the meanings of the Sunnah and not to its words, sanad or transmitters. Therefore, he must have sufficient awareness of the Sunnah so that he can explain the Qur'an. Coensequently, it becomes clear that one must first, before anything else, make a detailed study of the reality of the Qur'an and study whatever applies to this relaity in terms of the words and meanings, and then understand the subject of discussion. It should be known that a general understanding is not suffiecint, rather a detailed understanding of the general (kulliyat) and elborate (juz'iyyat) issues is essentialeven if it is in a general manner. In order to visualise this detailed understanding we shall present a glimpse or indication of the nature of this detailed understanding of the reality of the Qur'an interms of its vocabulary and syntax, and usage/inflection (tasarruf) of the vocabulary and syntax in terms of quality literature in spaech and discourse from the linguistic perspective and in terms of the idioms and common usages of the Arabs in their spaech.

As for the reality of the Qur'an in terms of its vocabulary. We see that it contains vocabulary on which the linguistic meaning applies literally (haqiqatan) and the linguistic meaning apllies metaphorocally (majazan). The lingusitic and methapohorcal meanaing may continue to be used together. The intended meaning is known by the qarina (indication) in each syntax/syntactic construction. The lingusitic meaning may be intentially forgotted with the metaphorical meaning continuing. So, that becomes what is intended and not the lingusitic meaning. We also notice vocabulary on which only the linguistic meaning applies. It is not used in the metaphorical sense due to the absence of any qarina (indication) which would divert us from the lingusitic meaning. And there is vocabulary on which the lingusitic meaning and the new Shari'a menaing applies to the exclusion of the literal and metaphoircal menaings. Vocabulary in the lingusitic and Shari'a sense is used in various verses. What ditermines any menaing which is intended is the syntax of the ayah. Or, only the Shari'a meanings apply to it and it is not   used in the linguistic sense. For example, the word qarya (town/village), is used in the liguistic sense only. He (swt) ta'ala said:' Till, when they came to the people of the town.'[18:77], 'Rescue us from this town.'[4:75] It is used in its metaphorical sense. He (swt) said:'And ask ( the people of ) the town where we have been.'[12:82] The town is not questioned but rather those intended are the people of the town. This meaning is metaphorical. And He (swt) said:'And many a town (population) revolted against the Command of its Lord.'[65:8] The people of the town are intended. For exapmle in His(swt) saying:'Or any of you comes from answering the call of nature (ghait).'[5:6] The ghait is the place which is low, it is used metaphorically with respect to answering the call of nature. Becaue the one who answers the call of natutre goes to the low place so the use of the metaphorical menaing prevailed and the literal menaing was intentuioanlly forgotten. For examplein His (swt) saying:'Judge with justice (qist)between them.'[5:42] and His (swt) saying:'And observe the weight with equity (qist).'[55:9] Its intended meaining is lingusitic, no other meaning can be found for it. For example in His (swt) saying:'And your garments purify !'[74:4] It is the linguistic menaing which is intended, which is the puryfication of clothes from dirt becaue purity (tuhr) linguistically is tahara (purification which is opposite of dirt. Purifying something with water meanins to wash it. And tatahhara and athara is being free from filth. And His (swt) saying:'If you are in a state of janaba (i.e. had a sexual discharge) purify yourself (fattahhiru).'[5:6]' Which (that Book) none can touch but the purified (mutahhirun).'[56:79] The linguistic meaning here, which is the removal of impurity, is not possible becaue the believer does not become impure. So only the other meaning remains which is removal of impurity. So 'fattahhiru' means: remove the impurity. And the 'mutahhirun' are: the onesfree from impurity becaue the removal of the greater and lesser impurity is called tahara in the Shari'a. He (saw) said:'Allah does not accept the prayer (salah) without purification.' ie removal of impurity. And for example in His (swt) saying:'Have you(O Muhammad [saw]) seen him (i.e. Abu Jahl) who prevents, a slave (Muhammad [saw]) when he prays ?'[96: 9-10] What is intended is the Shari'a meaning: And His (swt) saying:' His angels too ask Allah to bless and forgive the Prophet (saw).'[33:56] What is intendde is the lingusitic menaing which is the du'a (supplication). And for example in His (swt) sating:' Then when the (jum'a) salat (prayer) is finished.'[62:10] And His (swt) saying:' O my son ! Establish the salat (prayer).'[31:17] All the ayahs in which salah is mentioned, they have only been used in the Shari'a meaning.

This is in terms of the vocabulary. As for the syntax. The Arabic language as such ( is composed of) words which indicate meanings. When we examine thses words in terms of thier syntactic presence whetner in terms of its isolated meaning in the syntax oror its genral syntactic meaning. It does not exceed two viwponts. First, they should be view from the angle of being absolute/general words and expressions which indicate general meanings, which is the original meaning. Secondly, from the angle being words and expressions which indicate menaings which serve general words and expressions which is the secondary menaing. In relation to the first category, which is when the syntax is composed of general words and expressions indcating generalmeanings. In the Arabic language, in trems of the vocabulary, there are words which are homonymous such as the word 'ayn (lit.eye), qadar, ruh etc And there are words which are syinonimous such as ja' and ata (to come), asad and qaswara (lion), zann and za'm (contention) etc. And there are words which have opposite meanings sucha s the word quru' for being in a mensrtual or pure state, and 'azr for help and support, like wise the words lawm and tankeel etc. Understaning of the intended meaning of the word reqired the understanding of the syntax. It is not pssible to understand its meaning simply by refering to dictionaries. rather, it is essential that the syntax/word order in which the word was mentioned is understood. Becaue it is the syntax/word order that diternines the intended meaning. Just as we say this with respect to the vocabulary in the syntax we also say this this with respect to the syntax itself. It is, in its capacity, as general words and expressions which indicate general meanings.  And this is their original meaning. As long as no qarina (indication) can be found indicating otherwise. The general menaing is what is intended. And examples of this is abundant in the Qur'an, ther is not need to give examples becaue it is the original meaning.

As for the second category, which is the word order/syntax being composed of words and expressions indicating meaning which serve general words and expressions. Every peice of information stated in the sentence necettates the clarification of what is inetnded in the sentence in relation to this piece of information. So the sentence is written in amanner which leads to the intention according to the informant and the one who is being informed of it. And the same notification in the state in which it existed and in the context in whcih the sentence cites. nad in the type of style in terms of clarity, ambiguty, succinctness and vorbosity etc. You say at the beggining of notification : qama zayd, if the concern is not with the one who is being informed but the report. If the concern is the one being informed you would say : zayd qam. And in response to aquestion or something on the level of a quention you would say: Indeed zayd did stand up (inna zaydan qam).And in respose to someone who refuses to believe: By God! Indeed zayd did stand up (wallai inna zaydan qam). And in notifying someone who expects Zayd to stand up: zayd has stood up (qad qama zayd) and other such issues which should be considered in Arabictexts. That Qur'an has come fulfilling those two viewpoints. So in it general words and expressions indicating general meanings have come. And in it restricted words and expressions have come serving general meanings in various rehetorical aspects. One of.....Similarly stories and sentences which are repeated in the Qur'an in one or different suras.......

This in terms of the foundations of speach in the Arabic language as being words which indicate meanings. And in terms of the foundations of speach in the Qur'an in terms of words which indicate meanings whther in terms of the viewpoibt of vocabulary in their syntax or in terms of the sytax generally.

' The Only Owner (maalik) of the Day of Recompense.'[1:4]
' The Only Owner (malik) of the Day of Recompense.'[1:4]
' They only deceive (yakhda'una) themselves.'[2:9]
' They only deceive (yakhadi'una) themselves.'[2:9]
' To them We shall surely give (li nubawwi'annahum) lofty dwellings in Paradise[29:58]
' To them We shall surely give (li nubawwiyannahum) lofty dwellings in Paradise[29:58]
' That indeed is a division most unfair !'[53:22]
' Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the ass.'[31:19]
'And fruits and abba (herbage, etc).'[80:31]
' Or that He that he may catch them with gradual wasting (takhawwuf) (of their and health).'[16:47]

Morover, the Qur'an when speaking adheres to expression with which it intends to adhere to high/good literature whether as a narration/narrtive or instruction/teaching. Thus, when it used the vocative from Allah to the servantit came with vocative particle necessary for the servant, fixed and not ommitted o that the servant feels his distance from Allah such as in His (swt) saying:' O My slaves who believe ! Certainly, spacious is My earth.'[29:56]'Say : O 'ibadi (My slave) who have transgressed against themselves.'[39:53]' Say (O Muhammad [saw] : O mankind ! Verily, I am sent you all as the Messenger of Allah.'[7:158]' O mankind !'[7:158]' O you who believe !'[2:153] This is with regards to when Allah calls His servant. As for when the servat calls Allah, it came with the vocative which is free of the yaa, like His (swt) saying:' Our Lord ! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error, our Lord ! Lay not on us a burden like that which You did layon those before us (Jews and Christians) ; our Lord ! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear.'[2:286]'Our Lord! Verily, we have heard the call of the one (Muhammad [saw]) calling to Iman (belief).' [3:193]' Our Lord ! Let not our hearts deviate (from the truth) after You have guided us.'[3:8]' 'Isa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), said : O Allah, Our Lord ! Send us from heaven a table spread (with food).'[5:114] All of these are free from the yaa which you feel remote, so that the servant feels that Allah is close to Him and alos becaue the yaa denotes calling for attention, thus the servant's attention needs to be drwan when he is called, but that is not the case for Allah.

' They are your garments and you are their garments.' [2:187]
' And do not have sexual relations with them (your wives) while you are in I'tikaf (i.e. confining oneself in a mosque for prayers and invocations leaving the worldly activities) in the mosques.'[2:187]
' They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat).'[5:75]
' All the praise and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. The Only Owner of the Day of Recompense.'[1: 2-4]
' You (Alone) we worship, and you (Alone) we ask for help.'[1:5]
' He it is Who enables you to travel through land and sea, till when you are in the ships and they sail with them with a favourable wind.'[10:22]
' (The Prophet [saw]) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man (Ibn Umm Maktum).' [80:1-2]
' But what could tell you that perchance he might become pure (from sins) ?'[80:3]
' In Your Hand is the good (khair).'[3:26]      He (swt) did not say : ' In Your Hand is the evil (sharr)'.
' Say (O Muhammad [saw]) : " O Allah ! Possessor of the Power, You give the Power to whom You will, and You take the Power from whom You will, and You endue with honour whom You will, and you humiliate whom You will. In Your Hand is the good. Verily, Youare Able to do all things.'[3:26]
' Verily, You are Able to do all things.'[3:26]

Thus, the tafseer of vocabulary and syntax as words and expressions is restricted only to the Arabic language, it is prohibited that one makes tafsser with anything other than it. This is what its reality necessitates from this angle/direction.

As for its reality in terms of shari'a meanings like prayer (salah) and fasting, and sahri'a rules such as the prohibition of usury, permissibility of trade and the thoughts which have a shari'a reality such as angels and shayateen. It has been established that the Qur'an has come, in many of its verses, as ambivalent (mujmal). And the Messenger has come and elaborated on it. It has come general and the Messenger (saw) has specified it. It came as absolute (mutalaq) and the Messenger (saw) came and restricted it (muqayyad). In the Qur'an Allah has clarified that it is the Messenger who will explain the Qur'an. He (swt) said: 'And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad [saw]) the reminder and the advice (the Qur'an), that you may explain clearly what is sent down to them.'[16:44]  So the Qur'an from this direction/angle, in oredr to be understood needs familiarrty with what the Messenger has exlained in terms of the meanings of the vocabulary and syntax of the Qur'an. Whether this explanation is a psecification, restriction, elaboration or anything else. Therefore, to understand the Qur'an it is imperative that one studies/familiarises oneself with the sunnah relating to the Qur'an ie the sunnah unrestrcitedly. because it is an explanation of the Qur'an until one knows from this sunnah the meanings, rules and thoughts in the Qur'an. That is why the restriction in undertsnding the Qur'an in terms of a complete understanding is not sufficient to restrict oneself only to the Arabic language, rather with the knowledge of the Arabic language ther mus be knowledge of the sunnah. Evevn though the Arabic language is the only source refered to in oredr to understand the indicxations of vocabulary and syntax.=, in terms of its words and expressions.However to understand the whole Qur'an one must make the Qur'an and sunnah as two indispensible matters. It is inevitable that they both proceed together to understand the Qur'an and that these two things are available in whoever wishes to make tafseer ofthe Qur'an. And they they both are made the medium by which the Qur'an is understood and explained. As for the stroies mentioned in it of the Prophets and Messengers and the events it has narrated about the nations of ancient times. If a sound (sahih) hadith is narrated about it, it is taken. Otherwise one should confine onself to what has been reported in the Qur'an in a group of ayahs. It is not correct that anything should be known except through those two ways. Because, from the angle of vocabulary andsyntax there is no path to the Torah and Bible to understand the vocabulary and syntax narrated by the stories. There is no relevance to the Torah and Bible in understanding these vocabulary and syntax. As for in terms of the meaning, the one who explains it is the Messenger by the explicit (text) of the Qur'an and not the Torah or the Bible. Therefore, there is no patrh to the Torah and the Bible in understanding the meanings of the Qur'an because Allah has orederd us to refer to the Qur'an and clarified to us that the Messenger (saw) has explained the Qur'an. He (swt) did not oredr us to refer to the Torah and the Bible. It is not allowd for us to refer to the Torah and the Bible to understand the stories of the Qur'an and the reports of bygone nations. Similarly, there is no path to sources other than the Torah and Bible like books of history and the like. Because the issue is not the explanation of a story until we can say that this is a more extensive source assuming that it is authentic, rather it is the explanation of specific texts wgich we belive are the words of the Lord of the worlds (rabbu al-'alamin). Therfore we must stop at the meanings of these texts in terms of the Arabic language in which the Qur'an came and whatever this languages dictatesand also in trems of the shari'a defionition from the one who the authority to give the definition, who is the Messenger (saw) about whome Allah (saw) said that the Qur'an has been revealed to him so that he may explain it to the people. Consequently, we must negate/reject any tafseer which comes from the Torah, Bible, historical works etc It will be a fabriction aginst Allah if we think that these are the meanings of Allah's words while there is not the semblence of a daleel that they have any relationship to the meanings of the words of Rabb al-'Alamin.

As for what many people claim, in the past and in modern times, that the Qur'an contains sciences, industry, inventions etc. They ascribe to the Qur'an every science, mentioned by the ancient and modern authors, in terms of the natural and chemical sciences, logic and other subjects. It has not basis and the reality of the Qur'an refutes them. The Qur'an did not intend to establish any of the things they claim. All ayahs of the Qur'an is are but ; thoughts demonstrating the greatness of Allah (swt) and ahkam to treat the actions of the servants of Allah (swt). As for what took place in terms of the sciences there is not a single ayah or part of an ayah (let alone verses) with the slightest indication of any one of the sciences.As for the ayahs which can be applied to theories or facts like the verse:' Allah is He Who sends the winds, so they raise clouds.'[30:48] The ayah has come to demonstrate the power and ability of Allah (swt) not to prove scientific viewpoints. As for His (swt) saying:' And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition (tibyan) of everything.' [16:89] What is intended is everything from the obligations and worships and whatever relates to that as evidenced by the text of the verse. It pertains to the subject of obligations which the Messengers conveyed to the people. And the text of the ayah is:' And (remember) the Day when We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst themselves. And We shall bring you (O Muhammad [saw]) as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition (tibyan) of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allah as Muslims).' [16:89] Allah (swt) bringing a Messenger as a witness over his Ummah means he is a witness over them regarding that which he conveyed to them. And the fact that he revealed the Qur'an to clarify everything means it is a guidance, mercy and glad tidings for the Muslims. Which definitely means that the thing is not natural science, logic or geography or any other subject. But it is a thing that relates to the Message. ie that the Book is an exposition of their ahkams, worships and beliefs (aqa'id). A guidance by which people are guided and a mercy for them which saves them from misguidance and glad tidings for the Muslims of janna (Paradise) and the Good Pleasure of Allah (swt). It has no relationship to anything other than the deen and its obligations. So the meaning of 'exposition (tibyan) of everything' : is designated as any issues of Islam. As for His (swt) saying:' We have neglected nothing in the Book.'[6:38] What is meant by 'Book' is the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which is the knowledge of Allah ta'ala. The word 'kitab' (book) is a homonym which is explained by the setting in which it came. So, when Allah (swt) says:' This is the Book (the Qur'an), whereof there is no doubt.'[2:2] it is the Qur'an that is meant. And when He (swt) says:' You knew not what is the Book.'[42:52] ie how to write. But when He (swt) said:' And with Him is the Mother of the Book.'[13:39]And He (swt) says:' That is written in the Book (of our decrees).'[17:58]' We have neglected nothing in the Book.'[6:38]' Were it not a previous ordainment from Allah.'[8:68]' But is written in a Clear Record (kitab mubin).'[6:59]' All is in a Clear Record (kitab mubin).'[11:6]' Nor is a part cut off from his life but is in a Book.'[35:11] All of this mean the knowledge of Allah (swt). And His (swt) saying:' And He has knowledge of the Record (wa 'indahu 'ilm al-kitab).'(COULD NOT FIND REFERENCE) ie the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which means His (swt) knowledge. And His (swt) saying:' Written in the Book (of our decrees).'[17:58]  ie the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which means His (swt) knowledge. And His (swt) saying:'We have neglected nothing in the Book.'[6:38] has come clearly as the knowledge of Allah (swt). Since the complete ayah says:' There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book.'[6:38] Similar to His (swt) saying:' What sort of Book is this that leaves neither a small thing nor a big thing.' [18:49] As evidenced by the second ayah which came in the same sura (chapter) - sura al- An'am - which is: 'except it is written in a Clear Record (kitab mubin).'[6:59] So the verse came:' And with Him are the keys of the ghayb (all that is hidden), none knows them but He. And He knows whatever there is in (or on) the earth and in the sea ; not a leaf falls, but he knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, except it is written in a Clear Record (kitab mubin).'[6:59] All of this indicates in this verse the word 'kitab' does not mean Qur'an. Rather, it means the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) which tantamount to the knowledge of Allah (swt). Thus, there is no indication in the ayah that the Qur'an contains sciences and other such topics. The Qur'an is devoid of any discussions about science because its vocabulary and construction (idioms) and also because the Messenger (saw) did not explain it and so it has no relationship to him. This is the reality of the Qur'an. It indicates explicitly and clearly that it consists of Arabic texts brought by the Messenger (saw) from Allah (swt) which are not explained except without the Arabic language and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw). As for its tafseer based on a shari'a evidence mentioned regarding a manner of tafseer. It is not real and it is without basis. Because the Qur'an itself did not clarify to us the manner in which its verses should be explained. And the Messenger (saw) has not been authentically reported to have clarified a specific way of tafseer. And the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) even though what they explained was the causes of revelation, but that was by way of a mawquf hadith and not by way of tafseer. even if it was by way of explanation and clarification they differed on the ayaats. Each one spoke according to his view which indicates that an ijma' (consensus) on a specific manner of tafseer did not take place. Among them there were those who used to take from then people of the Book certain israli'yyat which were narrated by the Tabi'un. And some used to reject their use. However, all of them used to understand the Qur'an according  what they had in terms of knowledge of the Arabic language, and with what they understood from the Sunnah of theMessenger of Allah (saw). In terms of the saying, action, consent/silence, attribute of creation and moral character of the Messenger of Allah (saw). And this is a well known fact about all of them. Whoever used to refrain from explaining certain words andverses their restraint was due to their certainty of the meaning and not as a restriction to what the text has mentioned till he did not give an opinion except if he had reliable knowledge. But that is not called ijma' (consensus) because it does not reveal an evidence about the Messenger (saw) because the clarification of the Messenger (saw) constitutes a sunnah and not tafseer. However, since the Sahaba are the closest people to the correct opinion in the tafseer of the Qur'an due to their high rank in the Arabic language and their closeness to the one on whom the Qur'an was revealed. In what they used to agree on his (saw) behaviour, in terms of making the Arabic language such as the jahili poetry, speeches in jahiliyya and others as the only tool for understanding the vocabulary and construction of the Qur'an, and in terms of stopping at the limits of what has been mentioned about the Messenger (saw), and in terms of opening their minds in understanding the Qur'an according to those two tools. This is the best method to follow in understanding the Qur'an.

Therefore, we find that the method of explaining the Qur'an is that the Arabic language and the Prophet's (saw) Sunnah should be adopted as the only tool in understanding the Qur'an and its tafseer in terms of its vocabulary and construction, in terms of the Shari'a meanings, Shari'a rules, and the thoughts that have a legal reality. The method of explaining the Qur'an is that open our minds to understand the the texts to the extent that is indicated bythe speech of the Arabs and their customary usages. And whatever the words/expressions indicate in terms of Shari'a meanings mentioned in a Shari'a text of the Qur'an or Sunnah which is not restricted to the understanding of the previous forebears whether 'Ulama, Tabi'un or even the Sahaba. All of these are ijtihads which may be mistaken or correct. Maybe the mind is guided to the understanding of an ayah whose reality becomes conspicuous to the mufassir during an extensive perusal of the Arabic language or it becomes apparent to him during the changing of things, progress of material forms (ashkal madaniyya), realities, events. By opening the mind to creativity, by understanding not invention. The creativity in tafseer takes place within the limits demandedby the word 'tafseer' while at the same time protecting oneself from misguided invention of meanings which has absolutely no relationship to the text being explained. This conformity in understanding and giving the mind free reign by what his best understanding of the text, without restriction to the understanding of any human being except the person on whom the Qur'an was revealed, necessitates that all israiliyyat are rejected restricting oneself only to the stories mentioned in the Qur'an and rejecting what they claim to be sciences contained in the Qur'an and stopping at the limit of what the structures of the Qur'an means in terms of the ayaats which discuss the universe and whatever is intended by them in terms of clarifying the greatness of Allah (swt). This is the method of explaining the Qur'an, the mufassir has to adhere to it, and its burdens must be borne by whoever wishes to make tafseer of the Qur'an.
5.2 The Science of Hadith p.325
It is the science by whose laws the condition of the sanad and matn are known. It's aim is to know the correct (sahih) hadith from others. The science is in two parts : knowledge of the hadith pertaining to transmission (riwaya) and knowledge of the hadith pertaining to meaning (diraya). As for the one pertaining to transmission (riwaya) it includes the transmission of the sayings, actions, consent and attributes of the Prophet (saw), and their narration, accuracy and writing down of words. As for the one pertaining to transmission (riwaya), the reality,conditions (shurut), categories and rules of transmission are known through it. Diraya includes knowledge of meaning contained by the hadith in terms of whether it contradicts the definite text.
5.2.1 The Hadith p.326
One should be familiar with the meanings of terms that are frequently used by the muhaddithin. They are : Hadith, khabar, athar and sunnah. These are general terms. And matn, sanad, isnad, musnad (with fatha on nun), musnid (with kasra under nun) are from the perspective of the terms of hadith and its transmission. And muhaddith, hafiz, hujja, hakim are from the perspective of the transmitters. As for the clarification of the meanings of these words in the terminology of hadith :

1. Hadith : Whatever has been attributed to the Prophet (saw) in terms of his saying, action, consent or physical attribute (ie relating to his creation (saw) such as his being of medium height), or his character ie relating to his morals such as his notcountering anyone with anything makruh. Khabar and sunnah has this meaning also. They are synonymous terms for the term hadith. All of them ie hadith, khabar and sunnah have the same meaning. As for athar it is the hadith stopping at the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them).

2. Matn : is the speech which comes at the end of the highest part of the sanad. The sanad is the  line of transmission leading to the matn ie the men (transmitters) who lead to the matn. The isnad is the attribution of the hadith to the one who said it.Musnad (with fatha on the nun) is the chain which is continuous from its beginning until the end even if it stops at the sahabi (mawquf). The word musnad is also applied to a book in which reports of the Sahaba are compiled. As for musnid (with kasra below nun) it is the person who narrates the hadithwith its isnad.

3. Muhaddith : Someone who carries the hadith and devotes his attention to it in terms of narration (riwaya) and meaning (diraya). The hafiz: is someone who has committed to memory a hundred thousand hadiths with the matn and sanad even iftheir are through various lines of transmission and he is aware of what he requires. The hujja : is someone who is thoroughly acquainted with three hundred thousand hadiths. And hakim is someone who is familiar with the entirety of the sunnah.
5.2.2 The Transmitters of Hadith p.328
The narration of hadith came to an end after the writing down of ahadith in books. After the age of the recording of hadith there is no narration of hadiths, which was the age of Bukhari, Muslim and the compilers of the books of Sunan. Because, narration of hadith is tantamount to transmission and this transmission has ended. The transmitters of ahadith are the Sahaba, Tabi'in and others after them.The 'Ulama of hadith have said that whoever saw the Prophet (saw) and believed in him,he is Sahabi. However, the truth is that the Sahabi is whoever has actually realised the meaning of companionship. It has been narrated about Sa'id b. al-Musayyab: It is essential that someone has companionship with the Prophet (saw) for one or two years, or has gone out with him on one or two battles.' Shu'ba reported from Musa al-Sibillani - whom he spoke appreciatively about - that he said: I said to Anas b. Malik. Are there any companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) left other than you? He said: There are still many Arabs who saw him. As for his companions, no!. All of the Sahaba are trustworthy because Allah has praised them in his holy Book and due to the commendation of their morals and actions stated in the prophetic sunnah. As for the Tabi'in.ATabi'in is designated as the one who met a Sahabi and transmitted from even if has not had companionship with him.  Like Sa'id b. al-Musayyab, Qays b. Abi Hazim, Qays b. 'Ubad and Abu Sasan Husayn b. al-Munzir. The history of the transmitters of hadith have been written and each one had been identified. The Sahaba are not protected from mistakes. Hafiz al-Zahabi al-Dimashqi said: As for the Sahaba (r.a.) their matter has been settled despite what happed, even though they made mistakes as other trustworthy people did. Barely a single one of them is immune from mistakes but the mistakes are rare which do no harm. Since it is on the basis of their trustworthiness and acceptance of what they transmit that we act. And since it is through what they transmit thatwe obey Allah ta'ala. As for the Tabi'in. Those who would intentionally lie are almost non-exixtent.However they made mistakes and errors. The one whose mistakes were rare........   And whoever made many mistakes and was of wide knowledge he was forgivenalso. His hadith is transmitted and acted upon through the hesitancy of the imams and establishing............. Such as al-Harith al-A'war, 'Asim b. Hanbal, Salih the freedman of al-Taw'ama, 'Ata b. al-Sa'ib and their likes. The one who makes terrible mistakes and has many tafarrud, his hadith is not relied upon. This hardly happens with the early Tabi'is though it was present among the less senior Tabi'in those who came after them. As for the students of the Tabinin like al-Awza'i and others they are on the aforementioned levels. In their age there were those who would intentionally lie and would many mistakes, his hadith would be disregarded. .................
5.2.3 The one whose narration is accepted and the one whose narration is not accepted:
The exposition of (the science of) invalidation and attestation of reliability (jarh wa ta'deel) p.330

It is stipulated concerning someone whose narration is used as proof, that he be just/upright ('adl) and accurate (dabit) in that which he narrates. As for the upright transmitter : he should be Muslim, mature, sane , safe from the causes of fisq (transgression) and khawarim sense of honour. As for the one who is dabit (accurate): He is the one who is aware and not inattentive. He should be some one who has memorisedhis narration (well) if he narrates from memory, and precise in his writing if he narrates from a book, and knowledgeable about what he transmits and what will change the intended meaning if he narrates by meaning.

The trustworthiness of a transmitters is established through his becoming known for being upright and the praise given to him. So whoever becomes well known for his trustworthiness among the people of transmission and their likes from the people of knowledge and praise for his reliability and trustworthiness become widely known, then due to that he is no need of any testimonial proof of his honesty tansisan. The probity of a transmitters is established likewise by the attestation of the imams, or by one of them if his trustworthiness and scholar's approval of him is not well known.

A transmitters accuracy (dabt) is known by considering/comparing his narrations with that of trustworthy narrators who are known for their accuracy and precision/exactitude. If his narrations are found to accord with their narration (even in meaning) or they are in agreement in the majority of cases and his divergences are rare, then at that time his accuracy is established.

Attestation (ta'deel) of a transmitter's reliability is accepted whether the reason was mentioned or not. Which is contrary to the invalidation/disparagement (jarh). It is not accepted except when the reason has been explained and clarified due to people's divergent views of the causes of mafsaqa (transgression).  The one who invalidates/disparages (jarih) a transmitter may believe something to be a transgression (mafsaqa) so he brands the transmitter as weak but in reality it may not be so, or it might not be so according to the views of others. In other words, someone might term something as aninvalidation based on what he believes to be an invalidation, which in reality is not a (legitimate) invalidation (jarh). That is why clarification of the reason for invalidation has been stipulated so that one can look into whether it is a legitimate invalidation or not. The invalidation can be established by one person, there is no stipulation on the number. Since one person is sufficient in attesting (ta'deel) or invalidating (tajreeh) a transmitter's probity because it constitutes the notification of anews for which one person is sufficient. Just as the number is not stipulated in accepting a report, rather one person is sufficient. Similarly, the number is also not stipulated in invalidating or attesting a transmitters honesty. Rather, one person is sufficient for the purpose of invalidation and attestation of someones character. When there is an invalidation and attestation for a person at the same time, then the invalidation is given precedence even if there are many people attesting someones reliability. Because the one who attests (mu'addil) a transmitters reliability informs of what is apparent from the transmitters condition but the one who invalidates (jarih) informs of what is hidden and concealed from the one who validates (mu'addil). As for thenumber of those validating being greater, that is of no value. For that is not the reason for accepting the report. Rather, rather the reason is whether someone is familiar or not familiar with the condition of a transmitter. The fuqaha restricted that to when the validator (mu'addil) does not say: I know the reason mentioned by the one who invalidated (so and so) but he has since repented and his condition has improved. When the one who invaliadtes mentions a specific reason for invalidation, the mu'addilcan nullify it if he knows anything that indicates definitely that the reason has been cancelled.

Disparagement of a transmitter can take place with ten things. Five relate to the trustworthiness ('adala) and five relate to  accuracy (dabt) (in retention and reproduction of reports). As for the five which relate to the 'adala they are : mendacity (kidhb), accusation (of any impropriety), any manifestations of fisq (transgression), ignorance or innovations (bid'a). As for the five which relate to accuracy (dabt) they are: serious mistakes, flagrant negligence and delusion, contradicting reports of reliable transmitters, and bad memory/retentive ability.

As for the transmitter whose condition is not known, there are categories:
1. A transmitter whose apparent or hidden probity is not known. This transmitter's narration is not accepted.
2. A transmitter whose hidden condition is not known but he is upright on the surface. He is a narrator with a blameless record (mastur).This transmitter's narration is used.
3. A transmitter who is completely unknown (majhul al-'ayn). He is every transmitter not known to the 'Ulama. And he is someone whose hadith is known only through one transmitter...............
5.2.4 Narrations of the Muslim Sects p.333
All of the Sahaba are trustworthy ('udul). That is why people did not ask about the isnad in the time of the Prophet (saw) and after him, until the fitna (civil war) took place then they asked about the isnad. The Sahaba and others (after them) encouraged people to examine the one from whom the hadith is taken. It has been narrated by Abu Sakina Majashi' b. Fatina that he said: I heard the 'Ali b. Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) that he was in the mosque of Kufa that he said: 'scrutinise the person from whom you take you this knowledge for it is the deen.' al-Dahhak b.Muzahim said: Indeed this knowledge is the deen so consider the person from whom you take the knowledge.' And Muhammad b. Sirin said:'Indeed this hadith is deen so consider from whom you take it.'

After the fitna (civil war) Islamic sects came about believing in/espousing novel opinions. The followers of these sects used to claim that they deduced these opinions, which they came to profess, from the Shari'a texts until they became Islamic opinions. And whensome of them required a proof but did not find the evidence, in the Shari'a texts, for the opinion he holds. Then he would fabricate a hadith which supports his opinion. And he would attribute it to the Messenger (saw). And some of them use to carry the call to his sect and incitation to it or da'wa to their opinions and incitation to fabricate the ahadiths....... . These new opinions were termed as bid'as (innovations) and the people who did this were called mubtadi'a (innovators). That is why hearing hadiths from these people is subject to scrutiny. And their narration of hadith used a subject of debate. There are detailed clarifications regarding their situation. Thus, the mubtadi' (innovator) who is charged with kufr due to his bid'a (innovation) thereare no problems in rejecting his narration. If he is not charged with kufr, if he permits lying then his narration is rejected also. As for if he does not permit lying then his narration is accepted on the proviso that he does not call to his sect or school (mazhab). If he calls to his sect then his narration is rejected. And his reports are not advanced as proofs.

In short, any Muslim who meets the conditions for the acceptance of a narration, if he is just ('adl) and precise (dabit) then his narration is is accepted irrespective of his mazhab or sect as long as he does not call to his sect or mazhab. Because inviting people to the sect or mazhab is not allowed. As for if he invited people to Islam and explained the thoughts he has adopted with their evidences, then his narration is accepted. because then he is calling people to Islam. And this person's narration is not impugned.
5.2.5 Narration by meaning and abridgement of the hadith p.335
It is permitted to narrate hadith by meaning. Because, we do not worship Allah by the words of a hadith but by its meaning because the wahy (revelation) is the meaning of the hadith and not its words. However, it has been stipulated that the narrator be knowledgeable about anything that can change the meaning. If he is not knowledgeable or cognizant of that, it is not allowed to narrate hadith by meaning. As for the abridgment of the hadith, it is allowed. It is not improper if a hadith is narrated in an abridged form, with a part omitted and a part mentioned on the proviso that the omitted part does not relate to the part mentioned. However, it is not allowed to commit or exclude the aim and other such things which would make the meaning deficient or make the part of the hadith which has been mentioned lead to a meaning which is completely contrary to the (actual) meaning of the hadith. ..............
5.2.6 Divisions/categories of hadith p.336
The khabar (report) which is synonymous to the terms hadith and sunnah, in terms of the line of transmission, is divided into the khabar mutawatir (continuously recurrent report) and khabar ahad (isolated report). The mutawatir which comprises of four issues, they are :

1. The number of transmitters should be such that they are a group and not be restricted to any specific number. So whatevernumber proves to be a group, that is considered mutawatir. However, it is not allowed to be below five. Four is not enough because four are in need of another to attest their integrity (tazkiya) if nothing is known about them when they give testimony forzina. The group accredited for tawatur (continuous transmission) is that it should need any attestation (tazkiya) until it is definite by the mere notification of the report.

2.It should preclude the collusion on a lie. It differs according to the difference of persons and places. So five people like 'Ali b. Abi Talib is sufficient to consider the report as mutawatir. Probably with other people five may not be sufficient. Five transmitters, who have not met, from five different countries may be enough for the report to be considered as mutawatir. Since they did not meet in one place for collusion to be possible. Probably a notification by the same number of people in one country may not suffice.
3. That the same number transmit the report from the begginguntil the end of the transmission in precluding the collusion on a lie. If their numbers do not reach that amount ie the first two conditions should be met in every tier of transmitters.

4. The basis of their conclusion should be sense perception. By hearing and other such senses. Not what the pure reason establishes because it can make mistakes if it is not based on sense perception. It does not amount to certainty. The value (hukm) of the mutawatir report is that it yields positive knowledge ('ilm daruri). It is what man is compelled to accept such that he is unable to confute it. It is inescapable because it does not require study. ie the the mutawatir report imparts certainty (yaqin). The mutawatir report is divided into two categories: verbal (lafzan) mutawatir like the hadith :'Whosoever intentionally lies about me, let him reserve his place in the Hellfire.' And the hadith of wiping on the leather socks, hadith of hawd (river in paradise), hadith of intercession (shafa'a) and the hadith of raising the hands (raf' al-yadayn) in prayer. And the mutawatir by meaning (ma'na) such as when the transmitters concur on a matter occurring in difference incidents such as the sunnah of the morning prayer being two rakats. It does exist. Numerous mutawatir hadiths have been reported even though the 'Ulama differ on what constitutes mutawatir according to their different views about the mutawatir report.

As for the isolated report (khabar al-ahad). It is the report whose narrators have not reached the number required for the mutawatir. Whether it was reported by one or four narrators ie it is the report which falls short of the preceding four conditions for the mutawatir report. It is divided, in terms of the number of narrators, into three categories:
1. Gharib : it is the report narrated by a single transmitter..... ie there is a single narrator throughout the narration at any stage in the isnad. It is divided into : gharib in isnad only, and gharib in isnad and matn together. There is nothing calledgharib only inmatn. The gharib in matn and isnad is the narration by a single narrator. Such as the hadith prohibiting the sale of wala (patronage)and its gifts. The gharib in isnad and not in matn is the matn which has been narrated by a group of Sahaba but a transmitter has single narration form another Sahaba like the hadith: Actions are judges according to intentions.'

2. Aziz : It is a report transmitted by more than one narrator but less than four.ie what two or three narrators have transmitted even if they are of the same rank. It is called aziz (scarce) due to its rarity.

3. Mashur: A report which has been narrated by more than three narrators but but it did not reach the level of mutawatir. It is called mashur due to it being clear and widely mentioned on the lips of people. Whether a sanad (chain) was found for it or was not found originally. It is also the mustafid. It has two categories: mashur according to the scholars of hadith and mashur for the general public. The first is like the hadith of Anas : Thatthe Prophet (saw) ........... And the second category is like the hadith : A Muslim is someone from whose (sharp) tongue and hands other Muslims are safe'. Not every mashur report among people is sahih. Certain hadith may become famous amongst people which do not have any basis or are entirely fabricated. Theses are many, .like the hadith : the day of you fast is the day of your sacrifice' It is devoid of any basis. And the Khabar al-ahad also, whether it is gharib, aziz or mashur, the isnad has a termination point. either it ends with the Prophet (saw) or with a Sahabi or tabi'i. In terms of the end of the chain there are three types:

1. marfu' : It is a report which has been specifically ascribed to the Prophet in terms of his action, saying, consent or attribute.  Whether the one who attributed it to the Prophet (saw) was a Sahabi. tabi'i or someone after them.  From this is when the Sahabi says : we use to do or say such and such thing during the life time of the Messenger (saw) , or he was among us, orhe was in front of us, or we did not see anything wrong with such and such thing, or they (Sahaba) used to do or say such and such thing or such and such thing was said during the lifetime of the Messenger (saw). From this also when the Sahabi says: We were ordered to do such and such thing, or we were forbidden from doing such and such thing or such and such thing wa from the Sunnah.  It is also considered a marfu' report when the Sahabi says: We used to do or say such and such thing even if they did not attribute it to the Prophet (saw) because it indicates a consent. Likewise, the saying of Anas b. Malik is considered as a marfu' report when he said: The Prophet's doors used to be knocked using the fingernails' and when Anas said ; Bilal was ordered to double the azan and make one iqama '. Similarly the tafseer of the Sahaba concerning the cause of revelation comes under the rule of marfu'. Anything other than that from the tafseer of the Sahaba is not considered part of the hadith. That is because the Sahaba performed many ijtihads in explaining the Qur'an and they disagreed as result. Also we find many of them used to narrate israilyyat from the people of the Book. That is why their tafseer is not considered part of the hadith let alone be considered asa marfu' hadith.

2. mawquf : It is the narration from the Sahaba in terms of their saying and action. Its application is specific to the Sahabi. Its isnad can be continuous or broken. It is the report many of the Fuqaha and muhaddithun also call athar. The mawquf does not establish a proof because Allah (swt) said:'And whatsoever the Messenger (saw) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).' [59:7] The understanding is : whatever brought to us from other than the Messenger (saw) do not take it. Therefore, it is not a proof for anyone except when it is from the Messenger of Allah (saw). It is not permitted to ascribe it to the Messenger of Allah (saw) because it is a mere possibility and not a preponderant opinion (zann), and possibilities are not recognised.

3. maqtu' : It is not the same as munqati'. The chain stops at the Tabi'i;i in terms of his saying and action. A proof is not established by it, it is weaker than the mawquf.
5.2.7 Categories of the Khabar al-Ahad p.340
The khabar al-ahad (isolated report) in its three forms : gharib, 'aziz or mashur, whether marfu', mawquf or maqtu' is divided by the scholars of hadith, in terms of its acceptance or rejection, into three categories: sahih, hasan, da'eef. The following is an clarification of each category:

1. sahih ; it is the hadith whose isnad is linked by the transmission of an upright ('adl) narrator whose retention is accurate (dabit) from an another upright transmitter whose has an accurate retentive ability until the end of the chain, and is not shadh (irregular) or mu'allal (defective). ie the isnad of the hadith is linked by the transmission of an upright ('adl) and accurate (dabit) narrator from another same as him until it end with the Messenger of Allah (saw) or ends with a Sahabi or someone else. The statement of the  scholars of hadith that the ' the isnad of the hadith is linked by the transmission of an upright ('adl) and accurate (dabit) narrator from another same as him' excludes it from the mursal, munqati' andmu'dal hadiths, which are not from the category of sahih. Because, the mursal is what the Tabi'in has narrated about the Prophet (saw) without mentioning the Sahabi. The munqati' is when a single narrator is missing/omitted in one or more places in the isnad. The mu'dal has two or more narrators missing from one or more places in the isnad. All of them, ie mursal, munqati' and mu'dal have discontinued isnads which takes it out of the sahih category. And their statement that ; the ahadith should not be shadh (irregular) excludes the sahih hadith from the shadh report where a trustworthy narrator goes against the transmissions of narrators who are more reliable than him. And their statement : It should not be mu'allal (defective) excludes the sahih ahadith from the mu'allal report which has a defect. The 'illah (defect) consists of a denigratory thing in the hadith, effecting its rejection, which appears to the rijal critics when collecting and collating the the various transmission routes of the hadith. Such as the chain of a narrator being continuous while a group has transmitted as mawquf/ attributed it to a Sahaba. And their statement : By the transmission of an upright narrator, it excludes the report narrated by a transmitter whose apparent and hidden condition is not known, majhul al-'ayn, and the transmitter known to be weak. Such as hadith is not considered as sahih. And their statement : by the transmission of a narrator who has accurate retentive ability (dabit) which excludes what has been narrated by someone who has memorised a hadith, aware that his transmission is negligent and full of mistakes, this report is not considered a sahih hadith. Rather, all the conditions which have been clarified should bet met in the sahih ahadith. If one condition is not met then the ahadith is not sahih.

2. Hasan : It is a report defined by the one who recorded it and its transmitters became well known and consequently it is the core of most of the hadith. It is a ahadith most scholars accept and  it is used by the fuqaha generally. ie that in the isnad there are no narrators that have been charged with lying and it is not a shadh (irregular) hadith.  There are two types :

First : a hadith whose isnad is not free from transmitters who are mastur (transmitters who have a blameless record because their hidden condition is not known), whose capacity is not realised. However they are not negligent and are not prone to make mistakes and nor are they charged with mendacity. The matn of the hadith may have been narrated by someone similar level to him due to which it will not be included as shadh or munkar (rejected). Second: The narrators must be known for their honesty and trustworthiness but they do not attain the level of the transmitters of the sahih category in retention and exactitude. A narrator who is alone in transmitting a report is not considered as munkar (rejected). And nor is the matn irregular (shadh)or defective (mu'allal). So the hasan ahadith is the report transmitted by an upright ('adl) narrator who is oflesser retentive capacity, whose isnad is continuous and not irregular (shadh) or defective (mu'allal). The hasan hadith is used as proof exactly as the sahih hadith is used.

3. Da'eef : It is the hadith which does not have the qualifications of the sahih or hasan hadiths. The weak hadith is not used as evidence at all. It is a mistake to say that when a da'eef hadith comes via numerous lines of transmission then it rises to the level of hasan or sahih. For when the hadith is weak this means the narrators have actually committed transgressions or have been accused of lying. Then the hadith has come through other lines of transmission which are of this type, then it has increased in its weakness. As for when the meaning contained in the da'eef hadith is also contained in the sahih ahadith, then the sahih hadith is cited and the da'eef hadith is disregarded. Therefore, the da'eef hadith is not educed in any way whatsoever.
5.2.8 The accepted hadith (maqbul) and the rejected hadith (mardud) p.343
It becomes clear from dividing the hadith into sahih, hasan and da'eef, that the hadith hasan and sahih are both advanced as proof and the da'eef hadith is not.  What makes the hadith acceptable or rejectable is the consideration of the sanad, transmitter and matn. If a narrator is not ommited fron the sanad whose ommision will lead to the inibility to attest the reliablity of the ommitted narrator, and the narrator's probity is not impughned, and the matn is not weak and does not contradict certian parts of the Qur'an or sunnah mutawatir or definite ijma'. then in this case the hadith is accepted, acted upon and adopted as a shari'a evidenc whether it was sahih or hasan. As for when the hadith is contrary to these qulaifications, it is rejected and not educed as proof. Therfore, the rejected hadith is the hadith which is rejected due to the ommison from the sanad of a nrrator which results in the inabiulity to attest the reliabilty of this narrator or, due to a narrator's probity being impughned, or due to the weaknes of the (matn) of the hadith or its contradiction to the Qur'an, hadith and ijma'which are definite. Various types of hadith come under the hadith mardud (rejected) which do not exceed the following discriptions:
1.Mu'allaq : when there is one or more narrators are consequitively missing from the begging of the sanad in a manner that is quite obvious. The term 'more' is more genreal to include the whole or part of the isnad. Also included, is the ommision of the whole chain by hte muhaddith or the hadith compiler, such as when he says: The Messneger of Allah (saw) siad por did such and such thing.
2.Mu'dal: Is a chain in which two or more narrators are missing from one or more places. It includes when the tabi at-tabi'i omits a tabi'i and sahabi from the isnad. Butit does not include the statement of authors from the fuqaha when they say: The meseneger of Allah (saw) said'. Or their statement 'about the Messneger of Allah (saw). It is not mu'dal becaue that is not trasnmision, rether it constitues qouting and educing a proof which is correct.
3.Munqati': When a single narrator is missing before the Sahabi in one place whetherever that was. If there is more than one place such that, the narrator who ommits, does not ommit more than one narrator from each place.  so it will be munqati' in these places. Also considered to be munqati' is the chain in which there is a nondesrcipt/obscure narrator (mubahm). And example of atransmitter being ommitted is what habeen narrated by 'Abd al-Rassaq > al-Thawri > Abu Ishaq > Zayd b. Yathi' > Hudhayfa, which goes back to the Prophet (saw) that he said: ........................... The isna has breaks in two places. First, is that 'Abd al-Rassaq did not hear from al-Thawri but rather narrated it from al-Nu'man Ibn Abi Shayba al-Jundiwho narrated from al-Thawri. And second, al-Thawri did not hear from Abu Ishaq but rather narrated it from Shurayk who narrated from Abu Ishaq. The hadith, therefore, is rejected. An example of a transmitter being nondescript/obscure is what is narrated byAbu al-'Ala b. 'Abd Allah b. Shujayr > two men > Shaddad b. Aws : the hadith :' O Lord! I ask you to make me staedfast in the matter.'Therfore, the hadith is rejected due to the presence of unkown (majhul) narrators in the transmisiion.
4. Shadh : It is when a reliable transmitter narrates a hadith which condradicts what others have narrated. It is not shadh if a reliable narrator transmitts something no one lese has narrated. Becaue the narration of a reliable transmitter is accepted even if others have not narrated it, and it ias used as proof. That is like the hadith : Actions are judged according to intentions'. Only 'Umar narrated it andfrom him only 'Alqama narrated it. A single narrator Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Tamimi narrated from him, from who onlyYahya b. Said al-Ansari narrated. From Yahya b. Said there was a proliferation of transmission routes. Therfore, the shadh is only when a reliable narrator transmitts somthign whcih contradicts what has been narrated by others. ie when the accepted narrator transmits a report which goes aginst the report of those more likely to be correct in their transmission.
5. Mu'allal: It is a hadith which has a defect ('illah). It is the ahdith which is discovered to have a defect which impairs its authenticity whixh apparently seems to be sound. That is pursued in the isnad whose trabnsmitters are reliable and which apparently includes the conditions of authenticy.
6. Munkar : What a single unreliable transmitter narrates alone. The munkar is the narration of a weak narrator which contradicts the report of a transmitter who is less weak.
7. Mawdu': The hadith mawdu' is the spurios and fabricated hadith. The fabricated hadith is the evil of the weak hadiths. The narration of anyone whose condition is known is not allowed except when it is linked to clarifying its fabricated status. A hadith is known to be fabricated when the forger acknowledges its fabrication or something which is tantamount to/takes the position of a confession. The fabrication can be understood from the indication  of the transmitter's condition, such as the narrator following the whims of certian leaders in his lies. Or while he is attributing the hadith he is caught as a consummate liar, becasue that report is not to come from any direction otherthan him. Noone agreed with him and he has not witness. Ior we can discern mendacity from the condition of what has been narrated. ie from the state of the matn, if its is weak/inaduaquate in its wording or meaning or it constradicts some of the Qur'an, mutawatir sunnah and definite ijma'.There are diffent types of hadith fabricators. The ones causing most harm are those associated with zuhd (pious ascetism). They fabricated hoping to get reward for what they alleged. The danger is that people accepted theirfabrications, trusting and depending/relying on them. Then, maybe a forger fabricated a saying coming from hisself so they narrated it. Probably, he took a saying from the sages or others and falsly ascribed it to the Messenegr of Allah (saw). From the fabricated hadiths are the hadiths about the merits/excellence of the Qur'an sura by sura especially narrations (allegedly)on the authroity of 'Ubay b. Ka'b and the isnad : Abu 'Isma > 'Ikrama > Ibn 'Abbas. Its spuriousness has been established from the study (cross refrences) of scholars and by the confession of Abu 'Isma. It has been narrated that he said: I saw that the people had turned away from the Qur'an and occupied themsellves with the fiqh of Abu Haniofah and the maghazi of Muhammad b. Ishaq, so I forged these hadiths seeking reward in the Hereafter.'

These are a selection of the types of rejected hadiths but they are not all the possible types that could be mentioned. But, there are many types of rejected hadiths for which mentioning a part is suffient as a principle by which the acceptable and rejected hadith is known. A hadith is not rejected because it does not meet the conitions for the catagory of sahih as long as its sanad, transmitters and matn are acceptable. ie when it is hasan since the narrators are of lesser reliability than the narrators of the sahih hadith. or if there was a mustur (a transmitter whose record is apprently blameless) or he had a bad memory, or it has been strnegthend by a qarina (indication) or its acceptance is prep[odentarent such as when it is stranthened by another narrator agreeing with it or there is a witness. ............... One should not be overstrict in rejecting a hadith as long as it is possible to accept it accordign to the requirements of the sanad, tarnsmitters and matn. Espceally when the majority of the "ulama have accepted it and the  fuqaha have genrally used it, then it is worthy to be accepted even if id dod not meet the conditions of the sahih because it comes under hasan.  Just as one should not be overstrict in rejecting a hadith, at the same time it is not allowed to neglegent/lenient with respect to the hadith, accepting the hadith which is rejected due to the sanad, transmitter or matn.
5.2.9 The Mursal Hadith  p.347
The mursal hadith is the hadith from which the Sahabi has been omitted. Such as when the Tabi'in says that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said or did such and such thing, or such and such thing was done in his presence. A representative example would be the hadith of a tabi'i who has met anumber of companions and has sat down to learn from them like 'Ubayd Allah b. 'Iddi b. al-Khiyar/khayyar, then Sa'id b. al-Musayyab and their likes when they say (directly) that : 'the messenger of Allah (saw) said'. It is well known that all of the Tabi'in are treated equally. ie what the tabi'i narrated about the Prophet (saw) without mentioning the Sahaba. There is not difference between the senior/older or junior/younger tabi'i because it is well known that they are treated equally. The muhaddithin, scholars of usul (usuliyyin) and the imams have differed over the use of the mursal hadith as proof. There were those who did not use it and considered it to be rejected like the munati' hadith  and there were those who did accept its use. Those who do not accept it reject it for a reason. Which is that a transmitter who is not known has been omitted form the isnad, who might be trustworthy. The consideration in narration is reliability and certainty, an unknown transmitter is not proof. This is the reason for rejecting the mursal ahadith. The reason is correct and the rejection of a hadith according to it is correct but it does not apply to the mursal hadith. Because the transmitter who has been omitted is a Sahabi. Even though he is not known in terms of his identity, but he is known as a Sahabi. And the Sahaba are all trustworthy ('udul). They cannot be unreliable. Rather, they are definitely trustworthy. Thus, the reason by which they reject the hadith does not apply to the mursal. And nor is there any other reason to reject it. And since he fulfils the condition of the matn, sanad and narrator, no harm is done by omitting the Sahabi as long as it is known that he is a Sahabi, and so he is trustworthy. That indicates that the mursal hadith is a proof and should be educed as an evidence. It might be said that the reason is that there is a possibility that a tabi'i narrated from a tabi'i like himself who narrated for the Sahaba. The ommision of a Sahabi does not mean the ommision of only one narrator. But thebreak in the chain means that it is possible that two narrators have been omitted, one of them satisfies the condition of integrity, which is the Sahabi and the case of the other narrator is dubious, who is a tabi'i. There is a possibility in the hadith ofa jarh (invalidation) or lack/absence of accuracy (dabt), and therefore it is rejected. Such a thing might be said. The response is that the definition of the mursal hadith is that : it is a report narrated by a tabi'i from the Prophet (saw) without mentioning the Sahabi'. The narration of a Tabi'in form a Tabi'in who is not known does not come under this definition. Even if we accept this illustration/depiction, it is a the possibility of the Tabi'i's ommision without mentioning the Sahabi. The possibility of his ommision is by way of suspicion. Rather it is a suspicion which does not reach the level of possibility. Because he suspects the tabi'i of narrating from another tabi'i who he did not mention and nor did he mention the Sahabi. ie he supposes/assumes that a Tabi'i has been ommited. There is no evidence for this hypothetical assumption. It is merely a suspicion. A suspicion has no value and the hukm (value) of hadith is not based on it. It should not be said that an unknown narrator (majhul) has transmitted itsince the narration is not predicated on anything such that it can be said that the narrator is a majhul (unknown). Therefore, the mursal hadith is not cosidered to be from the rejected hdiths, rather it is accepted and used as proof.
5.2.10 The hadith Qudsi p.349
The hadith qudsi is what has been transmitted to us as isolated reports about him (saw), with its isnad  going back to his Lord. It is His (swt) speech for it is attributed to Him, which is present in the majority  of cases. The attribution to Him, then,is an attrubutiuon of composition/origination becasue he is the one who spoke it first. It is attributed to the Prophet (saw) becue he is the one informing about Allah (swt). Which is contrary to the Qur'an which is attributed to no one except to Him (swt). So it is said: Allah (swt) said'. And in the hadith qudsi it is said: The Messneger of Allah (saw) said about what he narrated from his Lord'. The narrator of the hadith qudsi has two characteristics, fits is that he may say :The Messneger of Allah (saw) said about what he narrated from his Lord. Secondly, he will say : Allah (swt) siad concernng that which the Messneger of Allah narrated from Him'. They have the same meaning.

The difference between the Qur'an and the hadith qudsi is that the wording and the menaing are from Allah which has come via the clear revelation. As for the hadith qudsi, the wording is from the Messneger (saw), and the meaning is from Allah through ilham (inspiration) or sleep. The Qur'an's wording is a miracle, revelaed via the medium of Jibreel. The hadith qudsi is not a miracle without any medium. The difference between the Qur'an, hadith qudsi and hadiths which are not ahdith qudsi: is that the Qur'an is the wording brough down by Jibreel to the Prophet  (saw).The hadith qudsi is the meaning of notification of Allah through ilham (inspiration) or sleep. So the Porphet (saw) informed people of it with his own words. As for the rest of the hadiths they rae like the hadith qudsi in that ht emeaning is from Allah and the wording is from the Messneger (saw) but it is not attributed to Allah (swt). The designatuon of the hadith attributed to Allah (swt) as the hadith qudsi is a terminilogical designation.

The inability to prove the authenticity of a hadith from its sanad does not indicate that it is a weak hadith p.351
The strength of the sanad is considered a condition in accepting a hadith. However it should be known that judging the sanad of a specific adith as weak does not necessarily mean the hadith is weak in itself. Since it might have another isnad though an imam might state that it has not been seen except from this lien of transmission. So, whoever finds a hadith with a weak isnad, it is more inclusive to say that it is weak with this isnad but the text is not judged as weak without qualification. Therefore the rejection of the isnad does not necessitate the rejection of the hadith. However, there are hadiths which are not proved from the perspective of the isnad but when it is received from people to people they are satisfied with its authenticity and are in no need to ask for the isnad. There are many example for this such as the hadith: 'There shall be no bequest (wasiyya) to an heir' and the hadith: the blood money (diyya) is for the agnatic blood relatives ('aqila)'. Such examples are many......
5.2.11 Consideration of the hadith as an evidence in the Shari'a Rules p.352
The evidence for the aqeeda must be definite and of unquestionable/incontrovertible authenticity. That is why the isolated report (khabar al-ahad) is not fit to be an evidence for aqeeda. Even if it is a sound hadith (hadith sahih) in its meaning and transmission. As for the Shari'a rule, it suffices for its evidence to be speculative (zanni). Therefore, just as the mutawatir hadith suffices as anevidence for the Shari'a rule, likewise the isolated report (khabar al-ahad) suffices as an evidence for the shari'a rule. however, the khabar al-ahad which is suitable to be a evidence for the shari'a rule is the hadith sahih and hadith hasan. As for the week hadith (hadith da'eef) it cannot serve as a shari'a evidence at all. Anyone who educes it, he will not be considered to have educed a shari'a evidence. However the consideration of a hadith as sahih (sound) or hasan (good) is according to the one whoeduces it, if he is qualified to understand the hadith, which may not be so for the rest of the muhadithin. That is because there are transmitters who are trustworthy (thiqa) for some muhadithin but not so for some other muhaddithin, but are well known to others. There are hadiths which are not sound from one line of transmission but are from another. And there are lines of transmission which correct for some but not for others. And there are hadiths which are not recognised by some muhaddithin and are impugned by them, but they are recognised by other muhaddithin who advance them as proof. And there are hadiths which some of the Ahl al-hadith discredited but fuqaha in general accepted them and used then a proof. People's adherence to the consideration of a hadith as sahih or hasan according to a particular opinion or all of the opinions constitutes an incorrect adherence and contradicts the reality of the hadith. For just is it is not allowed to hastily accept a hadith without due consideration of its authenticity, likewise it is not allowed to hastily discredit a hadith as reject it merely because one of the muahddithin has questioned the probity of a transmitter, due to the possibility that it might be acceptable for/with another transmitter. And one should not reject a hadith purely because one muhaddith has rejected it because of the possibility that it might be accepted by another muhaddith, or reject it because the muhaddithin (in general) have rejected it because of the possibility that it might havebeen used as proof by the imams and general body of fuqaha (jurists). One should not be rash in discrediting or rejecting a hadith except if its transmitter is known by all to be disparaged, or the hadith is rejected by everyone, or no one advanced it as aproof except some of the fuqaha who lacked knowledge of the hadith. It is then that the hadith is discredited and rejected. One should be careful and give it thought before one calls a hadith into question or reject it. Anyone who scrutinises the transmitters and and hadiths he will find many differences regarding them between the muhaddithin. And the examples are many. For example: Abu Dawud narrated on the authority of 'Amr b. Shu'ayb who narrated from his father, who narrated from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah (saw)  said: Muslims are equal in respect of blood. The lowest of them is entitled to give protection on behalf of them, and the one residing far away may give protection on behalf of them. They are like one hand over against all thosewho are outside the community. Those who have quick mounts should return to those who have slow mounts, and those who got out along with a detachment (should return) to those who are stationed.' The transmitter of this hadith is 'Amr b. Shu'ayb. And the 'Amr b. Shu'ayb > father > grandfather line of transmission is famous. Despite that many have used his hadith as proof and others have rejected it. Al-Tirmidhi said: Muhammad b. Isma'il said: I saw Ahmad and Ishaq (and he mentioned others) who used the hadith of 'Amr b. Shu'ayb as proof. He said: 'Amr b. Shu'ayb heard hadiths from 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar. Abu 'Isa said: whoever spoke about the hadith of 'Amr b. Shu'ayb branded him as weak because he used to quote hadiths from his grandfathers books. As if they held him not to have heard these hadiths directly from his grandfather. 'Ali b. Abi 'Abd Allah al-Madini said that Yahya b. Sa'id said: The hadith of 'Amr b. Shu'ayb for us is unfounded. Despite this, if someone establishes a shari'a rule with the hadith of'Amr b. Shu'ayb, his evidence will be considered a shari'a evidence because 'Amr b. Shu'ayb is one of those people whose hadith the muhaddithin cite as an evidence. For example, in al-Darqutni, al-Hasan narrated on authority of 'Ubada and Anas b. Malik that the Prophet (saw) said: ............. In the isnad of this hadith there is al-Rabi' b. Subayh/Sabih, Abu Zur'a has verified him as trustworthy but another group has weekend him. Al-Bazzar has recorded this hadith also and it is considered as a sound (sahih) hadith. When someone educes this hadith or a hadith whose isnad contains al-Rabi' b. Subayh/Sabih, then he has educed a shari'a evidence because this hadith is sound according to one group (of rijal scholars), and because al-Rabi' is trustworthy (thiqa) for another group (of rijal critics). It should not be said here that when a person is declared trustworthy and also disparaged/invalidated that the invalidation (jarh) takes precedence over the attestation of reliability. Since, that can only be whenthey are reported about one person according to the view of one person. As for when they are reported by two persons and one considers it as a impughnation (ta'n) and the other does not, then it is allowed. It is from here that some scholars have recognised certain transmitters (as reliable) and others have not.

For example: Abu Dawud, Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja and al-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayra that: A man asked the Messenger of Allah (saw): O Messenger of Allah, we travel on the sea and take a small quantity of water with us. If we use this for ablution, we would suffer from thirst. Can we perform ablution with sea water? The Messenger (saw) replied: Its water is pure and what dies in it is lawful food. Al-Tirmidhi  has reported that Bukhari verified the soundness of this hadith. And Ibn 'Abd al-Barr judged it as sound because the 'Ulama have accepted it. And it has been authenticated by Ibn al-Munzir. Ibn al-Asir said: Sharh al-Musnad : This hadith is sahih and mashur, the imams recorded it in their books. They used it as proof, its transmitters are trustworthy. Al-Shafi'i said that there is a transmitter in the isnad (chain) of this hadith 'whom I do not know'. Ibn Daqiq al-'Ayyid mentioned the aspects of justification by which he justifies this hadith. One of them is the lack of knowledge surrounding  Sa'id b. Salama and al-Mughira b. Abi Burda, both of whom are mentioned in the isnad, whereas some muhaddithin have said these two transmitters are indeed known. Abu Dawud said al-Mughira is known and his reliability is attested by al-Nasa'i. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam said the people of Africa...........

For example: Ahmad narrated that Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas said: I heard the Prophet (saw) was asked about the purchase of ripe dates. He asked the people who move/pick them : Do ripe dates go bad if they become dry? They said: yes. so he forbade that. This hadith has been authenticated/validated by al-Tirmidhi................

For example: Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Ibn Maja narrated that Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: When two persons go together for relieving themselves uncovering their private parts and talking together, Allah, the Great and Majestic, becomes wrathful at this (action).

For example: Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja and al-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Yusra bint. Safwan that the Prophet (saw) said: 'Whosoever touches his sexual organ/genitalia he should not pray until he makes wudu (ablution).' This hadith has been recorded by Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Hayyan, al-Hakim and Ibn al-Jarud. Abu dawud said: I said to Ahmad : the hadith of Yusra is not sound. He said: No, it is sound. Al-Bayhaqi said: Even though the shaykhayn (ie two shhaykhs, Bukhari and Muslim) did not record this hadith due to disagreements about whether the sama' (hearing of hadith) took place from 'Urwa or Marwan. But they have used all of its transmitters (elsewhere as reliable transmitters). If someone uses this hadith as proof, it is a shari'a evidence even if Bukhari and Muslim did not record it. If a hadith is not advanced as proof by Bukhari and Muslims that is (not to be taken) as a denigration of the hadith.

For example: The hadith : 'khamar has been forbidden for itself' and the hadith 'My companions are like the stars, whichever you follow you will be guided' The general body of fuqaha have used both hadiths and some have contested their authenticity. If one of them used them as proof then he is considered to have educed a shari'a evidence.

Thus many of the differences in hadith, transmitters and the lines of transmission between muhaddithin becomes clear. Many disagreements between muhaddthin, the general fuqaha and certain mujtahidin do take place. When a hadith is rejected due this this disagreement then many hadiths considered to be sahih or hasan have been rejected. And many shari'a evidences are lost/eliminated and this is not allowed. That is why a hadith should not be rejected except for the correct reason, which might be recognised by the majority of the muhaddithin or it might not satisfy the necessary conditions for the sahih and hasan hadith. It is permitted to educe any hadith when it is recognised by some of the muhaddithin and it fulfils the conditions of the hadith sahih and hasan. It isconsidered as shari'a evidence  in that the hukm is a shari'a rule.
5.3 Sira and History  p.358
The first and foremost thing that Islamic history concerned itself with was the Sira of the Prophet (saw) and the subsequent military campaigns (maghazi) that followed. For this, relince was put on ahadith  narrated by the Sahaba, Tabi'un and those who came after them concerning the life of the Prophet ; from his birth, his early life, and his Call to Islam  to the Jihad and military expeditions against the Mushrikin.. In a word, reports concerning the Prophet ( saw) from his birth till his death.

The history of the Prophet's life (saw) was a part of the reported hadiths. Such hadiths used to be miscellaneous in the days when a traditionalist would  compile all the reports that reached him and learn them without any order or arrangement. When hadiths came to be arranged according to chapters the military campaigns  were brought together in separate chapters. These then became separated from the hadith and specific books were written on them though traditionalists continued to include them within their chapters. So, in Bukhari there is the Book of Military Expeditions (kitab al-Maghazi) and in Muslim the Book of Jihad and Military Campaigns (kitab al-jihad wa al-siyar).

Though many have written about the Sira the first book that is extent from amongst the two early compilers is the kitab al-Maghazi  of Ibn Ishaq. Its author, Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Yasar (d.153 A.H.) is considered the most well known of the ones who were associated with the maghazi, to the extent that Shafi'i is reported to have said : ' Whosoever wishes to be an expert in the maghazi, he is totally dependent on Muhammad b. Ishaq'.  After Ibn Ishaq, the second early author is al-Waqidi. Muhammad b. 'Umar b. Waqid al-Waqidi (d.209 A.H.) was considered to have an extensive knowledge of the maghazi which approximated to that of Ibn Ishaq. He was very knowledgable in history and hadith though it is reported about him that in later  years he began to get his reports muddled.  That is why many traditionalists have branded him weak, Bukhari says of him : ' His hadiths are to be rejected(munkar al-hadith)'. However they did not impugn the depth of his knowledge concerning the maghazi. Thus, Ahmad b. Hanbal says about him : ' He is well-informed about the maghazi'. He has compiled a book on maghazi from which Ibn Sa'd quotes in his book al-Tabaqat ( The Generations) in his discussion of the Sira. Likewise, Tabari also quotes from it. Two of the most famous compilers of the Sira are Ibn Hisham (d.218 A.H.) and Muhammad b. Sa'd (d.230 A.H.).

To this day Muslims have continued to devote their attention to the Sira. The Sira is considered one of the most important things to which Muslims should attend to because it contains reports concerning the Messenger in terms of his actions, sayings, silence and description; like the Qur'an all of this is legislation. Therefore the Sira is one of the constituent elements of legislation and that is why it is considered part of the hadith (literature). Whatever is proven to be authentic from it concerning the Prophet (saw), in terms of its transmission and meaning, that is considered as a Shari'a evidence because it is from the Sunna, not to speak of the fact that we are commanded by Allah to emulate the Messenger. Allah T'ala said : 'Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (saw) you have a good example'. [ 33:21].

Therefore, devoting ones attention to the Sira and its pursuance is a Shari'a matter. However, the difference between the method employed in compiling the Sira by the ancients and those who came in later periods is that: the method of the ancients in compilation of the Sira and history used to depend on the narration of reports. The historians started with the oral transmission; the first generation which witnessed the actions of the Messenger or heard about it and transmitted it, began to transmit it to others, the burden of which was assumed by the generation that came after. And some of them wrote down hadiths in a miscellaneous manner which can be seen in the books of hadith even today. Not till the advent of the second century do we see some scholars beginning to compile and put together the biographical reports and put them down in writing according to the method of narration, by mentioning the name of the transmitter and the one who transmitted from him, exactly as it was done in the (transmission) of hadith. Thus, hadith scholars and critics are able to know the authentic and acceptable biographical reports from the weak and inadmissible ones due to their knowledge of the transmitters and the chain of transmission. And this is the procedure which is relied upon when quoting from the Sira, as long as it is authentic, contrary to the modern authors of the Sira who only enumerate events without mentioning their transmitters. That is why their books are not relied upon as a source of Sira except when the author verifies at the time of writing, that the transmitted reports are indeed from the Sira reports and are trustworthy. If he does not, then his statement is not quoted but the event which he mentions is traced back to the books of Sira which have been transmitted according  to the method of narration or to the books of hadith. This is because reports concerning the Prophet from the Sunna are not taken except when they are authentic.

There is a second approach historians have followed in addition to their approach to the Sira and that is the historiography of Islamic events in relation to wars between some Muslims and wars between the Muslims and other nations, and the subsequent conquests and events that followed. A group of historians became well known (for this approach), the foremost amongst them being Abu Mikhnaf Lut b. Yahya b. Sa'id b. Mikhnaf b. Salim al-Izdi (d.170A.H.). Some of the most famous books written by him are ; The Conquest of al-Sham, Conquest of Iraq, al-Jamal, Siffin and the murder of Hussayn. It is apparent that each book is a commentary of a particular issue. Nothing remains from the books that have been correctly attributed to him except that which Tabari has transmitted in his Tarikh. Many traditionalists have discredited him by saying that he used to narrate from a group of unknown transmitters (majhulin). Among the famous historians al-Mada'iniis one such person. He is 'Ali b. Muhammad al-Mada'ini (d.225 A.H.), a prolific author. He wrote books concerning reports about the Prophet (saw) and Quraysh. He also wrote books about reports concerning women and about the Khulafa. Tha'lab al-Nahawi described him thus : 'Whosoever wishes to know the reports concerning the Days of Ignorance he should consult the books of Abu 'Ubayda, and whosoever wishes to know about the reports concerning Islam let him consult the books of al-Mada'ini'. Also, the traditionalists have not questioned his probity. Yahya b. Ma'in, one of the most famous rijal critics says he is trustworthy (thiqa).

The writing of history began much the same way as the Sira, with oral reports ; the first generation which witnessed and participated in the events began to transmit (the reports to the next), the burden of which was assumed by the following generation until the events came to be written down. Historians proceeded in Islamic history exactly as they did with the Sira in terms of the narration of reports. Thus, you will find in the old books of history ,such as Tabari for example, that an event is reported on the authority of such and such person, sometimes from varying lines of transmission, because, their method of writing history was by narration only.

There is another approach which emerged amongst Muslims since the earliest times. And that is the historiography of other nations such as the Persians and Romans and the historiography of other religions from the Jews and Christians. However this form of history writing was less accurate in (comparison) to the Sira and the history of Islamic events. And this is because historians used to rely on transmitters from the people of other nations. This section of history came to be filled with legends due to the remoteness of the period of the transmitters (from the events) and due to the inaccuracy in transmission and  because every nation tended to inflate its reports.

In short, Muslims did not have a criterion (ba')_ for (judging) history, whether in Islamic history or the history of other peoples, even though they employed the correct method in writing history; that is the narration of a report from the one who witnessed it or narration of a book on the authority of the one who narrated the report from the one who witnessed it. However in writing the history of other nations they relied on weak reports and so it became filled with stories and legends. And in the history of Islam they did not carefully scrutinise the transmitters in the Sira and hadith but restricted themselves to reports about the Khulafa and Walis and did not give attention to reports about the society and conditions of people.

That is why Islamic history does not present a complete picture of the society or state. This can only be obtained from the Sira after it has been checked, and from the hadith works in which reports concerning the Companions and Successors have been narrated. In fact, Islamic history is in need of a re-examination of the events founds in the books of history by scrutinising the transmitters who narrated them and their lines of transmission and by scrutinising and judging the same events in the light of (known) facts and accounts. However, what took place after the time of the Companions is of no importance. As for what originated from the Companions; that is the subject of study, because the ijma' of the Companions is a Shari'a evidence. And because there are many newly adopted rules (ahkam) for the ever-emerging new (problems) of life, problems which were solved by the Companions and must be understood from a legislative perspective. Thus, the history of the Companions is one of the constituent elements of legislation. Indeed, many issues relating to Jihad, treatment of non-Muslims (Ahl al-Dhimma), Kharaj , 'Ushr, knowledge of whether a land is 'Ushri or Kharaji i.e. whether it was conquered by way of  a treaty or force, and issues relating to asylum,(al-Aman), armistice (hudna) and rules pertaining to booty, fey' and provision of the army...etc, all of them are incidents and rules which were applied in the state. They must be understood in order to take as Shari'a evidence that which the Companions agreed upon and to consider that which a Companion adopted alone, as a Shari'a rule of one of the mujtahidin. And as well to become acquainted with actions of the Companions, especially the Rightly Guided Caliphs, in terms of their handling and management of ruling, administration and policy. This is because they are the best of those to whom Allah has granted the mentality of ruling, and they understood best how to apply the rules in the state, on the citizens (of the state), be they Muslims or dhimmis. For that reason we are obliged to know the history of the Islamic State during the period of the Companions, (though) there is no harm  in gaining knowledge of its authentic history after that (period). Muslims have (at their disposal) sources for reports about the Companions other than the history books ; books such as the al-Amwal (The Treasury) of Abu 'Ubayd, the Muwatta of Malik and books of hadith which narrate sahih (correct) and hasan (good) reports.

As for the history of others save the Companions there is no harm in knowing them simply as reports and information, but not to emulate them or to take lessons from what was mentioned in them. Yes, the Qur'an does relate the history of some of the (previous) Prophets and peoples for the sake of exhortation with regards to belief, to obey Allah, and to clarify the fate of those who disobey Him, but not so that we can take their reports and actions as a method according to which we should proceed. It is a common mistake that many people make when they assume that history is of utmost importance for the revival of nations, and that knowledge of the past throws light on the present and opens the way to the future. This is fanciful and insane. It is an analogy of the perceptible reality by the imperceptible unknown and an analogy of the definite and indisputable (reality) which we observe, by the speculative (reality) which we are informed of, which may be right or wrong, true or false.

In fact, it is not possible to take history as a basis for revival nor indeed as a basis for study. Only the reality which we wish to treat is made the object of study because it is perceptible and tangible and so it is studied until it is understood. Then a solution is given for it, either from the Shari'a if it relates to the Shari'a rules or from the requirements of that reality pertaining to the solution if it is from the means and styles. It is of little benefit for a Muslim to busy himself with reports about Bismarck or even Harun al-Rashid but definitely he should preoccupy himself with the Islamic Shari'a as (a body of) thoughts and rules and also with the real and practical life from the viewpoint of elevating the situation of Islam and Muslims and taking every opportunity to propagate Islam and carry its call to the world. And since we must study reports about people let us study, as a reality, reports concerning the present societies in order to treat it, or study, as a reality, reports about other nations to determine our position with regards to them, as we are in a state of constant struggle in the path of propagating Islam and carrying its call to those nations.
5.4 The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh)
al-Shafi’i is reputed to be the one who delineated the principles of deduction (usul al-istinbat) and regulated it with general comprehensive principles. Thus, he was the originator of the science of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), even though many people came after him who were more knowledgeable about usul al-fiqh and its definitions. The Fuqaha (jurists) before al-Shafi’i used to perform ijtihad without having defined limits/parameters for ijtihad.  Rather, they used to depend on their understanding of the Shari’a meanings and purpose of the ahkam, their aims, whatever its texts point to and whatever its objectives (maqasid) indicated. Due to the experience of those Fuqaha (jurists) in their study of the Shari’a and their thorough familiarity with the Arabic language, this has caused them to be acquainted with their meanings, and to comprehend their aims (ghayat) and objectives (maqasid). They used to reconcile its concepts and objectives in deducing rules from the texts without having any recorded defined parameters. Yes, the Fuqaha before al-Shafi’i, from the time of Sahaba, Tabi’un and those after them, did used to deal with issues of usul al-fiqh and educe and oppose (evidences). Such as the narration about ‘Ali b’ Abi Talib (r.a.) that he spoke about the mutlaq (absolute), muqayyad (restricted), khas (specific), ‘amm (general), abrogator (nasikh) and the abrogated (mansukh). However, that was not in a defined or set out manner. And those Fuqaha who dealt with certain issues of usul al-fiqh did not possess general and comprehensive principles to which they referred, in order to understand the indication of the Shari’a or to know how to oppose or outweigh them. But when al-Shafi’i came, he derived the science of usul al-fiqh. And he laid down comprehensive laws to which reference was made in knowing the levels of the Shari’a evidences. It has become widely known to people that al-Shafi’i set out the science of usul in his book entitled al-Risala, a work which is famous. But the reality is that the al-Risala contains only a portion/part of the science of usul outlined by al-Shafi’i. Anyone who examines the books of al-Shafi’i will find that al-Risala contains only some of the topics in the science of usul al-fiqh, but it does not contain all of al-Shafi’i’s discussions on usul. Al-Shafi’i has other books which contain discussions (on usul), such as The Book of the Refutation of Istihsan and the book Jamma’ al-’ilm. Even the book al-Umm within its pages there are discussion on the science of usul. In these he has mentioned comprehensive principles amidst the detailed rules.

What helped al-Shafi’i to lay down the science of usul was that he came at a time when Islamic jurisprudence had started to greatly flourish. In the Islamic lands juristical groups of mujtahidin began to take shape and they began to form into mazhabs (schools). The debate between the Mujtahidin and the proponents of mazahibs took various perspectives in fiqh and the evidences. So he plunged into debates with those who engaged in the debate, these discussions were what guided him to think about general and comprehensive principles, as regulatory criterions which should be the basis of study and inference. He brought together these principles as one body of knowledge which was the science of usul al-fiqh. The wonderful/impressive thing about the usul of al-Shafi’i is that he proceeds, in the discussion of usul, in a  legislative and not in a logical manner. Because, one of the greatest dangers for study, but rather for the Ummah’s revival especially in fiqh and usul, is the course/path of logic. Al-Shafi’i  clearly distanced himself from the course of logic and adhered to the legislative course. He was not interested in theoretical methods or suppositions. He wanted to regulate real and existing issues ie he took the Shari’a texts and stopped at the limit of the text and at the limit of the reality which the text indicated and the people themselves witnessed. Regarding the issue of abrogation (nasikh wal mansukh), he established the principles of abrogation from the issues which, for him, had been proven to contain abrogations, taken from what has been mentioned in the ayah or hadith itself, or from the indication (dilala) of abrogation, or what has been narrated about the Messenger (saw) in terms of hadith which indicate abrogation, or whatever has been reported about the Companions of the Messenger of Allah in terms of reports and judgements. Not like many who came after him, when they saw a contradiction between two verses or hadiths, they immediately moved to say that one has abrogated the other. To the point they ended up making terrible errors/blunders. When al-Sahfi’i came with a principle he did not bring it from a logical premise (muqaddima mantiqiyya), rather he showed you the sources from which he took it. Either from a report about the Prophet (saw) or from legal verdicts (fatwas) of the Sahaba. His approach in deriving/extracting regulatory (qawa’d dabita) principles was a practical one, in which he relied on the reality, the evidences, and on the application of those things on tangible facts. The most prominent aspect by which Shafi’is usul is distinguished, is that it contains general principles for the deduction (istinbat) of rules,  regardless of what his specific methodology was. Rather, his usul is suitable for any methodology however different they may be. Thus, it is a measure by which one can know which opinions are correct and which are not correct. It is a comprehensive law which must be adhered to when deducing new rules, whatever methodology a person may set himself, in order to measure/judge opinions and regulate the inference of rules by a comprehensive law. The usul of al-Shafi’i was not intended to be an usul for his mazhab (school) only, even though the mazhab adhered to it. It was not written to defend his mazhab and clarify its viewpoint. Rather, it contains general and comprehensive principles for istinbat (inference). The motive was not a tend towards a particular mazhab but rather it was a wish/desire to regulate the procedures of ijtihad and put in place limits and guidelines for the mujtahidin. He was sincere in his intentions and he had the correct understanding when devising the science of usul al-fiqh, thereby influencing, without exception, those mujtahidin and Ulama that came after al-Shafi’i, whether they opposed or supported his opinions. Until, despite their different tendencies, they saw themselves proceeding according to the path al-Shafi’i had taken, in terms of setting out comprehensive principles (qawa’id kulliyya) and proceeding in fiqh and istinbat (inference) in a regulated manner according to comprehensive laws and general principles. Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) after him came to be based on established foundations not as an assortment of fatwas and individual judgements (aqdiya) as was the case before him. Even though all of the ‘Ulama proceed in the footsteps of al-Shafi’i in terms of the notion of usul al-fiqh, however the way in which they received what al-Shafi’ had arrived at was different according to their different juristic approaches. Some followed his opinions and began to explain and expand on them and disagree with them, like the followers of al-Shafi’i himself. And some took the major part of what al-Shafi’i had brought despite their disagreement with certain details of usul and but not the actual body of usul. Since they had no disagreements in terms of the body, framework/structure and course of al-Shafi’is usul, like the Hanafis and those who followed their method. And there were those who disagreed with al-Shafi’i in this usul, like the Zahiris and Shi’a. Those who followed al-Shafi’i in his opinions were: the Hanbalis. They adopted the usul of al-Shafi’i even though they said the only (recognised) ijma’ (consensus) is that of the Sahaba. The Malikis who came after al-Shafi’i combined their methodology with much of what was in al-Shafi’is usul though they took the practise of the people of Madina as proof and differed with him in certain details. As for those who proceeded according to his method and embraced his opinions. They are the followers of his mazhab, who were very active in the (study of) the science of usul al-fiqh and wrote prolifically about the subject. Books were written according to the methodology of al-Shafi’i in usul al-fiqh which were, and still are, the pillars and support of this science. Of the most important three books that are known to be written by the ancients: First, the book al-Mu’tamad of Abu al-Husayn Muhammad b. al-Basri (d.413 A.H.). Second, the book al-Burhan of ‘Abd al-Malik b.’Abd Allah al-Juwayni commonly known as imam al-Haramayn (d.478 A.H.). And third, the book al-Mustasfa of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.478 A.H.) (PLEASE CHECK, ACCORDING TO MY KNOWLEDGE GHAZALI DIED IN 450 AH) After them came Abu al-Husayn ‘Ali otherwise known as al-Amidi.  He brought together all three books and expanded on them in his book al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam, which was one of the most important works written on usul al-fiqh. As for those who adopted the major part of what al-Shafi’i brought and differed in some of the details, they are the Hanafis. That is because their method of istinbat (inference) agreed with the usul of al-Shafi’i, though the way in which they approached the science of usul was influenced by the furu’ (branches of fiqh). They studied the principles of usul in order to support the furu’. So they made the furu’ the basis. The general principles were based on it and made to support it. Perhaps what pushed them towards this approach was that their study of usul was for the purpose of supporting their mazhab and not in order to produce principles according to which their school should deduce rules. That is because Abu Hanifa, who had preceded al-Shafi’i, died the year in which al-Shafi’i was born. And his inferences were not according to general and comprehensive principles.  Likewise after him came his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar. They did not concern themselves with writing about usul al-fiqh but it fell to the scholars of the Hanafi mazhab afterwards to pursue the inference of principles which would serve the furu’ of the Hanafi mazhab. The principles came later than the furu’ and did not precede it. Nevertheless, the Hanafi usul, on the whole, has been extracted from the usul of al-Shafi’i. And what they differed on with the Shafi’is in terms of the ‘amm (general) being qat’i (definite) like the khas (specific), and the consideration is not for the understanding of the condition (shart) and description (wasf), and that there is no tarjeeh (outweighing) due to the great number of transmitters. They are detailed issues and not comprehensive principles. That is why it is possible to consider the Hanafi and Shafi’i usuls as one usul for fiqh. Its approach towards the furu’ and disagreements in certain details is not another usul but they are one usul in its comprehensivity, generality and principles. You hardly ever see any difference between a book in shafi’i usul and a  book in Hanafi usul. Rather, all of them are a study of the same principles (usul) of fiqh. One of the most important books of usul for the Hanafis is the usul al-Bazdawi compiled by Fakhr al-Islam ‘Ali b. Muhammad al-Bazdawi (d.483 A.H.)

As for those who disagreed with al-Shafi’i in his usul, they are the Zahiris and Shi’a. They disagreed with al-Shafi’is usul in some of its basic elements and not just in the details. As for the Zahiris, they completely rejected Qiyas (analogical deduction) and depended solely on the apparent (zahir) (meaning) of the texts. Even what is termed as the qiyas jali (clear analogy) was not consider as a part of Qiyas but as text. Their consideration of the text is nothing other than a consideration of the apparent (zahir) (meaning) of the text. The imam of this mazhab is Abu Sulayman Dawud b. Khalaf al-Isfahani (d.270 A.H.) He was from the Shafi’iyya. He learnt fiqh from the students of al-Shafi’i. Then he left the mazhab of al-Shafi’i and chose a special mazhab for himself where he would only rely on the text. It is called the Zahiri mazhab (literalists). Ibn Hazm is one of them. Certain people made him popular and gave a glowing description about him until people became interested in his books even though they were below the level of the books of fiqh and other usuls in terms of the jurisprudential discussion and angle of educing evidences. As for the Shi’a, they disagreed with al-Shafi’is usul in a substantive/significant way. For they made the sayings of their imams a Shari’a daleel like the Kitab and Sunnah. For them it is considered a proof which follows the proof of the Kitab and that of the Sunnah at the very least. They permitted the speech of the imams to specify the Sunnah. They say:’The wisdom (hikma) of legislation demands the exposition of a body of ahkam and requires the concealment of a body of ahkam. But he (Allah’s peace be upon him) entrusted (the body of ahkam that is concealed) to his guardians (awsiya). Each guardian (wasi) delegates the other to spread it when it is appropriate for him, according to Hikma (wisdom), in terms of an ‘amm (general) which is specified (mukhassas), a mutlaq (absolute) which is restricted (muqayyad) or a mujmal (ambivalent) which is clarified (mubayyan). So the Prophet (saw) may mention something which is ‘amm (general) and mentions the specific after a while in his life. Or, he may not mention it originally, rather leaving his guardian (wasi) to do it on his behalf.’ The Imami Shi’as place their imams in a position close to the Sunnah. Ijtihad for them is restricted to the mazhab. It is not permitted for the mujtahid to contradict the views of the mazhab ie it is not permitted for the mujtahid to make ijtihad with what contradicts the sayings of the imam al-Sadiq. The rejected hadiths except if it came via their imams. They do not take Qiyas. It has been recurrently reported (tawatara) about their imams, as they have narrated in their books, that when analogy is made to the Shari’a the deen is destroyed.

This is the situation of the course of Muslim Ulama in the science of usul al-fiqh after al-Shafi’i in terms of their agreement or opposition to him. As for the science itself, after al-Shafi’i, it was discussed at great length and it had many commentators and writers. It is strange that in the ages that followed the age al-Shafi’i, ijtihad diminished and there was a scarcity of mujtahidin. And in the ages that followed that age, the door of ijtihad was closed. However, the science of usul al-fiqh thrived and flourished, the study/scrutiny of its principles increased and its issues became more elaborate. But all of this was from a theoretical and not practical perspective. As a result, it was ineffective in creating mujtahidin and breaking the notion of the closing of the door of ijtihad and bringing it to an end. Perhaps the reason for that is that usul al-fiqh, during those later periods, took a purely theoretical approach, where the theoretical discussion prevailed, and studies were inserted into it that had no relationship to usul al-fiqh. The attention of researchers was directed to examining and revising the principles, supporting them with evidences, and selecting the one with the strongest evidence regardless of whether there was a reality for it or not. Their theoretical assumptions multiplied and they studied the (concept of) dalala (textual implications) and classified it according to the classifications of the scholars of mantiq (logic). They raised discussions which had nothing to do with usul al-fiqh like husn (pretty) and qubh (ugly), or are they rational or legal? Or discussion such as; is thanking (shukr) the benefactor (mun’im) an obligation due to the Shari’a or the mind. They initiated studies that were from the science of Kalam (theology/dogmatics) and not from usul al-fiqh. Such as the infallibility of the Prophets, permissibility of the Prophets to make mistakes or forget in issues relating to (conveying) the Message. They made studies relating to the Arabic language and not to usul al-fiqh. They studied the origin of languages and studied particles (huruf) and nouns (asma). In that manner they made the science of usul al-fiqh rigid and transformed it from its legislative aspect, which produced mujtahidin and enriched fiqh, into a theoretical and philosophical study in which the scholar is unable to deduce the simplest of rules. Until, its usefulness was almost lost and  it had no effect in legislation or deduction of rules (istinbat). And since the science of usul al-fiqh is indispensable, in relation to the deduction of rules and the growth of the legislative aspect. That is why it is essential to attend to the study of usul al-fiqh as a study which is based on reality and not theoretical. It is sufficint just to undertake studies that relate to the deduction of rules, which are studied accompanied by evidences indicating the rules, and realities which apply to their meanings until mujtahidin are produced and a legislative wealth is generated to treat new issues which come up each day, in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world.
5.4.1 Fiqh (jurisprudence)
Fiqh linguistically means understanding as in His (swt) saying:’We do not comprehend (la nafqahu) much of what you say.’[11:91] ie we do not understand. According to the definition of the legists fiqh is designated as the knowledge of a body of subsidiary (furu’iyya) Shari’a rules acquired through study and eduction (istidlal). Knowledge of the Shari’a rules (ahkam shar’iyya) began the day these Shari’a rules came to exist. And that was after the migration (hijra) from Makkah to Madina. That is because the Messenger of Allah (saw) was sent and he stayed in Makkah for thirteen years, then he resided in Madina for about ten years and the Qur’an used to be revealed throughout this period, though the verses of ahkam used to be revealed in Madina. In this period the Qur’an used to be revealed and the Messenger (saw) used to talk about the ahkam relating to whatever they included in terms of events and relating to the solution for whatever problems that arose.

The portion that was revealed in Makkah approximates to about two thirds of the Qur’an and they are designated as the Makkan verses (makkiyy). In their totality they barely deal with a single hukm, rather they are confined to explaining the fundamentals/foundations of the deen and calling people to them, such as the belief in Allah and His Messenger, the Day of Judgement, the command to perform Salah, characterisation by moral attributes such as honesty, trust, and forbidding evil actions such as fornication, murder, burying girls alive, deficiency in the measure and scales etc. The second portion that was revealed in Madina is close to a third of the Qur’an and they are designated as the Madinan verses (madaniyy). They are verses of mu’amalat (transactions) such as selling, renting and usury. And from the hudud, such as the hadd of zina (fornication) and stealing. From the jinayat (capital punishments) such as killing the one who killed someone intentionally or punishment of highway robbers. And from the bayyinat (testimonial evidences) such as the testimony of zina and the rest of the testimonies. As well the remaining rules concerning the worships (‘ibadat) such as fasting, zakah, hajj and jihad were revealed. From this it becomes clear that even though rules of prayer were revealed in Makkah they do not form a body of rules but knowledge of a type of rule. As for what was revealed in Madina, they consisted of all the ahkam. That is why knowledge of such rules is considered fiqh. Therefore, is is more accurate for us to say that fiqh began in Madina. And since fiqh constitutes practical rules, they have been revealed to treat incidents that have taken place. The verses of ahkam, more often than not, were in connection to events that had taken place. So the disputants would refer judgement to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he would judge between them according to the rules Allah has revealed to him, or on the occasion of problems requiring solutions, so an ayah or ayaats stating the hukm would be revealed. This is what it means for the Qur’an to be revealed gradually (munajjaman). Therefore, the legislative aspect used to be quite evident in the revelation of the Qur’an. The ayaats did not treat assumptions that may happen. Rather, they treated issues that actually took place and problems that really do take place between people. The Qur’an continued to be revealed until the year in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) joined the Sublime Companion (al-rafiq al-a’la). So, Allah perfected and completed the deen and He revealed to him the last ayah which is His (swt) saying in sura al-Baqara:’ O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from riba (usury).’[2:278] With that, the ahkam were completed in their capacity as ahkam. The Qur’an and the actions, sayings and consent of the Messenger (saw) contain the rulings for all the types of actions that ensue from human beings; from the worships (‘ibadat) like prayer (salah) and zakat, from the morals such as honesty and trust, from the societal transactions (mu’amalat) such as murder and theft, from the testimonial evidences (bayyinat) such as the rules of testimonies and the rules of written documents, and from the political affairs relating to the internal/domestic policy such as the rules of the khalifah and the rules of the judiciary, or relating to the foreign policy such as the rules of combatants and treaties. Through this Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) existed due to the presence of the Shari’a rules, because the fiqh is the knowledge of a body of Shari’a rules.
5.4.2 The Development of Fiqh
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 Kitab and Sunnah whatever is relied upon and laid down in order to understand the Kitab and Sunnah. Even though the Islamic culture includes the sciences of the Arabic language, hadith and tafseer, 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 Shari’a rules because they are a practical culture adopted to face lifes problems which, in most cases, contains thoughts about beliefs and solutions ie the rules. Fiqh is nothing other than the knowledge of these rules.

The Islamic culture and the learning of Shari’a rules began from the time the Messenger (saw) was sent. The Messenger (saw) was the only reference point for the shari’a rules, because he was sent to teach people Allah’s deen. He (swt) said:’O Messenger (saw)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.’[5:67]He (swt) said:’And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad[saw]) the reminder and the advice (the Qur’an), that you may explain clearly to them.’[16:44] With the exception of the Messenger (saw), no Muslim has the right to independently put forward an opinion regarding any viewpoint or ruling. Due to the Messenger’s (saw) presence among them, referring to him regarding anything they came across was easy. It was not permitted for any of them to give his own 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 (saw). And he (saw) would give an opinion, settle their disputes and answer their questions, sometimes with an ayah and sometimes with a hadith. As for what has been reported that certain Sahaba exercised ijtihad in the time of the Messenger (saw) and pronounced judgements according to their own ijtihad in certain disputes or that they deduced, through their own ijtihad, the rule regarding certain events. This does not make these ijtihads a source for shari’a rules. Rather they constitute an understanding of the Shari’a, in accordance with the order of the Messenger (saw). They constitute the application of the Shari’a, relying on the Kitab and Sunnah as understood by those mujtahidin. This is demonstrated by the circumstance in which these ijtihads took place. It has been reported that the Prophet (saw) sent ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (r.a.) to Yemen as a judge. He (saw) told him: ‘May Allah guide your heart and affirm your tongue. When two disputants sit before you, do not pronounce judgment until you have listened to the latter just as you did with the former. It is more proper ( for you to does this) so that the judgment becomes manifest to you.’ It has been reported that the Prophet (saw) sent Mu’az b. Jabal to Yemen and he (saw) said to him:’With what will you judge when you come upon a judgement which you do not find in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger. What judgment will you give? Mu’az said: ‘I will exercise my own ijtihad. The Messenger (saw) said:’‘Praise be to Allah who has made the messenger of the Messenger of Allah to accord with what Allah and His Messenger are pleased with’. It is reported that some people were disputing over a hut between themselves. So Hudhayfa was sent to judge between them. And he (saw) said to ‘Amr b. al-’As:’You give judgement for this issue’. So ‘Amr said: Shall I exercise ijtihad while you are present? He said: Yes. If you are right you will get two rewards and if you make a mistake you will get one.’

All of these reports and other such examples indicate that the ijtihadats taking place in the days of the Messenger (saw), from the Muslims in his time, were in accordance with his order. Therefore, he was their source. Thus, the time of the Messenger (saw) was a time in which the source of the entire Islamic culture existed. That continued ever since he was sent until his death, within a period of time not exceeding twenty two years and a few months, in which the whole Qur’an was revealed and the sublime Sunnah was made complete. They are the only texts considered as the source of thoughts, rules and culture in Islam.

With the death of the Messenger (saw), in the eleventh year of the Hijra, began the age of the Sahaba. It is an age of tafseer and the opening of the doors of deduction (istinbat) for issues that did not possess a (clear) text. The Sahaba saw that not all of the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah were disseminated widely amongst the people such that they are accessible to each and every person. Because the texts of the Qur’an were written down on special parchments preserved in the house of the Messenger (saw) and preserved in the houses of certain Sahaba. And the Sunnah had not been written down yet. They saw that the texts of the Kitab 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 had only 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 (saw). 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 Kitab and Sunnah for himself and understand the ruling indicated by them. Since  the masses cannot understand the texts excepts 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’an and the hadiths of the Messenger (saw) among the Muslims. So, they undertook the responsibility of compiling the Qur’an 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 Kitab 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 Sahaba proceeded in the Shari’a rules is that when they found a text (nass) in the Qur’an or Sunnah which indicates 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’an and the Sunnah indicating the ruling on incidents that they are confronted with, they made ijtihad to deduce its ruling. In their ijtihad they used to rely on their own understanding of the texts of the Shari’a, and their knowledge of the Shari’a that they gleaned/obtained from directly speaking to the Messenger (saw) and witnessing the revelation of the verses and their application on incidents. By studying the incidents for which they made ijtihad, one notices that they used to make analogy between (an incident) which had a text with one that did not have a text, and they use to consider the acquisition of a benefit (maslaha) and repulsion of a harm (mafsada) as an ‘illah (legal cause) for rulings. And they used to consider the benefit (maslaha) indicated by the Shari’a 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 on opinion about a maslaha (benefit) because holding an opinion (which is from oneself) is forbidden. The historians, muhaddithun and fuqaha (jurists) transmitted many ijtihadats of the Sahaba. By studying these ijtihadats the extent of their adherence to the Shari’a and the extent of their advancement in understanding the Shari’a becomes clear. A story was brought to the attention of Umar, about a man who was killed by his stepmother and her lover/friend. ‘Umar hesitated: are many people to be killed for the murder of one person? ‘Ali said to him: What do you think if a group participated/collaborated in the theft of a slaughter camel. So this one took a part and that one  took another part. Would you cut their hands? He said: Yes. Ali said: well it is the same thing. So Umar acted upon Ali’s opinion and wrote to his ‘Amil :’ kill them both for if the people/whole population of San’aa participated I would have had them killed. And 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 (swt) said:‘As-sadaqat (zakat) are only for the Fuqara (poor), and al-masakin (needy) and those employed to collect (the funds); and for to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam).’[9:60] So Allah made those whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam a source of expenditure from the sources of zakat. It has been established that the Prophet (saw) used to give money to people whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam. After the death of the Messenger (saw) it is narrated about ‘Umar that he forbade the payment of those whose hearts had been reconciled (al-mu’allaftu qulubuhum). He told them :Allah has made Islam strong and so Islam has no need of you, either you stick to Islam or else between you and us is the sword. ‘Umar was of the view that the inclining of hearts towards Islam was there because the state was weak because the expression ‘reconciling hearts’ (ta’leeful al-qulub) indicates this. For when are hearts reconciled except when you are in a state of need? Umar took the opinion that the need to reconcile hearts ended when Islam became strong. And without the need to reconcile hearts the ‘illah (legal cause) goes. Due to this the hukm also goes.

The Sahaba used to investigate and ask the people about the Shari’a 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 Kitab and Sunnah. If they did not find a hukm  in the Kitab and Sunnah for the issue they are looking for, they would ask Muslims if any of them knows that the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed a judgement for this issue. That is why they used to refer to each other and get together to discuss its issue 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: When a dispute was reported to Abu Bakr he used to look into the Book of Allah. If he found something to judge between them, he gave that judgement. And if it is not found in the Book. And he knew a sunnah from the Messenger of Allah regarding that matter, he would give judgement by it. Failing that he would go out and ask the Muslims ; such and such matter has come to me, do you know of any judgement given by the Messenger of Allah (saw) pertaining to this ?’ Probably the whole group would agree mentioning a judgment by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Abu Bakr would say:‘Praise be to Allah Who has made people amongst us memorise (issues) concerning our Prophet (saw).’  If he failed to find a sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) 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 Sahaba despite his knowledge of fiqh. To the point 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 Sahaba’s reference to each other, differences of opinion between them were rare because each Sahabi expressed to another Sahabi his own perspective and the evidences he educed. Their view on the whole was true and correct and each one referred to each other. And even though their views differed in certain rules, but their differences were rare and it was in understanding and not in the method of understanding.

When the conquests expanded and the Sahaba became separated in various cities and it became difficult for those Sahaba to meet, every time an incident presented itself which had not text. Each Sahaba gave his own opinion without expressing it to others or referring to others due to the difficulty of meeting, since the cities were distant from each other. And also due to the need to give an opinion on an incident occurring in the city in order to give judgement by it. In every Muslim city there was one or more Sahaba. 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 Kitab and Sunnah. The Sunnah had still not been written down, therefore the opinions of Sahaba 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 Shari’a rules and were acceptable to all of them, since their disagreement was only in their understanding. As for their method of ijtihad, it was one. Which is to consider the text of the Qur’an and hadith and examine the texts, and insure that the accredited maslahas (benefit) are the ones only indicated by the Shari’a, and make analogy to issues and maslahas. The unity of the methodology in ijtihad 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/subsidiary fiqh). The disagreement of the Sahaba in furu’ is attributable to two reasons:

First: That most of the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah are not definite in indicating what is meant rather they are of speculative meaning (zanniyya al-dalala). 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 written form. There was no unanimity on the body of hadith which had spread among Muslims so as to be a common reference.  Rather, the hadith was circulated via transmission and memory. Perhaps a mujtahid in Egypt would know a hadith but a mujtahid in Damascus did not know it. Many a time 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 ijtihad did not differ.

In short, the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) were scholars of the Shari’a. They learnt the Qur’an and acquired the hadith. And took it upon themselves to implement the rules of Islam by mixing with the one responsible for the Message, our master Muhammad (peace and blessings on him). 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 Shari’a, and in calling people to Islam they were true believers. Reciting the Qur’an to people and teaching them the laws and rules. In teaching people Islam they use to follow a practical course. So they taught the people the 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 Sahaba and receiving the culture from them, taking Islam and understanding the rules. The opinions in ahkam that they clarified were termed as ‘legal verdicts’ (fatawa) The fatwa of about one hundred and thirty companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) (among which there are men and women) have been preserved. There were seven out of these who 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 b. Thabit, Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar. The Khalifahs, Walis and the rest of the rulers were fuqaha in ahkam, scholars of the Shari’a and busy with fatwa. That is why Islam was embodied in them. Their minds were filled with its culture and their thoughts originated from this culture........ 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 course/path of Islam with extreme precision. A group from the Tabi’un stuck to the Sahaba and learnt Qur’an from them, reported the Sunnah from them, memorised their legal verdicts and underwood their methods of deduction of ahkam. There were those who used to give legal verdicts in the lifetime of the Sahaba like Said b. al-Musayyab in Madinah and Said b. Jubayr in Kufa. Thus, we find after all the Sahaba had gone, the Tabi’un succeeded them in fiqh and istinbat (inference of rules). They used to deduce rules according to their own ijtihad. They used to first look to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw), if they did not find anything there they would study the fatwa (legal verdicts) of the Sahaba. They used to have opinions concerning the Fatwas of Sahaba from a jurisprudential perspective and they used to outweigh one statement over another. They used to take the opinions of some of them or they might even differ with the Sahaba. The Tabiuns method of inferring rules was the same method of the Sahaba. 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 Sahaba disagreed overstep the mark, which used to relate to the understanding of the text and not to the Shari’a evidences. Therefore, there were no disagreements amongst Muslims which effected  life.
5.4.3 The effect of disputes and debates on Islamic jurisprudence
Two events took place during the time of the Sahaba: The first is the civil war (fitna) regarding ‘Uthman. And the second is the debates which took place between the ‘Ulama. This resulted in disagreements over the types of Shari’a evidences, which led to the presence of new political groups, which in turn led to the presence of various juristical/legal school of thought. That is because after ‘Uthman (r.a.) was murdered and the bay’a (pledge) of the Khilafah was given to ‘Ali b. Abi Talib with whom Mu’awiyya b. Abu Sufyan disputed, and war broke out between the two factions and ended with the judgement of the two arbitrators. This resulted in the formation/creation of new political groups which had not existed before. These groups came to have new opinions. The opinion began politically concerning the Khalifah and the Khilafah. Then it included most of the remaining ahkam. A group of Muslims arose who loathed Uthman for his policies during his Khilafah and they  resented Ali’s acceptance of arbitration (tahkeem). And they were angry over Mu’awiyyah for seizing the Khilafah by force. So they rebelled against all of them. Their view was that Muslims should give pledge to the Khalifah of the Muslims purely according to their choice without coercion or force. And that whoever qualifies for the Khilafah he is eligible to be khalifah. Muslims should give bay’a to him and the Khilafah will be contracted to him by the pledge as long as he is a man, Muslim and just even if he was a Ethiopian slave. And that obedience to the Khalifah is not obliged except if his matter was within the limits of the Kitab and Sunnah. These people did not take rulings reported in hadith narrated by ‘Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiyya or if a hadith was narrated by a Sahaba who supported any one of them. They rejected all of their hadiths, opinions and legal verdicts. And they outweighed what was narrated by those they approved of. They only considered their opinions and their own scholars to the exclusion of others. They had their own fiqh, and they are the Khawarij. Another group from the Muslim arose which adored ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (r.a.) and loved his decedents/offspring. They took the view that he and his descendants had greater right to the Khilafah over anyone else. And they believed he was the wasi (trustee) to whom the Messenger bequeathed the Khilafah after him. They rejected many hadiths narrated about the Messenger (saw) by the majority of the Sahaba. They did not depend on the views of he Sahaba and their legal verdicts. They only relied on the hadiths narrated by their imams and the family of the Prophet (saw). And relied on the legal verdicts originating from them. They had their own fiqh, and they are the Shi’a. As for the majority of the Muslims they did not adopt the opinions adopted by the aforementioned groups.  They took the view that the pledge should be given to a Khalifah from Quraysh, if such a person was found, and they conveyed, without a single exception, great respect, affection and loyalty to all the Sahaba. And they interpreted the disputes between them as being ijtihad in speculative shari’a rules which were  not linked to belief (iman) or disbelief (kufr). They used to use as proof every authentic hadith narrated by a Sahabi without any discrimination between the Sahaba. Since, for them, all the of the Sahaba were trustworthy. And they took all the fatwas and opinions of the Sahaba. Due to this their ahkam did not accord with the ahkam of the other political groups in a number of topics due to their disagreement regarding ruling, method of istinbat (inference of rules) and in the types of evidences.

From this it becomes clear that the civil war (fitna) when it happened, it created a jurisprudential and political condition which led to disagreements which had an impact on history. However the disagreement was not over the shari’a but concerned the understanding of the Shari’a. That is why all of the people who disagreed were Muslim even though their disagreement exceeded the furu’ and rules to the foundations, evidences and the method of inference.

As for the debates which took place between the ‘Ulama. It led to juristic disagreements but did not lead to political disagreements. Because the disagreement was not over the khalifah, the Khilafah or the ruling system. It was over the rules and their deduction. The basis of that was that debates and disagreements took place between the certain mujtahidin which led to a disagreement over the method of inference (istinbat). In Madina Islamic discussions concerning the deduction of rules took place between Rabi’a b. Abi ‘Abd al-Rahman and Muhammad b. Shihab al-Zuhri. Which led many fuqaha (jurists) of Madina to withdraw from Rabi’a’s sessions until they came to give him the title of ‘Rabi’at ar-ra’i’. A similar thing also happened in Kufa between Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and al-Sha’bi. From these debates a number of opinions came to be formed about the method of deducing rules until the Mujtahidin came to have difference methodologies in ijtihad. In the middle of the 2nd century A.H.  These different methods of ijtihad became apparent and so did the disagreements concerning them, and various views were formed. The Tabi’un used to be close to a group of ‘Ulama and mujtahidin, so they came to follow their method. Though, for those who came after them the scope of the disagreement became wider. The reasons for their disagreement did not stop at the understanding but extended to reasons linked to Shari’a evidences and linguistic meanings. It was in this manner that their disagreements took place in the furu’ (branches of fiqh) and usul (principles of jurisprudence). They came to form factions, each faction had its own school (mazhab). Owing to this the mazhabs were formed. The schools were many, more than four, five six and more. The disagreement of the mujtahidin over the method of ijtihad is attributable to their disagreement around three issues: first the sources from which the shari’a rules are deduced. Second, the perception of the Shari’a text. And third, disagreement over certain linguistic meanings which are applied in understanding the text.

As for the first it is attributable to four issues:

1. the method of authenticating the Sunnah and the criterion by which one narration is preferred over another. That is because the authentication of the Sunnah assumes the task of authenticating its narration and the manner  of  narration. The muhtahidun differed on the method of authentication. Some of them advanced the mutawatir (concurrent) and mashur sunnah as proof and outweighed whatever was narrated by the trustworthy amongst the fuqaha. This meant that they gave the mashur hadith the same hukm (value) of the mutawatir and they used it to specify the ‘amm (general) in the Qur’an. There were those who gave preponderance to what the people of Madina were unanimously agreed upon  and disregarded the isolated hadiths (khabar al-ahad) which went against it. And there were those who advanced as evidence what upright (‘udul) and trustworthy (thiqat) transmitters narrated whether they were from the fuqaha or not, whether they were from the family of the Prophet (saw) or not, and whether it agreed with the people of Madina or went against it. Amongst them there were those who took the view that hadith transmitters are not to be considered except if they are from their imams. They had a specific method in transmitting the hadith, in its consideration and use. And they had specific transmitters on which they relied but did not rely on others. Some mujtahidin differed with regards to the mursal hadith. Which is what a Tabi’i narrates directly from the Prophet (saw) while omitting the sahaba. Amongst the mujtahidin there were those who would use the mursal hadith as proof and there were those who did not.

So this disagreement regarding the method of authenticating the sunnah led to some of them using a sunnah as proof which the other did not use. And some of them gave preference to a sunnah which was of lesser preference to others. And this took the disagreement to the manner in which the Sunnah is taken as a Shari’a evidence. So the disagreement in the Shari’a evidences took place.

3. Disagreement regarding the legal verdicts of Sahaba and their value/evaluation. The mujtahididn and the imams differed with regards to the jurisprudential legal verdicts which came from individual Sahabas. There were those who took any one of these fatwas and did not restrict themselves to any particular one but did not turn away from all of them either. And there were those who took the view that they constituted only individual jurisprudential legal verdicts ensuing from people who are not infallible, so the scholar has the right to take any one of the fatwas or give legal verdicts which go against all of them. They viewed them as Shari’a rules which have been deduced and not as Shari’a evidences. And there were those who took the view that certain Sahaba were infallible (ma’sum) and his view is to be takes as a Shari’a evidence. So his sayings constitute the sayings of the Prophet (saw) and his actions constitute the actions of the Prophet (saw), and his consent constitutes the consent of the Prophet (saw). As for other Sahaba they are not infallible (ma’sum) so their views are not to be taken at all, not in the capacity of a Shari’a evidence and not in the capacity of a Shari’a rule. Also, there were those who took the view that one should not take from certain Sahaba because of their participation in the civil war (fitna) and those who did not participate, one can take from them. Consequently, another facet of this difference of opinion arose about evidences.

3. Disagreement in qiyas (analogical deduction). Some mujthahdidn rejected the use of qiyas as an evidence and they disclaimed its status as a Shari’a evidence. Among them there were those who advanced qiyas as a proof and considered it a Shari’a evidence after the Qur’an, Sunnah and ijma’ (consensus). However, despite their agreement that it constitutes a proof, they disagreed as to what qualifies as an ‘illah (legal cause) for the hukm, and on what qiyas is based. As a result the difference of opinion surrounding evidences arose.

4. Disagreement over ijma’ (consensus). The Muslims agreed on the consideration that ijma’ is a proof. Some of them viewed the ijma’ of the Sahaba as a proof and some of them saw the ijma’ of the Prophet’s family as proof. Some saw the ijma’ of the ahl halli wal ‘aqd (the influential and leading figures) as proof and some saw the ijma’ of the Muslims as proof. There were those who viewed ijma’ as a proof because it constituted an agreement on an opinion, therefore, if they agreed on a matter and advanced a view then it is considered an ijma’ which is used as an evidence. And there were those who viewed the recognised ijma’ as a proof not because it constitutes an agreement on an opinion but because it reveals an evidence. So the Sahaba, family of the Prophet (saw) and the people of Madina had companionship with the Messenger (saw) and saw him. And they are trustworthy (‘udul). When they hold a Shari’a opinion but do not cite its evidence, their opinion is considered as disclosing the opinion as having been stated by the Messenger (saw), or he acted upon it or was silent over/about it. Thus, they reported a hukm but did not report its evidence due to it being widely known amongst them. Therefore, the meaning of ijma’ constituting a proof for them is that it reveals an evidence.That is why their agreement and reminding each other, and then giving their opinion, is not considered an ijma’ Rather the ijma; is that they should give an opinion without reaching an agreement on it. Therefore another difference of opinion came regarding the evidences.

These four issues have widened the rift of disagreement between the mujtahidin. They are not considered as disagreements over the understanding of the text as was the case in the time of the Sahaba and Tabi’in, but it passed that and became a disagreement over the method of comprehension. In other words, it is not considered as a disagreement over the rules but it surpassed that and became a disagreement over the method of deducing rules. That is why we find some mujtahidin taking the view that the Shari’a evidences are the Kitab, Sunnah, saying of Imam ‘Ali (r.a.), ijma’ of the family of the Prophet (saw) and the mind. Some of them took the view that the Shari’a evidences are the Kitab, Sunnah, ijma’, qiyas, istihsan (juristic preference), the opinion/fatwa of the Sahabi (mazhab al-sahabi), and the Shari’a of the people of before (shari’ min qablina). Some of them were of the opinion that the evidences were the Kitab, Sunnah and ijma’. And there were those who held that the evidences were the Kitab, Sunnah, ijma’, qiyas, al-masalih al-mursala (considerations of public interest) etc... That is why they disagreed about the Shari’a evidences. This led to the differences in the methodology of ijtihad.

As for the second issue to which differences in the method of ijtihad is attributed, it is how the Shari’a text is viewed. Some of the mujtahidin restricted themselves to the understanding of the expression mentioned in the Shari’a text. And they stopped at the limits of the meanings they indicated and  confined themselves to these meanings. They have been called the Ahl al-hadith.  ....... It is from here that many have said that the mujtahidin are divided into two groups: Ahl al-hadith and Ahl al-ra’i. This division does not mean that the Ahl al-ra’i in their legislation they do not refer to the hadith and that the Ahl al-hadith in their legislation they do not refer to ra’i (opinion). Rather, all of them take hadith and ra’i (opinion) because all of them agree that hadith is a Shari’a proof, and that  ijtihad using ra’i in understanding the intelligible aspect of the text is a Shari’a proof. What becomes apparent to anyone who scrutinises this, is that the issue is not the proponents of hadith or ra’i themselves. Rather, the issue is the evidence on which the Shari’a evidence depends. That is because the Muslims relied on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), if they did not find that clearly stated they operated their own opinion in deducing that from them. So the rule which is clearly stated like :’Allah has permitted trading and forbidden riba (usury)’ [2:275] its evidence is considered the Book of Allah. And anything clearly stated in the hadith such as :’ Let not a man conduct a transaction against the transaction of his brother’, its evidence is considered the hadith. As for anything other than this like the prohibition of leasing property due to the azan of  Jum’a prayer or such as the conquered land coming under the control of the bayt al-mal (treasury) and its use by all the people etc. It is considered an opinion (ra’i) even if it is based on the Kitab and Sunnah. So they called everything that did not have a clear text an opinion (ra’i) even if they acted upon due to a comprehensive rule (hukm kulliy) or it was deduced from the Kitab and Sunnah. The truth is that this ra’i which is acted upon via a comprehensive rule (hukm kulliy) or general principle or it has been deduced from an understanding of the text mentioned in the Kitab and Sunnah it is not called an opinion but rather it is a Shari’a rule (hukm shar’i) since it is a statement/view based on an evidence, it constitutes adherence to the evidence.

The basis of dividing the mujtahididn into Ahl al-hadith and Ahl al-ra’i stems from the fact that some fuqaha scrutinised the bases/foundations on which the inference (istinbat) had been built. It became clear to them that the meanings of the shari’a rules are comprehensible, and they were revealed to solve the problems of people and to obtain benefits (masalih) for them and avert harms (mafasid) that come their way. Therefore, it is essential to understand the texts as widely as possible, encompassing everything indicated by the expression.. On this basis they came to understand and outweigh one text over another and make deductions for issues that did not have a (clear) text. Certain fuqaha devoted their attention to the memorisation/preservation of the isolated hadith (khabar al-hadith) and the fatwas of the Sahaba. In their inferences they they took the path of understanding these isolated hadiths and reports about the Sahaba within the limits of its texts, and they applied them on events that occurred. As a consequence, disagreement arose concerning the consideration of texts as  shari’a evidences and whether to consider the ‘illah (legal cause) or not.

The origin of the question surrounding the use of ra’i is that there are evidences which prohibit its use. So in the Sahih of Bukhari, on the authority of ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr who said: ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. al-’As overcame us with proof. I heard him say:‘Allah will not deprive you of knowledge after he has given it to you, but it will be taken away through the death of the religious learned men with their knowledge. Then there will remain ignorant people who, when consulted, will give verdicts according to their opinions whereby they will mislead others and go astray.’ ‘Awf b. Malik al-Ashja’i narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:’My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden.’ Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever speaks about the Qur’an with his own opinion, let him reserve his place in the fire’. These hadiths are explicit in their censure of the use of ra’i. However, the ra’i is not the same ra’i employed by the scholars of ra’i like the Hanafis. Rather the blameworthy ra’i is that of speaking about the Shari’a without any authority. As for the ra’i which is premised on a shari’a basis, the hadiths and reports about the Sahaba (athar) indicate that it is a shari’a rule not to be considered as a taking a blameworthy/objectionable ra’i. The Prophet (saw) has permitted the judge to exercise his own ijtihad and awards him, despite making  a mistake in exercising his own opinion, one reward, if his aim was to gain knowledge of the  truth and follow it. The Prophet (saw) ordered the Sahaba on the day of the (battle of) Ahzab (the confederates) to pray the mid-day (‘asr) prayer in Bani Qurayza. Some exercised their own ijtihad and prayed on the way, they said it does not mention any delay rather what he meant was to advance quickly, thus they looked into the meaning/sense. The others exercised their ijtihad and delayed the prayer until Bani Qurayza. They prayed the ‘asr prayer at night, thus they looked at the wording. The Messenger (saw) accepted both groups, each one on his own opinion. Mu’az narrated ‘that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent him to Yemen he said:’What will you do when a judgement presents itself. Mu’az said: ‘I will judge by what is in the Book of Allah. He said: But what if it is not in the Book of Allah? He said:I will judge by what is in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: But what if it is not in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ? He replied: I will exercise my own ijtihad, it does not bother me He said: So the Messenger of Allah beat my chest and said:‘Praise be to Allah who has made the messenger of the Messenger of Allah to accord with what pleases the Messenger of Allah’. So this is the ra’i on which the fuqaha, and the mujtahidin proponents of ra’i proceeded on in acting upon the sunnah. It is the ra’i which is based on the text. They are also the Ahl al-hadith even if they were called the Ahl al-ra’i. Even the Hanafis who have become famous as Ahl al-ra’i are agreed that the opinion of Abu Hanifah is that the hadith other than the sahih, i.e. the hasan, is more entitled to be followed than qiyas or ra’i. So he gave precedence to the hadith of qahqaha (loud laughter/laughing aloud), even though it is hasan, over qiyas and ra’i. And he prevented the hand of a thief to be cut for a theft whose value is less than ten dirhams but the hadith did not reach the level of sahih, rather it is hasan which indicates that ra’i for them is an understanding of the text. They gave qiyas a rank/status lower than the hasan hadith let alone the hadith which is sahih. This indicates that what is intended by ra’i is the understanding of the text and the ra’i which is based on the text. So the Ahl al-ra’i are Ahl al-hadith also.

As for the third issue which led to disagreements over the method of deducing rules, it concerns certain linguistic meaning which are applied in understanding the text. The disagreement between the mujtahididn arose from the styles of the Arabic language and whatever they indicated. There were those who took the view that the text was a proof for establishing the hukm from its wording (mantuq), and for proving the opposite of this hukm from the opposite understanding (mafhum al-mukhalif). And there were those who view the unspecified ‘amm (general) as definite (qat’y) in dealing with all its parts, and there those who saw it as speculative (zanni). And there were those who viewed the general order as tantamount to an obligation, they did not deviate from this except when there was a qarina (indication) to the contrary. So the order obliges an action. And some of them used to take the view that an order was merely a request to do an action. It is the the qarina (indication) which clarifies whether it is an obligation or otherwise. As a result, disagreements arose concerning the understanding of the texts and let to disagreements in the method of ijtihad.

Thus, in this manner the disagreement between the generation of the Tabi’in arose in the methodology of deducing ahkam and each mujtahid came to have his own special methodology. From this disagreement over the method of deducing rules arose various juristic schools which led to the growth of the jurisprudential wealth and made fiqh flourish in its entirety. This is because differences in understanding is natural and it assists the development of thought. The Sahaba used to disagree amongst themselves. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas disagreed with ‘Ali, ‘Umar, Zayd b. Thabit even though he had learnt from them. Many of the Tabi’un disagreed with certain Sahaba yet they took knowledge from them. Malik went against many of his Shaykhs and Abu Hanifah disagreed with Ja’far al-Sadiq concerning certain issues despite learning from him. Al-Shafi’i disagreed with Malik in many issues even though he had learnt from him. Thus, the ‘Ulama used to disagree with each other, and students disagreed with their shaykhs and teachers/masters. They did not consider that as bad manners or rebellion against their shaykhs. This is because Islam encourages people to do ijtihad. Every scholar has the right to comprehend and make ijtihad and not be confined to the view of a Sahabi or Tabi’i and nor to be confined to the opinion of a shaykh or teacher/masters.
5.4.4 The Flourishing of Islamic Jurisprudence
The Muslims generally used to make taqleed to the mujtahidin despite their disagreements, since the basis of their disagreements was the Shari’a evidence. So the understanding of every mujtahid of the address of the Legislator (khitab al-shaari’) is considered a Shari’a rule with respect to him and with respect to the one who makes taqleed to him. Because, the address of the Legislator is the hukm shar’i (shari’a rule) and the understanding of the Legislator’s address is a Shari’a rule, but in respect to the one who understood it and in respect to the one who follows him in this understanding. Those who attained the understanding of the Legislator’s address used to make ijtihad. Those who did not reach the level of ijtihad used to follow, in ahkams, those who had reached the level of ijtiahd and practised ijtihad. The issue was not that of following the faqih personally just as the issue is not one of making taqleed to a mazhab. Rather, the issue is about adopting the hukm shar’i deduced by the faqih and acting upon it. Since, the Muslim is ordered to follow the Shari’a rule only and act upon it and not follow a mazhab or person, or act according to any particular mazhab or follow any particular person. When he is able to reach the hukm shar’i through his own ijtihad he should do that, if not he should adopt a hukm deduced by someone else. In the early ages the mujtahidun could be counted by the thousands. That is why we find that the mujtahidun whom the Muslims used to follow were not restricted to four, five, six or any number of mazhabs. Yet there were many mazhabs and numerous mujtahidun. Each group used to follow ruled deduced by each mujtahid whether he was from a mazhab or not. For example, the general population of Kufa acted upon the fatwa of Abu Hanifah and Sufyan al-Thawri but the Shi’a used to act upon the mazhab of Ja’far al-Sadiq. The practise of the people of Makkah used to be according to the fatwa of Ibn Jurayj and the people of Madina on the fatwas of Malik. And the people of Basra on the fatwas of ‘Uthman. And the people of al-Sham on the fatwas of al-Awza’i and the people of Egypt on the fatwas of Ibn Sa’d, and the people of Khurasan on the fatwas of ‘Abd Allah b. al-Mubarak, some of the people of Yemen on the fatwas of Zayd b. al-Husayn. Many of the Muslims used to follow the fatwas of Sa’id b. al-Musayyab, Ibn Abi Layla, ‘Ikrama, Rabi not turn away from all of them either. And there were those who took the view that they constituted only individual jurisprudential legal verdicts ensuing from people who are not infallible, so the scholar has the right to take any one of the fatwas or gin ahkam. Each one judged with his own opinion or according to the opinion of a faqih whose opinion he holds. This resulted in the presence of different judgements in the state, due to this there were ‘Ulama who were obviously inclined towards unifying the ruling by which judgement is given and wanted the Khalifah to issue an order for people to adhere to it. At that time, certain people who knew about the situation of the society took the view that a comprehensive book should be written to which judges and other will refer, to lighten the burden of the judges and make it easy for the litigants. Ibn al-Muqaffa’ wrote a letter to the Khalifah al-Mansur regarding this matter, in which it was mentioned: ‘ What the Ameer al-mu’minin sees, regarding the matter of those two cities ; Basra and Kufa and other cities and regions, of the differences of these contradictory rulings which has reached great proportions regarding rulings relating to life, chastity and property. The rules concerning life and chastity allowed in Basra is forbidden in Kufa, such disagreements are taking place in the heart of Kufa, something is allowed in one area but not in another. ................... However, al-Mansur did not act according to this letter although he was influenced by it. His influence made him to make the Fuqaha and the muhaddithun to record what has reached them until people had references to which they could refer. The reason for al-Mansur not acting upon the opinion of Ibn al-Muqaffa’ in laying down a constitution and canons for the state, which would have brought the people to together on specific ahkams was what happened between him and Malik. Ibn Sa’d narrated in al-Tabaqat that Malik b Anas said: when al-Mansur made hajj he said to me: I have taken the decision to order people to follow the books which you have written. They will be copied, then I will send a copy to every Muslim city and and I will order them to act upon them and not refer to any other works. So I said O Ameer al-Mu’minin! Do not do this. The people already hold opinions, and they have heard hadiths and narrated reports, each people took what it already had followed it, leave the people, let the people of each country chose for themselves.’ Owing to this, the mazhabs and opinions were not unified and ijtihad and ra’i remained with the people in adopting the hukm they deemed correct. And the choice remained for judges and rulers to judge with what they deemed as appropriate. Due to this, each imam of fiqh has students who came to study their opinions and explain his school. And the outlook towards this disagreement which took place changed and it became a science on its own right, they called it the science of disagreement (‘ilm al-khilaf). They studied it just as they studied usul al-fiqh. They said that the disagreements of the imams was a mercy. The student of each imam used to expand on the furu’ (branches of fiqh). It was this expansion which preserved the mazhabs of certain mujtahidin and but was the reason for the extinction of others. Al-Awza’i, al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Thawri and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari are some of the greatest imams in terms of their breadth of knowledge and ijtihad. However they did not expand in furu’ but confined themselves to the usul, and they did not have students who would expound the position of their mazhab, that is why they were not acted upon and they did not spread. As for the rest of the imams such as Abu Hanifah, Ja’far al-Sadiq, Zayd b. al-Husayn, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Malik, they had students and followers, so their mazhabs were recorded and continued to exist. Despite the oppression/restrictions imposed by Abu Ja’far al-Mansur on Ja’far al-Sadiq and others from the family of ‘Ali, he deduced rules and he had students from the Shi’a and others. They recorded his opinions and looked upon them as something akin to the sunnah. His mazhab spread in many regions of the world. Abu Hanifah used to have many students, the most well known are Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Zufar. They were all mujtahids like Abu Hanifah. Although they mixed their opinions with his, the credit goes to them for recording the mazhab of Abu Hanifah. It is the same for imam Malik. He used to reside in Madinah, he had many students who were widely known, especially for scrutinising the hadith and transmitters of hadith, especially in regard to the book al-Muwatta. His students after him used to record his fatwas and expand on the furu’ and give their views on issues. Despite Malik’s fame the credit for spreading his mazhab goes to his students. As for al-Shafi’i he had established his towering fame by his own hands in usul al-fiqh. Which is indicated by what comes in the large work al-Umm which along with al-Risala and Ibtal al-Istihsan are the greatest samples of intellectual awakening in that age. His students, such as al-Rabi’ and al-Muzani, who proceeded according this method and studied his opinions and expanded his mazhab and so it spread far and wide. Likewise for Ahmad b. Hanbal. Despite the dominant prevalence of hadith in his mazhab, he had students who expanded his mazhab for him and studied his opinions. The credit first and foremost goes to those students, not only for spreading the mazhab of their teachers and imams but also for the exposition of the fiqh and ensuring that it flourished, until their age was considered more radiant than the age of the imams. Since, it was in this age that the commentaries of ahkam and clarification of evidences took place. Thus, the fuqaha rushed ahead in studying fiqh and explaining it especially the science of usul al-fiqh which is the true basis of fiqh. The situation of fiqh continued to spread until it flourished greatly. The pinnacle of its bloom, after the century in which the mazhabs were formed, was in the fourth century A.H.
5.4.5 The Decline of Islamic Jurisprudence
After the era of the students of mujtahidin came the adherents and followers of the mazahib. They did not continue on the path which the imams and scholars of mazahib followed in ijtihad and in the inference (istinbat) of rules. And nor did they continue on the path taken by the students of the mujtahidin in terms of studying the evidence, clarifying the angle of eduction and the branching out of the rules, and exposition of issues. The followers of each imam or the scholars of each mazhab were only concerned about taking the side of their own mazhab, supporting its furu’ and usul in all of the issues. They were not interested in studying the soundness of the daleel and outweighing the preponderant evidence over the weaker evidence even if it went against their mazhab. Sometimes they were concerned to establish the proofs for the correctness of the view they have taken and invalidate the proofs against it. And at other times their interest was devoted to extolling the imams and the scholars of the mazahib. This preoccupied the scholars of the mazahib and distracted/alienated them from the primary source which is the Qur’an and Sunnah. A person, among them, did not refer to the text of the Qur’an or Sunnah, except for the purposes of finding anything that will support the mazhab of his imam. Accordingly, their studies were confined to their mazhabs. And their zeal for absolute ijtihad and reference to the primary sources in order to derive rules from them became weak. Their eagerness for ijtihad was restricted to their mazhab or to one issue, or simply to make taqleed without scrutiny. Their dependence on taqleed reached the point where they said : any ayah or hadith which goes against what out scholars have said - ie our mazhab- it is to be interpreted (to accord with what we say) or it has been abrogated. They made the following of a mazhab an obligation on the Muslim. And they began to study, in Islamic institutions such as al-Azhar, the saying of the author of Jawhara al-Tawheed fi wujub al-taqleed :

An obligation it is to follow the learned amongst them.
Thus the people spoke in a language understood by them.

Rather, they believed that the door of ijtihad should be closed for the Muslims. They held that ijtihad was not permitted, until many of the ‘Ulama, from amongst those who were qualified for ijtihad and who had the capacity/aptitude for ijtihad, did not dare to perform ijtiahd or say that they were mujtahids. This decline started towards the end of the 4th century A.H. although in the beginning, until the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th there was some elevation/progress. Mujtahidun and scholars were present at a time when the likes of al-Qaffal were advocating the closing of the door of ijtihad. However, from the begging of the 7th century until the end of the 13th century A.H. the decline was complete but it was within the limits of Islam. The decline was in thought but the jurisprudential opinions remained Islamic. As for after the 13th century ie from 1274 A.H. till now, the decline has reached the point where the shari’a rules have become mixed with unIslamic laws and the situation  reached the worst possible state of decline.

It was due to this jurisprudential decline that it made it difficult for people to act upon the shari’a rules. So after the Islamic Shari’a had been sufficient/suitable for the entire world, they made it difficult even for its adherents until they were forced to take in other laws ....   Many pious Muslims began to argue about a shari’a which was not the Islamic Shari’a. Towards the end of the ‘Uthmani state it was the ignorance of Islam and the ignorant fuqaha which was the principle reason for the backwardness of the Muslims and the end of their state. There were fuqaha who were rigid and always ready to give fatwa forbidding anything new and forbid the thoughts of any thinker. The curiously ludicrous and lamentable thing that happened was that when coffee appeared some scholars gave fatwa forbidding it, and when smoking appeared they gave the fatwa of prohibition, and when people wore the fez the fuqaha gave the fatwa that it was forbidden to wear it, and when the printing press appeared and the state decided to print copies of the Qur’an, some fuqaha forbade it to be printed. The telephone appeared and some fuqaha forbade people to speak through it, and many other issues followed. Until the consequence in Islamic jurisprudence was that the Muslims became completely ignorant of it. The issue changed from studying the Shari’a rules to studying western laws. And law schools were founded, those schools whose presence in the Muslims countries was shameful blot for them. And towards the end of the ‘Uthmani state - the Islamic state and its leader the Khalifah of the Muslims - decided to imitate western jurisprudence in the codification of law. Thus they introduced the Majalla in 1282 A.H. as a civil law and a grand edict was issued in 1293 A.H. to put it into effect. And before they had drawn up the Ottoman penal code in 1274 A.H. They introduced that in place of the hudud, criminal (jinayat) and discretionary punishments (ta’zeer). And in 1276 A.H. they introduced the Law of Rights and Commerce in 1276 A.H. Then they introduced the constitution in order to abolish the Khilafah system in its entirety in 1294 A.H. However, it was abolished and then reinstituted in 1326 A.H. (1907 C.E.). However, they tried to make it agree with Islam and kept the Khilafah system. In this way, fiqh (comprehension) declined and became laws and the Shari’a rules were abandoned and rules other than from Islam were adopted under the pretext that they agreed with Islam. An erroneous notion became prevalent that whatever agrees with Islam it is taken from any human being. And the zeal of the ‘Ulama waned and they, all of them, became muqallidin (followers). However, that was seen as coming under the shadow of Islam. But after the end of the Khilafah and the kuffar’s occupation, from the English and French, of the country. Then the Muslims countries came be states founded on a nationalistic basis whether Arab, Turk or Iranian etc. The Islamic fiqh was wiped out from existence from the relationships of people, and from education and learning. It was not studied except in certain countries, such as al-Azhar in Egypt, Najaf in Iraq, Zaytuna in Tunisia, however they were studied in the same manner as Greek philosophy was studied. The decline reached shocking levels since the Islamic fiqh vanished from existence from people’s relationships.
5.4.6 The fallacy/myth of the influence of Roman Law on Islamic Jurisprudence
Some orientalists, who hate Islam and detest the Muslims, claim that Islamic jurisprudence has been greatly influenced by Roman jurisprudence and law, when in the early ages the Muslims had rushed forth with the conquests. They said that this Roman law was one of the sources of Islamic law and that some of its ahkam have been borrowed form this source. This means that in the time of the Tabi’un and after them, that Muslims had adopted Roman laws from Roman jurisprudence. They educe evidence for their view by claiming that at the time of the Islamic conquest there were schools of Roman law present in the Sham region, in Qaysariyya and on the coasts of Palestine and Beirut. Also in the Sham region there were courts which in their systems and laws proceeded according to Roman law. And these courts inside the country continued for a time after the Islamic conquest which indicates that Muslims approved and adopted them and proceeded according to their laws and system. They supported this viewpoint with assumptions. They said, it is natural for a people who did not adopt much of a sedentary life like the Muslims, when they conquered an urbanised country such as the Sham region which was under Roman rule, that they should consider what they should do? What shall they rule them with? Thereafter, they borrowed their laws. Then they said that a comparison between certain sections of Islamic law and certain sections of Roman jurisprudence and law, demonstrate the similarity between the two. They also show that certain laws have been copied/transferred just/exactly they are from the Roman law, like : The burden of proof rests on the one makes the claim and on the one who rejects is the oath’, and like the words fiqh and faqih. Rather those orientalists maintained that the Islamic law took from rules from the Talmud which had been taken by the Talmud from Roman jurisprudence. According to their claim Islamic jurisprudence took Roman jurisprudence directly from schools and courts in Sham. And it took it via the Talmud when it took it from the Talmud.

This is what the Orientalists claim without furnishing any proof other than mere assumptions. The statements of these orientalists are wrong for a number of reasons:

First: No one reported about the Muslims, whether orientalist or others, that one Muslim, whether he was a faqih or not, that he alluded to Roman jurisprudence or law, either by way of criticism, support or with intention to borrow. No one has mentioned anything whatsoever, which indicates that Roman law was not a subject of discussion let alone a subject of study. Some Muslims did translate works of Greek philosophy but they did not translate a single word or sentence from the Roman jurisprudence let alone translate a book. Which strengthens the judgement that they were abolished and effaced/wiped out from the country by merely being conquered.

Second: At the time when the orientalists allege that there were schools of Roman jurisprudence and courts which ruled according to Roman law in the Sham region, the Sham was full of mujtahidin from the ‘Ulama, judges and rulers. It is natural that if any influence took place then it would have happened among those fuqaha (jurists). However, the reality is that we do not find in the fiqh of those people which has been preserved for us of any influence by Roman jurisprudence or any mention of it. Rather their jurisprudence and ahkam were based on the Kitab, Sunnah and the ijma’ of the Sahaba. One of the most famous from those mujtahidin is al-Awza’i. He used to live in Beirut, where the Orientalists allege was the site of the largest Roman schools in the Sham. He spent his entire life there and died there. His opinions have been recorded in many of the recognised books of fiqh. Thus, in volume vii of al-Shafi’i’s al-Umm there are numerous ahkams of al-Awza’i. It becomes clear to anybody who reads them the extent of al-Awza’i’s remoteness from Roman jurisprudence, like the remoteness of the earth from the sky. Even, the mazhab of al-Awza’i, as it becomes clear from his fiqh itself and what has been reported about him, was that of the Ahl al-hadith. He relied upon hadith more than he relied upon ra’i. The example of al-Awza’i is that same as that of other fuqaha (jurists). If there were any influences they would have emerged amid those fuqaha.

Third: The Muslims believed that Allah (swt) addressed the whole of mankind in the Islamic Shari’a. And He sent our master Muhammad (saw) to all the people :’We have not sent you (O Muhammad [saw]) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner.’[34:28[ They considered anyone who did not believe in the Islamic Shari’a as a disbeliever. And they believed that any hukm which is other than the hukm is Islam is a hukm of kufr (disbelief) whose adoption is forbidden. Whoever believes in such a belief and acts upon it, he cannot take other than the hukm of Islam especially in the early period, in the time of the conquests. Where the Muslims used to be the carriers of the Islamic Message, opening other countries to carry the da’wa of Islam to them. They conquered other countries to save/rescue the people from the rule of kufr (disbelief). So how can they conquer a country only to take the rule of kufr for they have come to destroy and put the rule of Islam in its place??

Fourth: It is not correct that the Muslims, when they conquered countries, they used to be of a lesser civilisation than the conquered country. If that was correct they would have abandoned their civilisation and adopted the civilisation of the conquered countries. The observable and perceptible reality is that the countries, which the Romans used to rule, carried thoughts about life which contradicted Islam. When the Muslims conquered them they did not force the inhabitants to profess Islam. Rather they were content just to take the jizya from the people. But it did not take long before the strength of the Islamic thought and the sublimity of the Islamic civilisation/culture prevailed over the Roman thoughts and Roman culture/civilisation and made it extinct. The inhabitants of the country became Muslims professing Islam and living according to it path with contentment and tranquillity. which indicates that the thoughts of Islam had wiped out the Roman jurisprudence and Roman thoughts and had taken its place. This reality which speaks for itself refutes the assertion of the orientalists that the Roman culture/civilisation was stronger than the Islamic culture/civilisation. And it refuted their assertion that the Islamic jurisprudence was influenced by the Roman jurisprudence.

Fifth: the word ‘fiqh’ and ‘faqih’ have been mentioned in the Noble Qur’an and in the sacred hadith. They did not know of any legislative contacts with Rome. He (swt) said:’Of every troop of them, a party should only go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in religion.’[9:122] And he (saw) said:’ Whosoever from whom Allah wishes good, He makes him to comprehend the deen.’ And the question of the Messenger (saw) to Mu’az when he sent him to Yemen: With what will you judge? Mu’az replied: with the Book of Allah, then with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw), then I will exercise my own opinion ; which is the fiqh. Similarly, sending the rest of the Walis to other regions, and the legal judgements of the Sahaba accounts for more than a quarter of a century, that constituted fiqh. So how can they assume that the word ‘fiqh’ and ‘faqih’ was taken from the Remans? As for the dictum/maxim : The burden of proof rests on the one makes the claim and on the one who rejects is the oath’ It is hadith of the Messenger (saw) which he stated before any legislative contact with the Remans. The maxim has been mentioned in the letter of ‘Umar to Abu Musa in Basra. It is well known that no legislative contact took place between ‘Umar and the Remans. So how can they maintain that the Muslims took the term fiqh, faqih and the principle:The burden of proof rests on the one makes the claim and on the one who rejects is the oath’ from the Remans when they themselves have said these things and they had them before the dawn of Islam.

From this it becomes clear that the myth of the influence of Roman law on Islamic jurisprudence has absolutely no basis whatsoever. It is an interpolation/fabrication of the orientalists who are hostile to Islam, who fill their hearts with hatred for the Muslims..........

As for the issue of Islamic jurisprudence taking from the Talmud, its fallacy is evident from the Qur’an’s attack on the Jews, for fabricating the Tawrah and Injeel which were revealed to sayyidna Musa and sayidina ‘Isa, and that what they have before them has been written by their own hands, it is from them and not from Allah. It is a lie, a distortion of the Tawrah and Injeel. This attack includes the attack on the Talmud, that is from their writings and not from Allah. This contradicts the notion of Muslims taking from them let alone the fact that the Jews used to be separate tribes from the Muslims. They did not live with the Muslim, they did not even mix with them, not to speak of the constant animosity between them and the Muslims, and the unremitting wars waged on them by the Muslims until they expelled them from their midst. This contradict the idea of Muslims taking from them.

The truth, and the perceptible reality is that Islamic jurisprudence constitutes rules deduced from the Kitab and Sunnah or to what the Kitab and Sunnah alluded to in terms of evidence, and that if the rule is not based, in its origins, on a shari’a evidence, it is not considered as part of the rules of Islam and nor is it considered part of Islamic jurisprudence.

 please note ; half of p. 199 and p.200 will be submitted later. I wish to check some aspects relating to the translation of  these passages.
 deduction and inference have been used interchangeably for ‘istinbat’
 I think the word is tunsi from ansa. tanwassa is probably a misprint. please check. p. 209.
 it is pointless to try and translate hadith classifications such as these. Better to give their meanings in the glossary.
 please check