Questions on Qiyas by Abu Hassan

Discussion in 'Fundamentals of Law (Usul)' started by tawheedullah, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Questions on Qiyas «

    Questions on Qiyas by Abu Hassan
    Published on 03 Muharram 1432 (10 Kanun I 2010) · No comments

    Upon quoting the saying of ash-Sha’bi that “you have indeed perished, as you have abandoned the narrated reports and have held on to things of qiyas [analogical derivation],” I was asked a series of questions regarding the complete rejection of qiyas. The proceeding is the discussion that followed.


    How about when the texts are silent on a topic? When there is no naql [transmitted text] available, shouldn’t the scholars perform ijtihad [diligent research] and use their ‘aql [intellect] to reach a solution?

    Abu Hassan:

    Well, regarding whether or not there even exists such a case I would be interested to hear of an example. Allah (exalted) said,

    ما فرطنا في الكناب من شيء

    “We have not neglected anything in the book.” (6:38)

    He (exalted) also said,

    ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبيانا لكل شيء

    “…and We sent down upon you the book as a clarification for everything…” (16:89)

    Furthermore, if the question is regarding the permissibility or prohibition of something, then the default ruling is that everything is halal [lawful, legal] until proven haram [unlawful, illegal]. Allah (exalted) said,

    هو الذي خلق لكم ما في الأرض جميعا

    “He is the One Who created for you all that is in the earth…” (2:29)

    The article la in la-kum is an article of possession and permissibility, i.e. choice, so that Allah (exalted) is saying He created everything for us to do with as we like. He made an exception to this when He (exalted) said,

    وقد فصل لكم ما حرم عليكم

    “…and He has classified for you what He made unlawful for you…” (6:119)

    Therefore, He (exalted) permitted everything for us except what He specifically declared as being unlawful.

    Regarding the scholars performing ijtihad, then we need to define what exactly ijtihad is. Linguistically, ijtihad means to exert one’s full capacity to something (al-Munawi, al-Jurjani, and others; similar came from Zakariya al-Ansari). Allah (exalted) said,

    لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا وسعها

    “Allah does not burden a soul except its capacity…” (2:286)

    Since knowledge of the hidden meanings and reasons and so-called “wisdoms” of any revealed text is not in anyone’s capacity (even the greatest of scholars), then to derive rulings based on anything other than the revealed text is also out of one’s capacity and is not involved in true ijtihad. Rather, true ijtihad is when one studies the revealed texts according to their actual meanings based on the language and existing rulings to understand the shari’ah.

    The prophet (Allah bless and greet him) said,

    إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر

    “If one giving a ruling does so by exerting every effort, and thereby reaches the truth, he will receive two rewards. If he rules and exerts every effort, but makes a mistake, he will receive one reward.” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others)

    There is no mention here of qiyas, ray [view; personal opinion], istihsan [preference; preferring texts over each other], etc. One exerts his full effort by analyzing the Quran, the authenticated sunnah, the ijma’ [agreement; consensus] of the believers, and the Arabic language which governs all such texts.

    Do we forget that the revealed texts include the Quran, along with its different recitations, abrogations; and the sunnah, along with its different chains (requiring authentication) and narrations? It is possible that great scholars made and continue to make mistakes when authenticating the narratives, or understanding a word in an incorrect context due to some deficiency in their mastery of the language. Not everyone is a master of something, and rarely do you find masters of many things. People make mistakes, and it is even more likely that a mistake will be made when one rules by something other than the revealed texts.

    Remember that what is being discarded is qiyas, not deriving rulings altogether. If something new is invented, but it falls under a general ruling set by Allah and His messenger (Allah bless and greet him) then that general ruling is applied. However, qiyas is when one takes a specific case and applies it generally. This goes against the basic principles of the shari’ah.

    I know it is hard to imagine that some of our scholars have actually fallen into such things as passing rulings based on their own opinions and not based on the revelation, but this was something about which we were warned.

    عن عوف بن مالك الأشجعي قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تفترق أمتي على بضع وسبعين فرقة أعظمها فتنة على أمتي قوم يقيسون الأمور برأيهم فيحلون الحرام ويحرمون الحلال

    On the authority of ‘Auf bin Malik al-Ashja’i: Allah’s messenger (Allah bless and greet him) said, “My nation will split into seventy-some divisions. The greatest of them as a fitnah [test, trial, usually negative] against my nation will be a people using qiyas with their personal views, thereby they will permit the haram and forbid the halal.” (Related by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim; al-Haithami and others said it is authentic)

    Similar has been authentically reported from Ibn Mas’ud.

    The reality is that we should set aside everything except the revealed texts and understand this religion based on the language in which it was revealed. The best interpretation is what Allah and His messenger (Allah bless and greet him) said themselves, not what any scholar says about the Quran and sunnah. To them we return all disputes. Allah (exalted) said, addressing all believers,

    فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الأخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلا

    “…so if you dispute about anything then refer it back to Allah and the messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. That is good and the best interpretation.” (4:59)

    He never said to return the issue to a scholar, which negates taqlid [adherence without proof; blind following], just as He never said to return the issue to one’s own reflections over the “reasons” of why something was revealed, which negates qiyas: since qiyas is to create a ruling based upon a shared “reason” (called an ‘illah) between one established hukm [ruling, decision; law] and one unestablished, or new, case. Now, if the reason is apparent in the text, then that is different and the ruling becomes general to that reason anyway – no qiyas needed; just apply the specific case to the general ruling.

    There is much to be said on this subject, and there are books already written that can be read, but I hope this is some help.

    May Allah rectify our situation and lead us far away from making man-made laws govern our religion. Amin!


    I understand what you are saying, but I am still confused. I thought that qiyas plays a role from which the shari’ah is derived, as long as it comes after the Quran, the sunnah, and the ijma’. Is this not right?

    Abu Hassan:

    In short, no. Qiyas does not play a role from which the shari’ah is derived. This is a deception from the shaitan. It is as Muhammad bin Sirin, Ja’far as-Sadiq, and others have said, “the first one to use qiyas was Iblis”; and they also said, “the sun and the moon are only worshiped through qiyas”. The sun-worshipers say that the sun is the “greatest thing in the heavens”, thus seeking to liken it to Allah and to justify their worship. Similarly the moon-worshipers say that “the moon is a guiding light in the darkness of the world, like Allah”. Allah’s curses be upon these people. Subhanallah! He is far glorified above what they associate with Him!

    It was Iblis who used qiyas when he determined that the reason (called ‘illah) for Allah’s command to prostrate to Adam was due to Adam’s superiority, and since Iblis considered himself better than Adam he used qiyas, seeking thereby to nullify the command of Allah.

    Another issue of qiyas is when he deceived our father Adam (upon him peace) by telling him the ‘illah, or reason, for Allah’s prohibition of eating from the tree was immortality or becoming an angel, i.e. it was not an absolute prohibition, but conditional, as if it was “do not eat from the tree if you do not want to live forever and do not want to become an angel”. This is the apparent text of what Allah (exalted) said, quoting Iblis,

    وقال ما نهاكما ربكما عن هذه الشجرة إلا أن تكونا ملكين أو تكونا من الخالدين

    “…and he said, ‘your Lord did not forbid you from this tree except that you would become angels or you would become immortals’…” (7:19)

    It is not as the Christians say, that Iblis sought to cause them to disbelieve. No! Adam (upon him peace) was a sinless prophet who made this unintentional mistake believing he would be pleasing Allah! Subhanallah! Look at how qiyas works! The scholars, both those who make honest mistakes and those who misguide intentionally, will give well-seeming reasons to alter the commands and prohibitions of Allah and those who follow them will do so with possibly horrible consequences. This is a lesson to be learned from our father Adam for those with understanding.

    Again, one must look at the definition of qiyas to simply realize that those who hold firm to it are overstepping the bounds of the shari’ah as they are seeking something other than the Quran, the sunnah, and the ijma’.

    Further, please note that there are some things people call qiyas that are not actually qiyas. For example, as I mentioned before, when someone takes a specific case and applies a general ruling to it, this is not qiyas even though some people claim it is. This is following the apparent meaning of the general text, and nothing more. The most common example is the intoxicant. People ask, “is heroin haram or halal?” The people of qiyas say, “it is haram because the ‘illah for wine being haram is that it intoxicates, and since heroin also intoxicates then it is like wine. Therefore, heroin is haram because of the analogy between it and wine”.

    This is invalid reasoning, as it involves qiyas and ta’lil [establishing an 'illah]. However, heroin is indeed haram because the prophet (Allah bless and greet him) said, “anything that intoxicates is haram.” Since this is a general statement, and heroin is an intoxicant included in his statement “anything that intoxicates” then it is haram; not because of qiyas, but because this is the clear ruling of Allah’s messenger (Allah bless and greet him).

    An actual case of qiyas that is used is when one asks, “how does one clean a vessel licked by a pig?”

    The people of qiyas liken the pig to the dog and so they rely on this analogy while quoting the hadith [speech, talk; narrative] of the prophet (Allah bless and greet him) when he commanded that a vessel licked by a dog be washed seven times, the last time with clean earth. They say that the ‘illah for this ruling is the impurity of the dog. They say that since the pig is also impure, the same ruling applies and the vessel licked by a pig should be washed seven times, the last time with clean earth.

    In this way, they used a specific ruling about a vessel licked by a dog and applied it to a specific case about a vessel licked by something other than a dog. Hence, they made something specific into something general, and this is a great deception. There is much to be said about this ruling (about which I don’t want to elaborate on here, as the discussion would be quite long), but the basic concept that I am showing is how the people of qiyas make specific rulings into general rulings.

    Another way to know that qiyas is invalid without going into too much depth and after knowing the plethora of verses and ahadith [pl. hadith] about its invalidity is that those who believe in qiyas will only apply it in matters of fiqh [jurisprudence] but not ‘aqidah [doctrine, creed]. Who has given them the authority to understand the religion using certain principles in one sphere of knowledge but not another? If the principles of the shari’ah are the Quran, the sunnah, the ijma’, and qiyas, then is not ‘aqidah a part of the shari’ah? Did not Allah ordain certain things in which we must believe? Of course. So why the distinction between fiqh and ‘aqidah? Simply put, it is because everyone is in agreement that to use qiyas in matters of ‘aqidah will lead to shirk [partnership; polytheism; making partners for Allah] and to saying things about Allah (blessed, exalted) of which He Himself never said or permitted us to say.

    I hope this clarifies some of what was said. May Allah grant us success, for verily with Allah alone is success.


    With regard to the ray and qiyas adopted by the imam [leader; scholastic leader] Abu Hanifah, such was not based on whims and desires; rather it was based on the evidence and analogies from the general principles of the shari’ah. The salaf [forerunner, predecessor, often plural] used to describe ijtihad in difficult issues as ray, i.e. opinion. Many of them used to say, when commenting on a verse from the book of Allah, “this is my opinion concerning it,” but that does not mean it is an opinion based on whims and desires. Imam Abu Hanifah followed ray and qiyas a great deal in matters other than the hudud [pl. hadd: limit; revealed criminal punishment] and expiations, as he had fewer ahadith at his disposal than other aimmah [pl. imam]. He came before the other aimmah and was very strict about accepting hadith, as false reports were so widespread in al-’Iraq at that time and there was a great deal of tribulation. Any qiyas that opposes the first three principles (Quran, sunnah, ijma’) is supposed to be rejected. Concerning qiyas in ‘aqidah, then if someone came up with an analogy in ‘aqidah, we reject it since Allah (glorified, exalted) said that there is nothing like unto Him. I think we are not defining qiyas with the same definition. From what I understand, you are attributing qiyas to something new that someone came up with in the religion. I am only saying that when the texts are completely silent on a point, i.e. they are not directly mentioning it, then the scholars have to make ijtihad to find out the answer. Regarding the question of cleaning the vessel touched by a pig, I can see how some scholars may say that its impurity is like the impurity of the dog and issue a ruling. I can see some other scholar objecting to this. If such is the case, then it is a difference amongst scholars. Clearly, one is right and if both are sincere in their ijtihad, the one who reaches the correct ruling receives two rewards while the one who reaches the incorrect ruling still gets one reward. Right?

    Abu Hassan:

    While this issue can appear deep, it does not mean that there is not a clear answer. Regarding ijtihad, then yes. Even if someone were to make a sincere attempt and perform ijtihad but came to a very wrong conclusion, then he receives his reward with Allah. As I mentioned before, there are honest mistakes and then there are those who seek to misguide. Those who commit honest mistakes will be rewarded for their honesty.

    Regarding the issue that Abu Hanifah (Allah be pleased with him) used ray and qiyas, then this was an honest mistake on his part. He will be rewarded. However, it is an injustice to the perfect religion of Allah (exalted) to simply dismiss that as a valid difference of opinion. In fact, his mistake was that he issued these rulings instead of remaining quiet on the subject. If the problem was the lack of an authentic hadith, then the ruling should be postponed until the issue can be investigated by one with greater knowledge in hadith. Ignorance does not permit speaking without knowledge.

    There were great ‘Iraqi scholars, like ash-Sha’bi (d. after 100) in al-Kufah and the judge Iyas bin Mu’awiyah (d. 122) in al-Basrah, who rejected qiyas, so to say that Abu Hanifah (d. 150) made qiyas out of necessity due to being in al-’Iraq is not supported by historical record. In fact, the main proponents of rejecting qiyas came from Baghdad and they relied solely on the revealed texts.

    The definition I gave of qiyas is the actual definition of qiyas. Like I said, you may be surprised to find that many of our scholars slipped into this deception. But again, this was prophesied by Allah’s messenger (Allah bless and greet him) so we should not be deceived as well. Rather, we should acknowledge the mistakes while making excuses for the honest scholars who will receive their singular rewards.

    When I mentioned qiyas in ‘aqidah, I was not solely referring to things which may seemingly negate “there is nothing like unto Him”, but even on issues of iman [affirmation; faith], nubuwah [prophetic nature], the angels, the jinn, etc. I mentioned ‘aqidah to show that the people of qiyas are hesitant to use their qiyas in anything other than fiqh, which proves that they themselves are not in complete support of it – which shows lack of conviction and hence, doubt and assumption – but Allah (exalted) says,

    إن الظن لا يغني من الحق شيئا

    “Verily assumption does not suffice the truth at all…” (10:36)

    He (exalted) also said,

    فماذا بعد الحق إلا الضلال

    “…so what is after the truth except misguidance?” (10:32)

    On this issue, as you mentioned, Abu Hanifah himself did not regard qiyas in issues of hudud and expiations. He is actually quoted as saying, “Whoever does not abandon qiyas in the judicial council, such does not possess fiqh,” i.e. such does not have a good understanding of the religion. This was reported from Abu Hanifah’s own son, Hammad. It was actually the students of Abu Hanifah who delved deeper into qiyas than their teacher.

    However, whether or not the qiyas is in hudud, expiations, or something else, it is not a justified principle with which to derive rulings, even if great scholars said it is – and we already know that taqlid is invalid, so their acceptance of qiyas is not binding on us.

    Concerning the issue of the pig licking the vessel, then regardless of whether or not this “makes sense”, it is still invalid. The prophet (Allah bless and greet him) knew the Arabic language better than anyone, and the word kalb means “dog” and does not mean “any impure animal”. If he (upon him peace) wanted to extend the ruling to be general, he would have said “any impure animal”; but he did not do so. Rather, there may be some benefit in cleaning dog saliva that way, while cleaning the saliva of swine does not require the repeated washings. That, on top of the fact that the dog is not mentioned in any authentic narration as being impure. Rather, that is only derived from their analytical minds. So this qiyas (like all qiyas) is invalid on multiple levels.

    Also, in response only to the first part of what was said, regarding that Abu Hanifah and the others did not use qiyas based on whims and desires, then I can agree to this. Again, there were honest mistakes. Abu Hanifah has also been attributed to having a murjii stance when it came to defining iman. We do not hold him in low esteem due to his honest mistakes. We find excuses for the man, but not for the invalid opinions he held.

    Lastly, the quoted evidence against qiyas in ‘aqidah was,

    ليس كمثله شيء

    “…there is nothing like unto Him…” (42:11)

    If this is the evidence against qiyas in ‘aqidah, then what is the evidence for qiyas in issues other than ‘aqidah? Further, what about the evidence against qiyas in general? Is there a specific evidence that proves qiyas only in fiqh (other than in the hudud and expiations)? Here are some proofs against qiyas in general:

    Allah (exalted) said,

    اتبعوا ما أنزل إليكم من ربكم ولا تتبعوا من دونه أولياء

    “Follow what was sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow others beside Him as supporters…” (7:3)

    He (exalted) commands us to only follow what came to us from Him and we are prohibited from following anything else. The only thing that came to us from Allah (glorified, exalted) was the revealed text. The personal views of any man did not come from Allah (exalted), so we are not permitted to follow the views of any man – even our own views. Rather, we do as Allah (exalted) said,

    إنما كان قول المؤمنين إذا دعوا إلى الله ورسوله ليحكم بينهم أن يقولوا سمعنا وأطعنا وأولئك هم المفلحون

    “The only saying of the believers when they are called to Allah and His messenger to rule between them is that they say, ‘we hear and we obey’, and such are the successful.” (24:51)

    Since qiyas consists of human reflection, even if one claims that the reflection is initially based on the revelation, we know that qiyas involves something man-made and it is not entirely from the revelation of Allah (exalted). As such, to follow qiyas is to follow something other than what Allah (exalted) sent down to us. This is different from reflecting over the apparent meaning of the text and deriving a ruling supported by that apparent meaning, since this necessitates that the derived ruling is from the text itself and not contrived from a man-made source.

    Allah (exalted) said,

    فلا تضربوا لله الأمثال إن الله يعلم وأنتم لا تعلمون

    “…so do not strike likenesses for Allah; verily Allah knows and you do not know.” (16:74)

    The apparent meaning of this verse negates all analogies and other likenesses that are made for Allah, whether they are about Allah or about His religion. This is an explicit text that negates analogies in the religion, since the one who does so has struck a likeness for Allah in the religion. The prohibition is general against striking likenesses for Allah, whether in His names or in His laws, as all of that is striking likenesses for Allah. An analogy is a specific kind of likeness, so analogies fall into this prohibition as well.

    Allah (exalted) said,

    ولا تقف ما ليس لك به علم

    “…and do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge…” (17:36)

    Knowledge (al-’ilm) in both the religion and the language is the correct and certain belief in something. One cannot be certain that a religious belief is correct unless there is clear evidence from the Lawmaker regarding it. Therefore, one who pursues the assumed reason of an established ruling and makes qiyas between it and a new case has pursued that of which he has no knowledge, and this is prohibited by the clear verse.

    Allah (exalted) said,

    فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الأخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلا

    “…so if you dispute about anything then refer it back to Allah and the messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day; that is good and the best interpretation.” (4:59)

    Therefore, when a dispute arises there are only two points of reference: the Quran and the sunnah. If one did not refer the disputed issue back to the Quran and the sunnah, but rather to qiyas or to the saying of a person after Muhammad (Allah bless and greet him), then he would be disobeying the command of this verse (which is directed to every believer, as the first words of the full verse prove). This verse also indicates that if there is ijma’, meaning no dispute between any two believers in history, then one does not need to return that point of consensus back to the Quran and the sunnah. This is why ijma’ is considered the third (and last) principle. This and Allah’s (exalted) saying about following the path of the believers,

    ومن يشاقق الرسول ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين نوله ما تولى ونصله جهنم

    “…and whoever opposes the messenger after the guidance was made clear to him and he follows not the path of the believers, We shall leave him to what he chose and We shall roast him in Jahannam…” (4:115)

    If every believer in every place and time (the past taking precedence, of course) agrees to something, then this is their “path” without a doubt. That is the ijma’ to which we are obliged to adhere.

    Allah (exalted) said,

    اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم

    “…today I have completed for you your religion…” (5:3)

    So after the revelation ceased with the death of Allah’s messenger (Allah bless and greet him), the religion’s growth halted and it became a stagnant and perfect structure. The only principles that were acceptable while the prophet (Allah bless and greet him) was alive were what was sent to him of revelation and the ijma’ that is supported by the revelation itself. These are the three principles that everyone must accept. Any addition to or subtraction from these principles will be an alteration of the perfection of Islam as mentioned in the verse.

    You said, “so, any qiyas that opposes the first three principles is supposed to be rejected.” (I say) But every qiyas opposes the first three principles because it is from the first three principles that we find that the religion is complete and that the religion only consists of the first three principles. Therefore, any additional principle that was established after the death of the prophet (Allah bless and greet him) should be rejected.

    Allah’s messenger (Allah bless and greet him) never used qiyas. He only followed what was revealed to him and never made his own rulings by making an analogy between one revealed text and a new case. Allah (exalted) said,

    وما ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى

    “…and he does not speak from desire; it is only inspiration inspired.” (53:3-4)

    Allah (exalted) also said,

    قل ما يكون لي أن أبدله من تلقاء نفسي إن أتبع إلا ما يوحى إلي

    “Say, ‘it is not for me to replace it from my own self. I only follow what was inspired unto me…’” (10:15)

    Furthermore, regarding His (exalted) statement, “…so if you dispute about anything then refer it back to Allah and the messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day,” I would say that since there is always a dispute about rulings in which qiyas was used by those who fundamentally reject it, we should always return such issues back to Allah and the messenger (and not back to qiyas). Doing this would also prove that qiyas itself should be negated altogether. Anyone who returns the issue back to qiyas instead of back to Allah and the messenger should fear Allah and remember that iman is conditional upon referring disputes back to Allah and the messenger as the verse clearly states.

    May Allah (exalted) grant us all success on this and every issue. Amin.


    I think the book “Evolution of Fiqh” by the shaikh Abu Aminah Bilal Philips should also throw some light on this subject.

    Abu Hassan:

    Regarding “Evolution of Fiqh,” it is an introduction to the source of disagreements amongst the scholars. There are indeed benefits found in this book. However, Bilal Philips held the same misconception about qiyas that I mentioned, i.e. that it is applying a general ruling to a specific case. He mentions the same above-mentioned intoxicant example in “Evolution of Fiqh” on page 68 when he defines qiyas. This is not the understanding of qiyas according to the salaf. Rather, this was contrived later by others in an effort to portray qiyas as a seemly way to derive rulings from the revealed texts. Unfortunately, people have left the original discussions on qiyas and the general rejection of it by the people of hadith from the salaf, and instead they held on to the writings of those who came after the blessed generations.

    Bilal Philips wrote, “[a]n example of Qiyaas is the prohibition of marijuana based on the Prophet’s statement: “Every intoxicant is Khamr and every form of Khamr is Haraam.” Since Marijuana has an intoxicating effect it can be classified as Khamr and thus Haraam (prohibited).” (Evolution of Fiqh, p. 68)

    If marijuana is an intoxicant, it is already included in the generality of the prophet’s (Allah bless and greet him) saying, as quoted by Bilal, “[e]very intoxicant is Khamr and every form of Khamr is Haram.” This is not qiyas and this is not what was understood by the salaf as being qiyas. If this is qiyas, then all of those great scholars who rejected qiyas would have to consider some intoxicants (like heroin, cocaine, etc.) as halal. Allah forbid that we consider that any of the great learned men of the salaf held such opinions. They rejected qiyas, not the derivation of specific rulings from general texts. Rather, it was only the derivation of general rulings from specific texts that was abhorrent to them, and that is the essence of qiyas.

    With Allah alone is success.
  2. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Jazakullah Khair and thank you for posting knowledge!
    These two paragraphs are important to understand. They can solve the many disputes between the the followers of madhabs and qiyas and rai with the followers of the Prophet Muhammed (s). One of the greatest crimes committed against Allah aza wajal was qiyas by its applicators. The deen is proof and not opinions. The self infatuation and carelessness for the sunna led them to stature themselves equal to Allah aza wajal. Indeed this was the crime committed by the Jews, Christians and other pagans. And as the Prophet Muhammed (s) prophecy is truthful. It is a crime committed by the scholars of madhabs. They are not scholars of Islam as Islam is revelation.
  3. ^This is rich. Pseudo-Thahiris come and claim that the source of problems is the Mathahib and use of Qiyas, attributing their main proof to a narration that was declared Munkar?

    It's not even a weak narration, its abandoned.

    And all of the implications and explanations attributed to the Qur'an and Ahadith quoted- under what authority does that come from, except from the direction of Ray'?

    Here's the simple truth- if most Muslims followed this school that is being put forward and championed by the enemies of Islam, albeit a valid school when studied and followed according to the methodology of its founder Dawud ath-Thahiri, then there would be far more sects than there are now, with everyone following their own completely unfounded and undisciplined Ray' calling it Ijtihad and legislating via their own interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunnah- What a Mess!

    Learn Usul, Fiqh, Mustalah of those two disciplines, science of Hadith, and the Arabic language, and then come back to discuss. Until then you two are simply the blind leading the blind.
  4. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    In what way are the enemies of Islam promoting the Dhahiri madhhab? It always seemed to me that the enemies of Islam were mostly promoting either extreme pacifistic sufism, Madkhalism, or liberal modernism. Every comment on the Dhahiri approach I've seen from kuffar has been wholly negative, because the kuffar hate it when we interpret our religion in a literal fashion.

    Is that not already the case, brother? Are not unrestricted and undisciplined interpretations the source of most of the major problems of our time?

    I dispute your assertion. Going on the clear, literal, Arabic meaning of things can only lead to certain interpretations. Wild, free-wheeling interpretation is the fault of qiyas, which has given many a license to twist the meanings of the revealed word in ways they were never intended. Could modernism exist without qiyas? Could the sufi "traditionalist" movement exist without qiyas? Could people countenance legislating against Allah's laws and accepting democracy/socialism/nationalism, without qiyas? Could people claim that killing oneself is halal without qiyas?
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
  5. There are enemies outside of the Ummah and within. Those outside the Ummah are promoting groups like extreme Sufiyyah and secularist/modern sects in order to combat the message of Ahl us-Sunnah. Those inside the Ummah are promoting the Thahiri approach, even though they themselves do not follow it, in order to confuse the issue between Qiyas in its reprehensible form and Qiyas in its Shar'ee form. The enemies of Islam constantly attempt to undermine the Deen through casting aspersion on its men who were its pillars- the agreed upon great A'immah of this Ummah.

    Our Deen requires no 'interpretation', al-Hamdu li-Llah. Rather some aspects of it are too complicated for common Muslims to understand so it requires elucidation or explanation.

    No. I and many scholars who I took it from would say that the major problem of any era is not following the Qur'an and Sunnah according to the understanding of the righteous scholars who came before. Every time some nobody comes along and thinks they understand the primary texts better than those who are agreed upon masters of the sciences related to those two texts, there are always some ignorant people who follow them due to not being pleased with the mercy and blessing of Allah in what we already have of guidance.

    So these new nobodies take the primary texts and conduct unnecessary and unfounded investigations or give baseless interpretations which no one before them gave, or which the majority of scholars rejected, and imply that everyone before them was wrong or misguided, and that everyone after them who does not follow their way is misguided. That is how the majority of problems related to the Qur'an and Sunnah have begun and are perpetuated. Yet people like the author and Black Tyre wish to lay the blame on the valid Ikhtilaf that exists within the 4 schools as detrimental division?

    'Clear, literal', Arabic meaning' according to whom? Someone who just learned Arabic in the last 15 years and wants to give a meaning or interpretation that opposes that of the Companions RA, Tabi'een, or Atba at-Tabi'een, and the scholars who followed them in that? Or perhaps they want to give the 'clear, literal, Arabic meaning' that was not known before them except by a few who opposed the majority of scholars?

    In order to know the roots of sects, then you must study their histories, and you will find they themselves do not attribute their origins to Qiyas, nor do the experts in that field. This is exactly what I am referring to when I say it is necessary to refer matters to the proper experts and masters of the discipline. Please refer to books of heresiology and experts in the field regarding Sufiyyah and modernism, before you come saying that they had this or that origin according to your own opinion or the opinion (Ray') of someone unknown.

    I am not surprised that you would elect to further obscure the discussion by bringing up Fiqh issues that have Ikhtilaf. It is a true sign of those who have a disease in their hearts that they follow all of the matters that are doubtful or upon which is disagreement rather than stick to the issues at hand which are apparent.

    The Hadith referred to is Munkar. The explanations given for the Ayat and Ahadith mentioned in the article are not known except to a few who themselves rely on your definition for 'Qiyas' to arrive at those interpretations. You are guilty of exactly that which you condemn, but worse, you don't even have sufficient knowledge or justice in yourself to declare when your argument has no basis or is in fact based on weakness and newly invented interpretations.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
  6. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    The article I posted explained rather well what I meant by clear and literal Arabic meaning. Don't split hairs and pretend like I or the author are claiming that anyone can just come up with their own interpretations.

    The Dhahiri understanding IS the understanding of the salaf, by and large. "The first thing in the ummah was literalism" as a Sa'udi Dhahiri scholar once said.

    As for legislating against Allah's laws, following shirki political systems, and killing yourself, there is no "valid ikhtilaaf" on any of those things and it is a sign of a disease in your heart that you would claim that there is.
  7. So let's deal with the first 'interpretation' from the post. It is regarding the Ayah:

    {مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ}

    {We have not neglected in the Register a thing.}[Al-An'am: 38]​

    The article claims this Ayah refers to the impossibility or unlikelihood of there existing an issue upon which:

    [the text in red indicates where I redacted the quote]

    So there must be some Tafsir available that proves that the Ayah means what this person says- that it is evidence of the impossibility that any matter related to the Deen is not found in the Qur'an or authentic Sunnah.

    Rather the Tafsir that I found says that this Ayah refers to:

    "...Allah has knowledge of all of them and He does not neglect a single one of them from His provision and His direction, whether they were on land or in the sea..." [Tafsir Ibn Kathir 3/253]

    or on authority of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zayd RA: "We have not neglected anything except We have written it in the Mother of the Book". [Tafsir at-Tabari 11/346]

    "And that which is preserved are their actions and those done to them (the creatures great or small and the birds), and all their actions are affirmed in the Mother of the Book..." [Tafsir at-Tabari 11/344 from the opinion of at-Tabari himself]

    So what is 'the Mother of the Book'? That is a subject of dispute, however no one has said that it refers to the Qur'an itself (aside from the view that it refers to al-Fatihah, although that is the 'Mother of the Qur'an'], rather at-Tabari and others said it refers to the foundation of the Book and its entirety, including whatever He willed to abrogated/erased and what was affirmed. It is the Book that is near him. Ibn Abbas RA said that it refers to "the knowledge of Allah of what He has created and what His creation does." [Tafsir at-Tabari under the Tafsir for ar-Ra'd: 39] Source

    So I challenge you to bring a Tafsir which connects the Tafsir given by the author of the article to this Ayah. If you cannot, then either you are so ignorant that you cannot recognize when someone has given an authentic Tafsir that has precedence and one that is newly invented OR you and the author willingly fell into that which you admonish- namely "you have abandoned the narrated reports and have held on to things of qiyas [analogical derivation]"...

    Please don't write anything else in this thread but a response to the above challenge otherwise I will take it as indicating you are a blind follower of an unknown person.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2011
  8. Salamat

    Salamat <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    tawheedullah, have you gone full retard and became dhahiri?
  9. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    I always had Dhahiri leanings. I've said that multiple times over the years.
  10. I see you're eager to explain the use of Ray' on the part of the author to explain the Qur'an, but just to clarify- you must bring Tafsir bil-Ma'thur, or Tafsir that is reported on authority of the Prophet SAWS or his Companions RA with an authentic chain. Anything else will be considered as Tafsir bil-Ijtihad or Ray', which you reject and abhor.
  11. Wild Wild West

    Wild Wild West لا تعتذر اليوم

    Why do you hate Salafis so much, then?
  12. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Lets cut the mumbo jumbo. No one has the right to issue their opinions. Give proof or remain silent. rejecting qiyas is not a phenomenon by ashab al dhahir. Rejection of qiyas is part of tawhid. The Prophet Muhammed (s) and the sahaba (r) were ashab al dhahir or 'dhahiris' for the sect minded people. It is well known Islam is to be taken as it came and not how the clergy interpret it to be. There is no proof for a person to do qiyas. A simple look at the madhabs usul, one can see deviancy is inherited in qiyas and the patriots that carry it. They are the worst people amongst mankind. Joining the pagans in shirk with Allah aza wajal. Giving Allah's aza wajals rights to clergymen so that they make what is halal and what is haram through their handicapped aql. Alhamdulillah through my iman Allah aza wajal gave me the light to question and denounce such irresponsible usul.
  13. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Umar bin al Khattab (r) called the people of rai enemies of sunna.
  14. Still waiting for the response- should be easy to come up with. You can rant on all you want but your lack of being able to provide an answer says all we need to know about you guys...
  15. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Okay lets prove once again you have spoke without knowledge. Any explanation that is not divinely inspired is not knowledge. This puts your post in severe danger. Since what you quoted is not even proof which does not deserve a reply. But let us continue for the sake of argument since you used words of men over the speech of Allah aza wajal. Your first wrongdoing against the Quran is that you looked for an explanation that was not divinely given. There is no proof the Prophet Muhammed (s) gave an explanation other than what the verse says. Your second wrongdoing against the Quran was to quote sayings that contradicted the apparent meaning of the verse. Whether they are sahih or not makes no difference. This contradiction automatically renders the "reports" to be thrown in the dustbin. They are not knowledge and they are not authoritative in Islam. That is sufficient proof and should end the discussion. But let us carry on. You made the claim:
    This explanation requires proof. And it contradicts the apparent of the verse. So this explanation is rejected as it is void of any knowledge. Next you said:
    Once again these reports contradict the apparent of the Quran. And what is worse they have added words into the verse that were not there. That is a tampering attempt of the Quran la hawla wala quwatta illa billah. OPINIONS have no authority. If there is no tafsir coming directly from the Prophet Muhammed (s) than all else is laxity. But let us be courteous and entertain the fabricated tafsir. The verse does not speak of any "mother of the book." It is speaking of signs of Allah aza wajal. Verse 37 before it is clear and explains the situation for 38 and verse 39 refutes any fabricated claim of a "mother book." There is absolutely no mention of "mother book" in the entire mode of the verses. If you have any sahih hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (s) explaining the verse saying "mother book". Please do show it. If not than it is not knowledge and is simply an attempt to tamper with the Quran.
  16. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Here is Tafsir al Qurtubi's fourth explanation. He used the Quran to explain the Quran:{38} وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلَّا أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ثُمَّ إِلَى رَبِّهِمْ يُحْشَرُونَأَيْ فِي اللَّوْح الْمَحْفُوظ فَإِنَّهُ أَثْبَتَ فِيهِ مَا يَقَع مِنْ الْحَوَادِث . وَقِيلَ : أَيْ فِي الْقُرْآن أَيْ مَا تَرَكْنَا شَيْئًا مِنْ أَمْر الدِّين إِلَّا وَقَدْ دَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْقُرْآن ; إِمَّا دَلَالَة مُبَيَّنَة مَشْرُوحَة , وَإِمَّا مُجْمَلَة يُتَلَقَّى بَيَانهَا مِنْ الرَّسُول عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام , أَوْ مِنْ الْإِجْمَاع , أَوْ مِنْ الْقِيَاس الَّذِي ثَبَتَ بِنَصِّ الْكِتَاب ; قَالَ اللَّه تَعَالَى : " وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْك الْكِتَاب تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْء " [ النَّحْل : 89 ] وَقَالَ : " وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْك الذِّكْر لِتُبَيِّن لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ " [ النَّحْل : 44 ] وَقَالَ : " وَمَا آتَاكُمْ الرَّسُول فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا " [ الْحَشْر : 7 ] فَأَجْمَلَ فِي هَذِهِ الْآيَة وَآيَة ( النَّحْل ) مَا لَمْ يَنُصّ عَلَيْهِ مِمَّا لَمْ يَذْكُرهُ , فَصَدَقَ خَبَر اللَّه بِأَنَّهُ مَا فَرَّطَ فِي الْكِتَاب مِنْ شَيْء إِلَّا ذَكَرَهُ , إِمَّا تَفْصِيلًا وَإِمَّا تَأْصِيلًا ; وَقَالَ : " الْيَوْم أَكْمَلْت لَكُمْ دِينكُمْ " [ الْمَائِدَة : 3 ] .
  17. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

  18. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Alhamdulillah. Another attack against the Quran has been repelled by us Muslims. You cannot explain the verses of Allah aza wajal in any other way except through divine intervention. All opinions are invalid and to even try to bring an opinion without proof is misguidance.
  19. ^You do realize that Tafsir of the Qur'an with the Qur'an itself is considered Tafsir bi-Ray' as well don't you? What's to stop anyone from bring any Ayah of the Qur'an and explaining it by means of another and claiming that it is a 'divine' Tafsir? Even if the two ayah have nothing to do with one another?

    I gave you Tafsir bil-Ma'thur, or Tafsir given by a Companion RA and agreed upon by the majority of scholars of Tafsir, and you say 'throw it in the dust bin'...?

    And then you give a Tafsir based only on the opinion of a later Mufassir and declare that as 'evidence'?

    You also realize that you're using Qiyas left and right in your posts, don't you?
  20. Black Turban

    Black Turban New Member

    Wait before you go on any further. Do you have any proof from the Prophet Muhammed (s), yes or no? If not than please exit the discussion. You are only trying to change the meaning of the Quran al Majid with opinions of men. The quotes you brought were false. Why? The verse contradicts the explanation. How can we trust you or any scholar who contradicts the Quran al Majid?! And you brought a weak challenge and wanted "tafsir". Why do you want tafsir I do not know. But you were given "tafsir" and your challenge was put into shame. I only did it to teach you a lesson. I do not believe in tafsir other than a direct sahih hadith coming from the Prophet Muhammed (s) explaining the verse if needed. Opinions of everyone else is only opinions and are not knowledge. Looking for them is a sickness and accepting them blindly is misguidance.

Share This Page