Saturday, February 22, 2014

Q&A: Evidences for Qiyas? | Sheikh 'Ata Abu Al-Rashtah

[Translated]

Question:


Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuh,

Our beloved Shaykh, may Allah (swt) help you in your cause and guide you to that which pleases Him.
Whilst reading in the book, The Islamic Personality Volume III about the topic of Qiyas (analogy), I noticed that the Hizb infers that Qiyas is a Sharii source through definitive evidences and others indefinite, though when the Hizb rejected the sayings of those who use the Consensus of the Righteous Khulafa' as a Shari'i source, it used to say that their evidences are indecisive and are hence unsuitable for inference. It could be said that the indefinite evidences can be (used) يستأنس بها (to elicit from). If so, why not refer to this matter especially since new editions of this book have been printed?

I have also seen - and I think I'm wrong - that inferring to Qiyas with definite evidences is not explicit in meaning, but it is a deduction from the evidence itself, i.e. as long as the definitive text has a ‘Illa (legal reasoning) which is conductive to the ruling then this is enough to say that Qiyas is permissible. I feel that this inference is not done with explicit wording.

Answer: 


Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,

Firstly: regarding Qiyas, its evidence is the text in which ‘Illah (legal reasoning) exists, so if ‘Illah existed in the Quran, then the evidence is the Quran, and if it was in the Sunnah, then the evidence is the Sunnah...
This is considered explicit speech, so how can you say: "I feel that this inference is not done with explicit utterance"?
Look at the evidences of the ‘Illah, you will find the answer:
  • Take for example the speech of Allah (swt):
((كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاءِ مِنْكُمْ))
"In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you." [TMQ 59:7]
Now answer the question: Is it permissible for the Khaleefah to give the poor from the State's possessions and not give to the rich?
The nature of the answer is: yes. Now continue the question: What is the evidence to this? Isn't the answer what Allah (swt) says:
((كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاءِ مِنْكُمْ))
"In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you." [TMQ 59:7]
  • Take as another example the Hadith:
«... وفي سائمة الغنم إذا كانت أربعين، ففيها شاة...»
"On grazing sheep and goats, if they come to forty or more - one ewe." (Reported by Abu Dawood)
Now answer the following question: Is Zakah applied on the sheep that are fed at home and do not graze?

The answer as the nature of the case is: No Zakah is applied. Now continue the question: What is the evidence for this?
Isn't the answer the Hadeeth of the Prophet (saw): «... وفي سائمة الغنم إذا كانت أربعين، ففيها شاة...» 'On grazing sheep and goats, if they come to forty or more - one ewe.' (Reported by Abu Dawood)

Thus you see that the evidences are explicit in the subject.

As for if what you meant by what you said "with explicit utterance" that the ‘Illah stated in the texts which is the topic of Qiyas is not always explicit, but explicit and implicit "Dalala (extraction from the implicit meaning), Istinbatiya (extraction by way of inference), Qiyasiya (extraction through analogy)". Then this is correct, for example:

"إِنَّـمَـا جُعِلَ الاسْـتِـئْذَانُ مِنْ أَجْلِ الْبَصَرِ"
"Indeed, permission has been made obligatory because of (min ajl) sight." [Bukhari 5772]

Here, the reasoning is explicitly pronounced in the text by saying ‘because of'. As for "The grazing..." it is a Dalalah (indication) because it is linked to a casual attribute (wasf mufhim).

If this is what you meant, then this is correct, but this is another topic related to the detailed evidence, as for the overallUsuli evidence, it is extracted through proving that the Qur'an is definitive, and proving that the Sunnah is definitive, Qiyas is therefore also definitive because it is referred back to the Qur'an and Sunnah, this is different to the detailed evidence. This is how the detailed jurisprudential evidence to the ‘Illah which is explicit and implicit is extracted, and this is different to that.

As for your observation to what was mentioned in the book: "Qiyas has been proven to be a Shar'I evidence through definite evidence, and indefinite evidences.", your comment has truth in it, because despite the fact that evidence is called for in both Usool and Fiqh, its indication however differs in terms of being definitive and indefinite, and because the topic here is about the evidences of Usool, then it is preferred that they are confined to definite evidences rather than indefinite,accordingly, it is best to correct it, and we will correct it insha'Allah. For your information, I have mentioned in my book "Tayseer al-Wusool ila al-Usool" (The Facilitation of Access to Usool) the following:

"The authenticity of Qiyas comes from the authenticity of the evidences which contain ‘Illah, i.e. the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijmaa' As-Sahaba, and since the authenticity of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijma' has been established as we have mentioned earlier, then the authenticity of Qiyas is also established.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) demonstrated Qiyas, when he (saw) was asked about fulfilling the Hajj of someone else..."

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

The link to the answer from the Ameer‟s Facebook page.

No comments: