Occasions for Ijtihad

Islamic Shariah is a comprehensive, all-encompassing, and complete code of life, founded upon the eternal teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. As human life expands and societal issues diversify, it becomes inevitable to seek solutions to these unprecedented problems in the light of the textual evidences (Nusoos) of Shariah. This blessed academic and jurisprudential endeavor is known as "Ijtihad" (independent juristic reasoning) and "Tafaqquh fi al-Din" (deep understanding of religion).

In the contemporary era, a major misconception frequently propagated by certain circles is the belief that the Ijtihad of the honorable Jurists (Fuqaha) and Mujtahids (particularly the Imams of the Hanafi school) sometimes contradicts explicit texts (Quran and Hadith), or that they prioritize their personal reasoning and analogical deduction (Qiyas) over these explicit texts (Nass). This superficial thinking is, in reality, the result of an ignorance of the temperament of Shariah, a lack of deep comprehension of the texts, and unawareness of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh).

This article, "Occasions for Ijtihad", authored by Mufti Muhammad Musab Qasmi and published in the monthly magazine Darul Uloom (Issue: 2-3, Volume: 104, Jumada al-Awwal 1441 AH / Feb-Mar 2020 CE), is a profound and eye-opening piece on this sensitive and scholarly subject. In the light of robust evidence, the article eloquently clarifies that a Mujtahid's duty is not confined merely to the apparent literal words, but extends to reaching the actual intent and purpose of the Lawgiver (Allah and His Messenger ﷺ). The following key points have been highlighted for the reader:

• Determining the Intent of the Text: If a text holds the possibility of two meanings, prioritizing one meaning over the other under established Islamic principles is not "Qiyas against the text," but rather acting precisely upon the text.

• The Methodology of the Companions (Sahaba): Through the famous incident of the Asr prayer during the expedition to Banu Qurayza, and an exemplary decision by Hazrat Ali (RA), it is proven that understanding the underlying cause (Illah) and objective of a command, alongside its apparent words, is the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ and the blessed method of the Companions.

• Reconciling Contradictory Texts: When two evidences seemingly contradict each other, this article explains the recognized principles upon which jurists reconcile them or decide which to prioritize.

This article provides a scholarly and silencing response to all objections and unfounded accusations made against Islamic jurisprudence and the Mujtahids of the Ummah regarding "preferring Qiyas over Nass." This writing is an excellent guide for anyone who wishes to honestly understand the jurisprudential insight of the religion, the depth of Shariah, and the reasoning methodology of the great scholars of the Ummah.

Occasions for Ijtihad

When a Text (Nass) Has the Possibility of Two Meanings

If a text holds the possibility of two meanings—where one meaning is literal (Haqiqi) and the other is metaphorical (Majazi), or a word is homonymous (shared between two meanings), or the apparent words suggest one meaning while the underlying cause (Illah) suggests another—in short, if a text can be interpreted in two ways regardless of the reason, the Mujtahid prioritizes one meaning and leaves the other unapplied.

This process is called "prioritizing one meaning of the text" and is defined as acting upon the text itself. This practice is entirely in accordance with the Sunnah and is proven by the actions of the Companions (RA) and the tacit approval (Taqrir) of the Prophet ﷺ. One group mistakenly assumes this is applying Qiyas (analogy) against the text; however, it is not Qiyas against the text, but rather acting precisely upon it, as proven by the Sunnah and the traditions of the Companions.

Evidence for Prioritizing One Meaning of a Text Through Ijtihad

There is a Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim that when the Prophet ﷺ departed for Banu Qurayza, he instructed: "None of you should pray Asr except at Banu Qurayza."

Consequently, the army set out towards Banu Qurayza. When the time for sunset approached, some Companions argued that they were not ordered to delay the prayer but were rather urged to move quickly. Therefore, even if the prayer time was running out, they would not pray on the way; they continued without stopping and prayed upon reaching Banu Qurayza.

Conversely, other Companions reasoned that the Prophet's ﷺ intent behind the command was to urge them to walk fast and reach quickly, not to make them miss the prayer. Thus, they performed the prayer on the way. When the Prophet ﷺ was informed of the entire incident, he did not rebuke either group; rather, he remained silent, thereby granting approval (Taqrir) to both actions.

If we reflect deeply on this Hadith! Here is a text whose apparent and literal meaning was that the prayer should not be offered before reaching Banu Qurayza. One group of Companions acted upon this, considering the literal and apparent meaning of the words as the primary objective. Even though the Prophet ﷺ had previously strictly forbidden intentionally delaying and missing prayers, this group acted upon the specific command of the Lawgiver for that day, delayed the prayer, and were considered correct. They understood that the Asr of that day was an exception to the explicit texts prohibiting the delaying of prayers.

The second meaning of the aforementioned text was metaphorical; meaning, the prohibition of praying on the way was intended to hasten their arrival at Banu Qurayza, not to miss the prayer (which was the literal meaning). The second group of Companions prioritized this metaphorical meaning based on a fundamental religious principle: the Quran declares prayer as a "prescribed duty at specified times" (Kitaban Mawquta) and forbids abandoning it. This group made this universal principle of the religion the basis, subordinated the specific text to it, prioritized the metaphorical meaning, and prayed on the way. They acted upon the Illah (cause/intent) of the text—that the objective of the Prophet ﷺ was to encourage speed, not to stop them from praying. This group was also considered correct.

The Difference Between "Ijtihad in the Intent of the Text" and "Qiyas"

This incident demonstrates that the methodology adopted by the honorable Jurists regarding acting upon texts—namely, acting on the apparent text, acting on the underlying cause (Illah) of the text, or leaving the apparent meaning—is established and sanctioned by the Sunnah and the practice of the Companions. The Prophet ﷺ approved this methodology, and it will remain in practice until the Day of Judgment. Both types of approaches exist among the Mujtahids, and this is the very foundation of differences in secondary issues (Furu'). This cannot be termed "Qiyas opposing the text"; rather, it is described as "Ijtihad in determining the intent of the text," the permissibility of which is beyond doubt. In fact, if anyone criticizes this, it is tantamount to criticizing the approval of the Prophet ﷺ himself.

A Second Evidence for Prioritizing One Meaning Through Ijtihad

On one occasion, the Prophet ﷺ ordered Hazrat Ali (RA) to execute a certain person accused of adultery. When Hazrat Ali (RA) went looking for him, he found the man bathing in a well. When Ali (RA) pulled him out by his hand, he discovered that the man was castrated (had no male organ). Therefore, he did not execute him and returned to the Prophet ﷺ to inform him. The Prophet ﷺ approved of Hazrat Ali's (RA) decision. (For details of this incident, see: Sahih Muslim, Chapter: Clearing the Prophet's ﷺ household from suspicion, with Takmila Fath al-Mulhim: 6/72, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon).

Reflect upon this incident! The Prophet ﷺ had given a command to execute, and the text was absolutely explicit and apparent. Despite this, when Hazrat Ali (RA) did not find the cause for execution in the person (as how could a castrated man commit adultery?), he did not act upon the explicit text. He paused because the underlying cause (Illah) of the command was absent, and he was deemed correct.

From here, a fundamental rule of Shariah was established: If the underlying cause of a text is removed, the text should not be acted upon. The Mujtahids extracted this very principle from this event and implemented it. This was not Qiyas against the text; rather, it was acting upon the dictate of the text itself, because acting upon a text is only obligatory as long as its cause exists. If the cause is removed, the apparent words of the text are not acted upon. No person of ordinary intellect could call this "abandoning the text" or "Qiyas against the text."

If one ponders deeply over this research, many confusions will be resolved, and particularly the accusation against the Hanafis of "opposing texts" will vanish into thin air.

In summary, just as Hazrat Ali (RA) left an explicit, obligatory text because he knew the cause of the execution from the Prophet ﷺ and personally witnessed the absence of that cause—and his action was approved by the Prophet ﷺ—similarly, a Mujtahid discovers the cause of a text (sometimes through the text's indication, its wording, its implication, or through a general principle of Shariah, details of which are found in Usul al-Fiqh books). Whatever the basis of the cause, when it becomes clear to the Mujtahid that the cause is absent, he does not act upon the apparent text. In such situations, superficial observers assume the Mujtahid acted on his own opinion and abandoned the text. This is a massive misunderstanding. The Mujtahid leaves one text based on the command of other universal texts, not due to his own flawed analogy. This is precisely acting upon the text, and calling it an "abandonment of the text" is incorrect.

When Two Texts Contradict Each Other

Sometimes, two texts appear to contradict each other. In such situations, five scenarios emerge:

1. Reconciliation (Jam'): The Mujtahid reconciles both texts. The rules and details for reconciliation are mentioned in relevant books.

2. Abrogation (Naskh): If it is known with certainty, or through strong circumstantial evidence, that one of the texts is abrogated, the Mujtahid acts upon the abrogating (Nasikh) text.

3. Strength of Transmission: If one text is stronger in terms of its chain of transmission and the other is weak, the Mujtahid acts upon the stronger text.

4. Jurisprudential Acumen of the Narrator: If the narrator of one text is a Jurist (Faqih) and the other is not, the Mujtahid prioritizes the narration of the Jurist.

5. Alignment with General Principles: If one text aligns with the universal principles of Shariah, the Mujtahid prioritizes it.

In all these scenarios, Qiyas is not practiced against the text; rather, either both texts or one of them is acted upon. Therefore, this cannot be termed "acting on opinion" or "Qiyas against the text." It is acting upon the texts themselves, derived entirely from the Companions (RA), from whom the Jurists extracted these principles.

Evidence for Reconciling Two Contradictory Texts

Someone asked Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (RA) about two apparently contradictory verses in the Quran. In one place, Allah says: "And they will approach one another, inquiring of each other" (Quran 37:27). In another place, He says: "Then there will be no kinship between them that Day, nor will they ask about one another" (Quran 23:101). The first verse proves they will question each other, while the second verse proves they will absolutely not.

Ibn Abbas (RA) replied that the absence of questioning relates to the first blowing of the Trumpet, while mutual questioning will occur after the second blowing. Thus, he reconciled both verses, keeping both texts applicable. This is one of the many methods of reconciliation.

Hazrat Abu Huraira (RA) narrated: "Wudu is required from that which fire has touched." Meaning, eating food cooked on fire breaks the ablution, and one must perform it again.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) countered this by saying: Then one should not perform Wudu with warm water! Meaning, if touching fire is the cause of breaking Wudu, then using water heated by fire should be invalid, and using it would break one's Wudu.

Notice how Ibn Abbas (RA) rejected the narration of Abu Huraira (RA). He did not do so because Abu Huraira was narrating a false Hadith (otherwise, he would have warned him against the severe punishment of lying). He rejected it because the apparent meaning Abu Huraira (RA) understood was not the actual intent of the Prophet ﷺ. Here, the word "Wudu" refers to its literal linguistic meaning (cleaning/washing the hands and mouth), not the terminological Islamic ablution. Consequently, the narrations of the Jurist Companions, which prove that Wudu does not break from cooked food, became the standard. Many such precedents can be found.

Hazrat Umar (RA) rejected the narration of Hazrat Fatima bint Qais (RA). She narrated that a woman given three divorces is not entitled to maintenance or residence. Hazrat Umar (RA) stated that we cannot abandon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ based on the statement of one woman, as there is no certainty whether she remembered correctly or forgot. Later, Hazrat Aisha (RA) explained the specific reason why Fatima bint Qais was not given residence, a nuance that Fatima herself had not realized.

Similarly, when Hazrat Aisha (RA) was informed that Hazrat Umar and Abdullah bin Umar (RA) narrated that the deceased is punished due to the weeping of their family, she recited the Quranic verse: "And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another" (Quran 35:18), and rejected their statement. This verse serves as a universal principle.

One must ponder! Hazrat Aisha (RA) did not accept the statements of such senior Companions based on a fundamental Shariah principle. Instead, using her deep jurisprudential insight (Tafaqquh), she reconciled them by offering an interpretation of what they heard, explaining the concept of the deceased's "punishment" in a different light (details of which are available in texts).

These are all standard practices of the Companions (RA), which the Mujtahids systematized within the religion. This is precisely what is called Tafaqquh fi al-Din (Deep understanding of the religion). The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whomever Allah wishes good for, He grants him deep understanding (Tafaqquh) of the religion." This narration proves that the excellence of the Mujtahid Jurists stems from their deep reflection and contemplation.

Conclusion

The deductions and Ijtihad of the honorable Jurists are derived directly from the Quran and Sunnah and are an integral part of Islamic Shariah. To label the profound reflection upon ambiguous or contradictory texts—resulting in their reconciliation or the prioritization of one aspect—as "Qiyas opposing the text," or to present the Ijtihad of the Jurist-Scholars as clashing with the texts, and to accuse the Mujtahids of the Ummah of abandoning texts, is sheer deviation and misguidance. These Ijtihadat are, in fact, definitive proofs of the Jurists' profound comprehension of the texts (Tafaqquh fi al-Nusoos) and the perfection of their knowledge.

Mufti Muhammad Musab Qasmi

Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband

Monthly Darul Uloom, Issue: 2-3, Vol: 104, Jumada al-Awwal 1441 AH (Feb-Mar 2020 CE)