Islaamic Shariah rules of elucidation and interpretation!

 

By: Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد بن وحيد

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمدلله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء وسيدالمرسلين نبينا محمد صل ا لله عليه وعلى آله واصحابه وازواجه اجمعين - امابعد

All the praises and thanks be to Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.

 

Without knowing the Islaamic Shariah rules of elucidation and interpretation, one cannot understand and/or comprehend the true meanings of Glorious Qur'aan and Ahadeeth. If you are among those Muslims who have no proper Islaamic education and depends on English translation (mainly) and/or translation in any other language, it is obvious that you may experience confusion or lack of clear understanding. Any translation of the Glorious Qur’aan and/or Ahadeeth is the word of men according to his/her understanding. Let me briefly state these rules hoping that it will help to eradicate any confusion in readers’ minds.

 

In Islaamic Shariah we have textual meaning, suggestive meaning, required meaning, the obverse meaning and the rules dealing with the clash of meanings. This continues on to the kinds of lucid words and texts i.e. (1) Obvious (2) Contextual (3) Construed and (4) invariable and much more.

 

Clash of Texts

 

If obvious and contextual texts come into clash, contextual text would be preferable; since it conveys the sense intended. In the event of a conflict between contextual and construed texts, the latter would be preferred; for it’s meaning is evident and admits no interpretation. However, if invariable texts come into clash with construed one, the former would claim preference inasmuch as the sense of the invariable one is more emphatic than that of the construed text.

 

In Shariah Obscure texts is further subdivided into four classes i.e. (1) Equivocal (2) Difficult (3) Concise and (4) The Unknown. Let me explain very briefly to educate the readers.

 

  1. In juristic terminology an equivocal word is one, which in spite of conveying an obvious meaning, involves complication and ambiguity, and therefore calls for careful consideration in its application.
  2. A difficult word is one which by its mood and grammatical form does not signify what is actually meant by it, but its meaning can be determined with the help of something extraneous.
  3. A concise word is one whose grammatical form does not indicate the actual meaning; nor is there any literal or circumstantial object of reference that may help in apprehending such meaning. Concise words include all those terms, which are given specific technical meaning by detaching them from their lexical meaning.
  4. A mystic word is that whose grammatical form does not signify what is actually meant by it; nor are there any extraneous probabilities indicative of its meaning and whose significance the law-giver has confined to His/his own knowledge by leaving it unexplained.

 

Words fall under three categories according to the meanings they are designed to convey: (1) Common (2) General (3) Special

 

  1. A common word is that which is designed to convey two meanings in different contexts and serves as a substitutes for the sense it signifies, that is to say, it sometimes conveys one meaning and sometimes the others; for instance the word “Qura” applies to both the monthly periods of a woman (the period of menstruation and period of cleanliness {which are different to each other}) Another example is the word “Aedihuma” in the Qur’aanic injunction relating to the imputation of the thief’s hands may mean either the right hand or left hand of a person found guilty of committing the offence of theft. Again, hand means part of human body stretching from fingers’ tips up to the wrist as well as up to the shoulders.
  2. A common word is sometimes shared by lexical and technical Shariah senses. If it is common in lexical meaning and specific connotation of the Shariah, it must be taken in its specific connotation. For example, the dictionary meaning of the word talaq” {divorce} is to do away with bondage, whereas in the Shariah it connotes doing away with bondage of wedlock. Thus, in the Divine decree the above word would be taken to mean breaking matrimonial tie.
  3. If a common word is shared by more than two meanings, it must on the basis of cogent grounds, be taken only in one sense to the exclusion of others. The jurist is supposed to determine that one particular sense by taking into consideration all the probabilities and indications. An example of a common word shared by two dictionary meanings is provided by the letter in this divine injunction: {“ And do not eat of that on which Allaah’s name has not been mentioned and that is most surely a transgression” (6:122)}. In this Ayaah is a common word. It conveys the dictionary meanings of a conjunction as well as of present tense. If one takes it in the sense of present tense, it would mean prohibition of that on which Allaah’s name has been mentioned, as mentioning the name of what is other than Allaah amounts iniquity. If treated as a conjunction it would mean absolutely unlawful, whether the name of what is other than Allaah is mentioned or not. Whatever the number of senses conveyed by a common word, the lawmaker intends only one out of those senses. If it is designed to convey one meaning, the other meaning/s is excluded.

 

Sunday, April 11, 2004

 

Home Page