Ijtihad: Its Meaning, Sources, Beginnings and the Practice of Ra'y

The Qur'an On Muhkamat and Mutashabihat

The first verse of the Surat Hud states:

"A Book whose verses are set muhkam .... "

This can be taken to mean that all the Qur'anic verses are muh­kamat. However, the twenty-third verse of the Surat al-Zumar states:

God has sent down the fairest discourse as a Book, consimilar.(mutashabihan) in its opt-repeated.

This can be interpreted to mean that the entire verses of the Qur'an represent mutashabihat. The seventh verse of the Surat Al `Imran states: It is He Who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are muhkam verses that are the umm al-Kitab, and others are mutashabih. (3: 7) From this verse, it can be inferred that the Qur'anic verses are of two kinds; some are "muhkamat" and some others "mutashabihat. "

One's first unstudied impression concerning the above verses is that they may seem contradictory. However, on a close examination it will become clear that there is no such contradiction whatsoever. For the first verse, which implies that all the Qur'anic verses are muhkamat, signifies that the Divine verses are firm and muhkam in regard to their words and phrases, their arrangement, as well as their meaning and simi­lar other aspects. They do not contain any kind of weakness or infir­mity whatsoever.

The meaning of the second verse quoted above is that all the verses of the Qur'an are similar (mutashabih) in their harmony, consistency, sublimity, clarity, eloquent delivery and miraculous nature. There is neither any disharmony nor any inconsistency in them.

The third verse implies that some of the Qur'anic verses are self-­contained, in that their sense does not depend for their full compre­hension on that of the other verses, and these are clear and muhkam. The other verses which are not such are labelled mutashabihat. This explanation ought to suffice for dispelling any impression of a contradiction.

A-Shayhh al-Tusi's Remark:

The great Islamic scholar al-Shaykh al-Tusi says something illumi­nating in this regard. He states:

Among these verses, there is no inconsistency or contradiction. The first verse denotes that the Qur'an is not vulnerable to any inconsistency or contradiction in its verses. Accordingly, the verses are considered muhkamat. The second verse conveys the similarity of some verses with some of others. How­ ever, the third verse conveys that the meaning of some verses is comprehensi­ble, and that of some other verses is not so. The meaning of these three verses is nothing except that which has been mentioned. Hence there remains no basis for sensing a contradiction.

Examples of Muhkamat and Mutashabihat:

Here it would be proper to give some examples of muhkamat and mutashabihat in order to illustrate their character. Here are some ex­amples of the muhkamat:

God is the creator of every thing..., (39: 62) Verily, God is powerful over everything. (2:20) He has not begotten, nor He has been begotten. (112:3) ... Nothing is like Him .... (42:11)

The meaning of the above verses is quite distinct and clear. They can be understood without any reflection. The following is an example of a mutashabih verse:

Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three quru' .... (2:228)

In the above example, the word quru' has two different meanings in Arabic. One meaning is menstruation (haya) and the other is purity from menses (tuhr). Because of this a kind of doubt has come about for jurisprudents "in understanding it. Some of them interpret it as `purity', while others take it to mean `menstruation.' In the following verse:

...Or he makes remission in whose hand is the knot of marriage .... (2:237)

it is not clear whether the one who makes remission is the guardian or the husband, for it can mean either of them. In another example:

O believers, when you stand up to pray, wash your faces, and your hands up to (ila) the elbows .... (5:6)

it is not clear whether the word ?? is used in the sense of inclusion or in the sense of `extreme limit' and whether the extremity is to be included, from the viewpoint of the rule of ablution, in the part of the hand to be washed or not. Furthermore, in the verse:

...And if you can find no water, then have recourse to wholesome dust..., (4:43)

the meaning and significance of the word said is not clear. It can be understood to mean either the `ground surface' or `soil.' Also, in the case of the verse:

...And wipe your faces and your `hands'..., (4:43)

it is unclear as to whether or not the word aydi (hands) indicates only the back of the palm, or includes the wrist and the forearm, or includes the forearm and the elbow, or the forearm together with the elbow and the upper arm.

In another verse: (or if you have touched women [ 4:43 ]) the meaning and significance of the word lams (touch) is unclear as well. Does it mean touching by the hand or sexual inter­course?

There are many other examples, including some cited below:

...Then He sat upon the Throne ....(7:54) ...Yet the Face of thy Lord abides ....(55:27) ...And I breathed in him (Adam) of My Spirit ... (15:29) ...God's hand is above their hands ...(48:10) ...And We shall set up the just balances for the Resurrection Day...(21:47) And thy Lord comes, and the angels rank on rank. (89:22) ...And they devised, and God devised .... (3:54)

There is some ambiguity or the other in all the above verses. Their proper understanding requires a comprehensive and expert knowledge of the Islamic sources and Qur'anic concepts, necessitating in particular reference to the Ahl al-Dhikr, the Household of Revelation, about whom the Glorious Qur'an says ... Question the People of the Remembrance, if you do not know. (21:7)

The Hidden Meanings of Qur'anic Verses

Just as the Qur'an contains mutashabihat and mujmalat, it also contains hidden meanings. That is, besides the literal meanings of the words and their apparent, ordinary sense, other meanings and concepts underlie the same that are beyond the grasp of many. Just as the mutashabihat and mujmalat cannot be understood without reference to the Ma'sumun (A), the grasp of what lies beyond the apparent meaning of Qur'anic words, too, cannot be attained without reference to the Household of the Revelation.

Marhum `Allamah Majlisi, in his most precious book Bihar al­'anwar (vol.92, p.78)has reported a hadith:

Verily, the Qur'an came down on seven letters. Every one of its verses has an exoteric and esoteric aspect, and every one of its letters has a hadd (lit. limit) and matla' (lit. beginning). In Hilyat al- awliya', Abu Nu'aym has quoted the above hadith in the following manner:

Verily, the Qur'an has come down on seven letters. Every one of its letters has an exoteric and esoteric aspect, and every verse is with 'Ali (A).

Al-'Imam al-Sajjid (A) says:

...The Book of God is constituted of four things: `ibarah (diction, text), isharah (indication), lata'if (subtleties) and haqa'iq (realities). The `ibarah isfor the common people, isharah is for the elect, lata'if are for the awliya' and haqa'iq for the prophets. (Bihar al-'anwar, vo1.92, p.20)

Al-'Imam al-Baqir (A) says:

The Qur'an has a batn (inward or esoteric aspect) and that batn (in turn) has a batn. And it has 'a zahr (outward or exoteric aspect) and the zahr has a zahr ... and there is nothing farther from the intellect of men than tafsir of the Qur'an. The beginning of an ayah may concern something and its end some other thing, and it is continuous speech that is susceptible to different interpretations. (Bihar, vo1.92, p.95)

Zayd al-Shahham reports: Qatadah ibn Da'amah came to Abu Ja'far (A). The Imam (A) asked him, "Are you the faqih of the people of Basrah?" "That is what they say," replied Qatadah. Abu Ja'far (A) said, "I heard that you ex­pound the Qur'an" ....(the tradition goes on until where the Imam says to Qatadah). "Woe to you, O Qatadah! Only those to whom the Qur'an has been addressed understand it." (Furu` al-Kafi, vol.8, p.312)

Anyhow, it is definite that one cannot understand a part of Qur'anic meanings and Islamic teachings without reference to the Awsiya' of the Prophet (S). No doubt, those who feel it to be unneces­sary are bound to fall into error in regard to the mutashabihat of the Qur'an, to the extent that instead of referring the mutashabihat to the muhkamat they may construe the muhkamat in their minds as mutasha­bihat. This has led to deviations in the doctrinal sphere, leading to belief in anthropomorphism (tashbih), determinism (jabr), and absence of the necessity of Divine Justice, not to speak of the adverse effects on deduction of the laws of the Shari'ah and its practical rules and the resolution of social problems.

The Qur'an and Khabar al-Wahid:

One of the controversial issues relating to inference of ahkam from the Qur'an is that of the legitimacy of limiting the jurisdiction (takhsis) of the Qur'an's general statements (`amm) by khabar al-wahid (a non ­mutawdtir tradition). Difference of opinion exists in this regard among Islamic scholars. Some consider such a takhsis permissible and others regard it as impermissible. Of those who favour it, some have put for­ward the argument that if the hujjiyyah (authority) of khabar al-wahid can be substantiated by definite proofs, its use for the takhsis of the Qur'an's general statements is permissible. It must be added that a majority of Shiite `ulama' believe in the permissibility of such takhsis. Some, like `Isa ibn Aban, believe that if a certain general statement of the Book has been limited by a valid proof (dalil qati) other than a khabar al-wahid, the tatter's use for the same purpose becomes permissible. Some others, like al-Karkhi, have permitted it in the particular case where the Book's `amm has been restricted by a separate proof (dalil munfasil).

Finally, some, like Qadi Abu Bakr, have refrained from expressing any opinion at all in this connection.

However, those who believe in the impermissibility of such takhsis (even when the khabar al-wahid is sahih and reliable), who belong to Ahl al-Sunnah, have advanced arguments in support of their view. These arguments are briefly stated and evaluated below.

Arguments Against the Permissibility of the Takhsis

1. Some have said that the Qur'an enjoys definite authenticity, i.e. it is qat’i al-sudur, whereas the authenticity of khabar al-wahid is not free from doubt because of probability of error on the narrator's part. That is, it is zanni al-sudur. And it is not reasonable, therefore, that a mukallaf person should forego something of definite authenticity for something whose authenticity is only probable. In answer we might say that the Qur'an is doubtlessly of certain authenticity; yet it is uncertain (zanni) from the viewpoint of its indi­cating the real intent of the Lawgiver, because one cannot be certain of having completely understood the Lawgiver's intent from his under­standing of the literal meaning of a verse or its general import and be certain that the general import is not subject to any qualification or restriction.

Furthermore, we should take into consideration the occurrence in the Qur'an of: (1) muhkam and mutashabih, (2) mutlaq and muqayyad, (3) nasikh and mansukh, and (4) mujmal and mubayyin, etc. On the other hand, although khabar al-wahid is zanni al-sudur, those who up­hold the hujjiyyah of khabar al-wahid do not consider every such tradi­tion as authentic and reliable. They have laid down certain require­ments which a khabar al-wahid should fulfil in order to be considered reliable.

Accordingly, in the event a khabar al-wahid that has already been proved to be reliable and valid conflicts with a general rule (`amm) deducible from the Book's literal meanings, there are two alternatives in front of us:

(i) Setting aside and ignoring the khabar al-wahid, despite its fulfil­ling the criteria of validity, and acting in accordance with the general rule understandable from the Qur'an's literal meanings. (ii) Adopting the valid khabar al-wahid as well as acting upon the verse by limiting the Book's general rule by applying the reliable khabar al-wahid. In this case we have neither gone against the khabar al-wahid nor set aside the Qur'anic verse.

The scholars have selected the second alternative because they believe that the khabar al-wahid is indicatory of the absence of a general intent. In other words, since on the one hand the Qur'an is zanni al-dalalah from the viewpoint of one's subjective understanding and inference, and on the other hand the khabar al-wahid is ,zanni al-sudur, it is inevi­table that we should give precedence to one of these two. In the event the khabar al-wahid satisfies the criteria of validity, the same fact would justify giving priority to it over the presumed general import of the Qur'anic verse, and this will not give rise to any difficulty. How­ever, when we act in a contrary fashion and give precedence to the Book's `amm over the khabar al-wahid, the question will arise as to on what basis precedence is being given to something which is zanni al­dalalah over something which is zanni al-sanad but of proved reliabil­ity. This is a question to which a satisfactory answer cannot be given.

2. Some have pointed out that there are traditions relating to the resolution of conflict between traditions (`ilaj al-ta`arud bayn al- akhbar). According to these traditions if the content of one of two contradictory narrations happens to agree with the Qur'an, then that narration should be accepted and the other one should be discarded.

The aforementioned traditions doubtlessly apply to any conflict between a khabar al-wahid and the Book's general statement as well. Those traditions make it all the more clear and definite that the khabar should be discarded and the Qur'an's general statement should be acted upon, for a tradition can never be construed as strong evidence to the extent of opposing the Book. In reply we may say that without denying the above-mentioned traditions and their applicability in the appropriate context, it is neces­sary first to identify the area of their applicability. It is to be seen whether or not they are relevant to the topic of our discussion.

In fact, the above traditions are not relevant to the subject of our present discussion. This is because contradiction between the Book and a hadith can possibly exist only when the two are mutually exclusive, blocking any possibility of a reconciliation, so that acting upon or believing in both would constitute a contradiction. In other words, in some cases there may be a conflict between a tradition and the essential import of the Qur'anic text. In other in­ stances there may be an incompatibility between a tradition and the general import of the Qur'anic text. In the latter case, a reconciliation is possible, and the tradition can be regarded as one that elucidates the Qur'anic text. This will not constitute a case of contradiction between the tradition and the Qur'anic verse.

3. Some have argued that those who favour the permissibility of the takhsis of a Qur'anic `amm through a khabar al-wahid are permitting a special kind of naskh (abrogation), for naskh is also a kind of takhsis. If the possibility of naskh on the basis of khabar al-wahid is not acceptable, then the protagonists of takhsis ought to disallow the takhsis of the Qur'an by khabar al-wahid.

In reply, we may point out that, firstly, naskh means the restric­tion of the jurisdiction of a law in regard to time, whereas takhsis is its limitation in regard to individual cases.

Secondly, the impermissibility of naskh through khabar al-wahid is based on ijma ` (consensus). There is no such consensus regarding the impermissibility of takhs'is through khabar al-wahid. Thirdly, naskh is not something that can be proven or substantiated by a khabar al-wahid, for the Qur'anic verses expound the principles and foundations of the Divine ahkam and, as such, they ought to enjoy especial stability and security. From this point of view, should any naskh occur therein, the importance of the matter requires that the naskh be widely reflected and reported by several narrators through mutawatir traditions.