Series of answers by the eminent scholar Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Amir of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the questions of the visitors to his Facebook page "Fiqhi."
To Zahid Talib Na’eem
Question:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.
Subject: Inquiries regarding the Foundations of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh)
First: It was mentioned in the book The Islamic Personality (Al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah), Volume 3, page 182: (Dilalat al-Iqtida [Indication by Requirement] is that in which the necessity is derived from the meanings of the words, such that it is a condition for the meaning indicated by Mutabaqah [Correspondence].)
In the same book, page 44, it states: (The result is that the thing without which an obligation cannot be completed is itself obligatory, whether by the same address of the obligation or by another address, regardless of whether this thing is a cause (Sabab)—which is what necessitates existence from its presence and non-existence from its absence—or a condition (Shart)—which is what necessitates non-existence from its absence but does not necessitate existence or non-existence from its presence. This is whether the cause is Sharia-based, such as the As-Siyagh [formula] in relation to the obligatory manumission...)
Two issues are confusing to me:
- Why was the "Condition" mentioned without the "Cause," even though the As-Siyagh is a cause in relation to obligatory manumission, and it appears to me that the As-Siyagh is obligatory by Dilalat al-Iqtida?
- Why was Mutabaqah [Correspondence] mentioned without Tadamman [Inclusion]?
Second: It was mentioned in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3, page 239: (That which is general for everything, whether among those with intellect or otherwise, is like أي; you say: أي رجل جاء [Which man came] and أي ثوب لبستُه [Which garment I wore]. Similarly, كل, جميع, الذين, اللاتي, and the like.)
However, I have not found an example that illustrates the use of الذين for non-rational beings.
Third: It was mentioned in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3, page 240: (As for the generality established through deduction (Istinbat), its standard is the ordering of the ruling upon a description using the Fa of succession and causality (Faa’ al-Ta’qib wa al-Tassbib), such as His saying (ta'ala): (والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما), and like "Wine was forbidden due to intoxication," and so on.)
- In the same book, page 238, it states: (Or it is established to us through deduction from the transmitted texts (Al-Naql), such as knowing that the defined plural (Al-Jam’ al-Mu’arraf) admits exception, from what was transmitted to us that the exception is the exclusion of what the word encompasses. For even if this is a deduction, it is knowledge through the path of transmission, as it was transmitted to us that the exception is the exclusion of what the word encompasses, so we understood from it that the defined plural is for generality.)
The standard of the issue is confusing to me, where the book dealt with the general rules of deduction on page 238 and standardized it by the description upon which a ruling is arranged on page 240.
Why was "like 'Wine was forbidden due to intoxication'" mentioned, even though the standard is the ordering of the ruling upon the description with the Fa of succession and arrangement?
It was mentioned in the same book, page 191: (One of them: That the ordering of the ruling upon a description suggests causality (‘Illiyyah), i.e., the description is the cause (‘Illah) for that ruling; thus, grazing (As-Sawm), for example, would be the cause for the obligation [of Zakat], and in that case, the ruling vanishes with the absence of that attribute, because the effect disappears with the disappearance of its cause.)
It was mentioned in the book Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir (Mafaheem Hizb ut-Tahrir), page 35: (The Sharia rulings related to worships, morals, food, and clothing are not explained by causes (la tu’allal). The Prophet (saw) said: "Wine was forbidden for its own sake." As for Sharia rulings related to transactions and punishments, they are explained by causes, because the Sharia ruling regarding them is built upon a cause (‘Illah) which was the reason for the existence of the ruling.)
Is intoxication the cause for the prohibition of wine? If so, how do we reconcile this with what was mentioned in the book Concepts?
Forgive me for the length, and may Allah bless you and guide your steps.
Answer:
Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.
Regarding the first question: about Dilalat al-Iqtida and the principle "That without which an obligation cannot be completed is itself obligatory"... we have already answered you on 30/3/2019, and I hope you have received it well, Allah willing.
Regarding the other questions:
I have reviewed the research on generality (Al-‘Umum) and the methods of establishing it. Here is the answer to the inquiries you mentioned in your question:
1- Regarding الذين and اللاتي: Yes, they signify generality for rational beings (Al-‘Uqala) and not for both rational and non-rational, except in the case of treating the non-rational as rational. It is mentioned in the Explanation of Alfiyyah ibn Malik by Al-Hazimi regarding الذين: (The original rule is that it is used for the rational. Sometimes the non-rational is treated as rational, and thus الذين is used for it. Allah (ta'ala) said:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ "Indeed, those you [polytheists] call upon besides Allah are servants like yourselves." (Surah Al-A'raf [7]: 194)
He treated the idols, when they worshipped them, as having intellect; therefore, He returned the pronoun to them as a pronoun for rational beings in His subsequent saying:
أَلَهُمْ أَرْجُلٌ يَمْشُونَ بِهَا "Do they have feet by which they walk?" (Surah Al-A'raf [7]: 195)
End quote. Aside from this case, الذين and اللاتي are used for generality regarding rational beings.
Similarly, some general terms for rational or non-rational beings may be used for both in certain cases contrary to the original rule, but this does not remove them from their original usage. الذين remains for the generality of rational beings and its description does not change due to the case of treating the non-rational as rational.
For example, the word ما is for the non-rational, as we mentioned in the research on generality. However, it can encompass rational beings as well by way of Taghlib (dominance), such as when the majority of those addressed are non-rational... When the verse was revealed:
إِنَّكُمْ وَمَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ حَصَبُ جَهَنَّمَ "Indeed, you and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell." (Surah Al-Anbiya [21]: 98)
Ibn al-Ziba’ra said: "I will debate Muhammad." He said: "O Muhammad, is it not in what Allah revealed to you:
إِنَّكُمْ وَمَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ حَصَبُ جَهَنَّمَ أَنْتُمْ لَهَا وَارِدُونَ 'Indeed, you and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell; you are going to it'?"
The Prophet said: "Yes." He said: "The Christians worship Jesus, the Jews worship Ezra, and Banu Tamim worship the angels. Are these in the Fire?" He argued using the generality of ما, and the Prophet did not deny that to him. Rather, the following verse was revealed, not to deny his statement but to specify it:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ سَبَقَتْ لَهُمْ مِنَّا الْحُسْنَى أُولَئِكَ عَنْهَا مُبْعَدُونَ "Indeed, those for whom the best [reward] has preceded from Us - they are far removed from it." (Surah Al-Anbiya [21]: 101)
However, this special case does not change the original usage of the word ما; it remains for non-rational beings.
Thus, the original usage of الذين and اللاتي remains for generality regarding rational beings, and the case of treating the non-rational as rational does not affect that.
However, that which is used for both rational and non-rational is الذي and التي... because these singular terms have a generality that covers both rational and non-rational, while the plural forms الذين and اللاتي have a narrower generality restricted to rational beings. Therefore, these plurals are referred to as "unreal plurals."
2- As for your question about Al (أل), its indication of generality does not come through deduction from transmission (Istinbat min al-Naql) as mentioned in the first paragraph of "Methods of Establishing the Generality of a Term." The text states: (The generality of a term is either established to us through transmission (Al-Naql), in that the Arabs placed this term for generality or used it for generality, or it is established through deduction from transmission, such as knowing that the defined plural admits exception...) End quote.
This is not precise. Rather, Al (أل) when it is not for a specific reference (Lighayr al-‘Ahd) signifies generality by linguistic placement (Wadh’ al-Lughah), as mentioned in the third paragraph of the methods of establishing generality in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3: (Generality established through transmission is either derived from linguistic placement or from the usage of the people of the language. As for generality derived from linguistic placement, it has two states: one is being general in itself... and the second is that its generality is derived from linguistic placement but with a contextual clue (Qarinah)... As for what is derived with a clue, the clue may be in affirmation or negation. The clue in affirmation is Al (أل) and the possessive construction (Idhafah) which enter upon the plural like Al-‘Abid [The slaves] and ‘Abidi [My slaves], and upon the generic noun (Ism al-Jins) like:
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَى "And do not approach adultery." (Surah Al-Isra [17]: 32)
فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ "So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order." (Surah An-Nur [24]: 63)
The entry of Al and Idhafah upon the generic noun generalizes the individuals, and upon the plural, it generalizes the groups; because Al generalizes the members of what it enters upon, and it has entered upon a plural, and likewise for Idhafah...) It is clear from this that Al signifies generality linguistically and not through deduction.
It is also mentioned in Al-Bahr al-Muheet:
[...The second: That which signifies generality linguistically not by placement (Al-Wadh’), but through a clue. It is either in the aspect of affirmation, like the Lam of definition which is not for specific reference... or in the aspect of negation, which is the indefinite noun in the context of negation...] It is clear from this that Al signifies generality linguistically through a clue, and not through deduction.
3- Regarding your third question about generality established through deduction, where the book states: [As for the generality established through deduction, its standard is the ordering of the ruling upon a description using the Fa of succession and causality, such as His saying (ta'ala):
وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا "As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands." (Surah Al-Ma'idah [5]: 38)
And like "Wine was forbidden due to intoxication," and so on.] End quote.
This definition of generality established through deduction (its standard being the ordering of the ruling upon a description) is correct. The mentioned standard is a type of cause (‘Illah); we restricted ourselves to one type of cause, which is "ordering the ruling upon the description with the Fa of succession and causality." However, some scholars of Usul take all types of ‘Illah, not just the Fa of succession and causality, and they exemplify this generality with every cause whether it includes the Fa or not. As for us, we sufficed with this type of cause as mentioned, but the example given ("Wine was forbidden due to intoxication") is incorrect for two reasons:
First: It is not an example of this specific type of cause (ordering the ruling upon the description with the Fa of succession and causality).
Second: It mentions intoxication as the cause for the prohibition of wine, which is not adopted by us. We adopt the position that wine is not explained by a cause (la yu’allal); rather, wine was forbidden for its own sake.
In conclusion, we will correct these three positions, Allah willing.
Finally, I thank you for your precise understanding, and I appreciate your diligence and effort. I ask Allah to increase you in knowledge and understanding...
Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
04 Muharram al-Haram 1442 AH 23/08/2020 CE
Link to the answer from the Amir’s Facebook page: Facebook
Link to the answer from the Amir’s website: Web