(Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir, to the Questions of his Facebook Page Followers)
Answer to Question
To: Abu Loay
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
Regarding the concept—mafhum al-mukhalafah (inverse implication)—specifically the mafhum of number used in deducing Shari'ah rulings, its application is established under certain conditions: the condition of the number being a restriction, and the negation of the ruling for what is before or after the number, such that the mental association indicates it and it readily comes to mind. An example was given: the noble Prophetic Hadith: "If you are three, appoint one of you, or one from among you." The explanation for applying mafhum al-mukhalafah regarding the number focused on "one." Meaning: more than one is not permitted. In the noble Prophetic text, the number "three" is mentioned; is it also acted upon? Or is it like the subsequent example where it is not acted upon and has no inverse implication, nor does the mind jump to less or more than it: "Give me the two piasters that I have against you?" (meaning the amount that is a debt upon you). This is while considering two as a group (jama’ah)...
May Allah reward you on our behalf and on behalf of the Muslims with the best of rewards.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,
Your question concerns what was mentioned in the book The Islamic Personality (Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah), Volume 3, when discussing mafhum al-mukhalafah under the topic of "The Implication of Number" (Mafhum al-Adad). It states the following:
"...However, it should be known here that the inverse implication (mafhum al-mukhalafah) of a number is only acted upon in one case: when the ruling is restricted to a specific number, and the context of the speech indicates the establishment of that ruling for that number and its negation for anything else, or indicates its negation for that number and its establishment for anything else, as is the case with the essence of the speech (fakhwa al-khitab)... So, every ruling restricted to a specific number whose indication—whether establishing the ruling for that number and negating it for others, or negating it for that number and establishing it for others—is taken from the context of the speech such that the mind moves to it upon hearing the wording, then the mafhum of number in this case is acted upon. This is like his ﷺ saying:
إِذَا كَانَ ثَلَاثَةٌ فِي سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ
'If there are three on a journey, they should appoint one of them as their leader.' (Narrated by Abu Dawood)
The ruling here, which is appointing a leader (ta'mir), has been restricted to a number, which is 'one.' The context of the speech indicates that what is intended is the appointment of one leader, not two. Thus, its mafhum is that it is not permissible to have more than one leader. The context of the speech indicated that the ruling is restricted to this number, so the inverse implication was acted upon... However, if the context of the speech does not indicate this—for example, if someone says to a person who owes him a debt: 'Give me the two piasters that I have against you'—then it does not have an inverse implication. This is because by 'two piasters,' he did not intend to restrict the ruling to the number, but rather it is an absolute mention of a number; the debt he has might be hundreds of dinars. This means that the inverse implication of a number is only acted upon if it fulfills two conditions: first, restricting the ruling to the number, and second, that the context of the speech indicates the negation of the ruling for anything other than that number." End quote.
You understand that the word "one of them" (ahadahum) in the aforementioned Hadith is acted upon according to the mafhum of number (inverse implication), and you are asking about the word "three" in the same Hadith—is it acted upon according to the mafhum of number or not?
The answer to that is that the word "three" in the Hadith:
إِذَا كَانَ ثَلَاثَةٌ فِي سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ
"If there are three on a journey, they should appoint one of them as their leader."
is acted upon according to the mafhum of number, just as the word "one of them" is acted upon. This is because the word "three" is a restriction (qayd) exactly like the word "one of them." Therefore, if the travelers are fewer than three—meaning they are two—it is not mandatory for them to appoint one of them as a leader over the other, because the inverse implication is applied; when the travelers are fewer than three, the mandate of appointing a leader is not required...
It cannot be said here: "Then it is not mandatory to appoint one of them if they are more than three," by applying the inverse implication of the number. This is not said because more than three falls under congruent implication (mafhum al-muwafaqah) by way of a fortiori (min bab al-awla), i.e., drawing attention to the higher by mentioning the lower. If three people must appoint a leader among them, then it is even more of a priority that more than three must appoint a leader among them... It is known that mafhum al-muwafaqah is the meaning necessitated by the implication of the wording. It is called the essence of the speech (fakhwa al-khitab), the pointer of the speech (tanbih al-khitab), and what is intended is the meaning of the speech. It is understood from the sentence structure and is part of the significative implication (dalalah al-iltizamiyah) where the mind moves to it upon hearing the wording. If this mental necessity exists, then it is acted upon and nothing else. Consequently, the application of the ruling of appointing a leader for more than three is through mafhum al-muwafaqah, and in this case, mafhum al-mukhalafah is not applied.
Thus, the ruling of appointing a leader over three applies to those who are more than three, and this is well-known among the scholars of Usul and Fiqh... It is mentioned in Nayl al-Awtar when explaining the Hadiths of leadership:
"And in them is evidence that it is prescribed for every group reaching three or more to appoint one of them as leader, because in that is safety from disagreement that leads to destruction. Without appointing a leader, everyone would be independent in their opinion and do what conforms to their desires, thus they would perish. With the appointment of a leader, disagreement decreases and words are united. If this is prescribed for three people in a wilderness or traveling, then its prescription for a larger number living in villages and cities—who need to prevent mutual injustice and resolve disputes—is even more fitting and prioritized."
I hope the matter is clear.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
07 Shawwal 1437 AH Corresponding to 12/07/2016 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Google Plus page:
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Twitter page:
Link to the answer from the Ameer's website