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 "Fiqhi"
To Abdallah Fakir
Question:
Our honorable Sheikh, may Allah protect you and grant victory at your hands. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
I have a question regarding the book, The Islamic Personality (Al-Shakhsiya al-Islamiyya), Volume 3, under the topic "Conflict of What Impairs Understanding":
When it is said that textual evidences (Adillah Sam'iyyah) do not provide certainty (Yaqin) except after ten conditions... what is meant by "changing syntax (I'rab), morphology (Tasrif), and rational contradiction (al-Mu'arid al-'Aqli)"?
I hope you can provide me with examples of "rational contradiction."
May Allah reward you with goodness. Your brother, Abu Muhammad / Austria.
Answer:
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
First: To clarify the reality of what you are asking about, I will quote what was stated in the book, The Islamic Personality, Volume 3, in this regard, under the chapter "Conflict of What Impairs Understanding":
[The impairment that occurs in understanding the intent of the speaker arises from five possibilities: homonymy (Ishtirak), transference (Naql), metaphor (Majaz), ellipsis/suppression (Idmar), and specification (Takhsis). This is because if the possibilities of homonymy and transference are negated, the word is established for a single meaning. If the possibilities of metaphor and ellipsis—meaning estimation—are negated, the intended meaning of the word is what it was originally placed for. If the possibility of specification is negated, the intended meaning of the word is the entirety of what it was placed for. At that point, no impairment in understanding remains, and the intended meaning of the textual evidences is understood. This pertains to the preponderance of belief (Ghalabat al-Dhann), as it is sufficient for deducing a Sharia ruling; meaning that if these five possibilities are negated, nothing remains to impair the Dhann, and the Sharia ruling is understood.
As for the absence of impairment in certainty (Yaqin)—which is indispensable for creeds (Aqa'id)—the negation of these five possibilities alone is not sufficient. That is, relying on textual evidence for Aqeedah to provide certainty requires more than just negating these possibilities. Rather, other things must accompany them. Indeed, textual evidences do not provide certainty except after ten conditions: these five, and the negation of abrogation (Naskh), precedence and delay (Taqdim wa Ta'khir), changing syntax (I'rab), morphology (Tasrif), and rational contradiction (Mu'arid 'Aqli). If these ten are negated, nothing remains to impair certainty. The textual evidence then provides certainty and can be used as evidence for Aqeedah, and by extension, for a Sharia ruling. Its indication (Dalaalah) is then definitive (Qat'i), provided that its transmission (Thubut) is also definitive.] End of quote from The Islamic Personality, Volume 3.
Second: I have previously answered a question similar to yours on February 27, 2010. For further benefit, I will quote my aforementioned answer, as it contains the answer to your question and more:
[...Some linguists distinguish between ellipsis (Idmar) and metaphor (Majaz). They restrict Majaz to the appearance of the word but in a non-literal sense, such as:
إِنِّي أَرَانِي أَعْصِرُ خَمْراً
"Indeed, I saw myself [in a dream] pressing wine." (Surah Yusuf 12:36)
The word "wine" (Khamr) is mentioned, but the intended meaning is "grapes," and not the literal meaning of wine, which is pressed and fermented grapes.
Another example is:
يَجْعَلُونَ أَصَابِعَهُمْ فِي آذَانِهِمْ
"They put their fingers in their ears." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:19)
The word "fingers" (Asabi') is mentioned, but the intended meaning is the "fingertips," not the literal meaning of the word "fingers" which includes the whole finger and not just its tip. Thus, Majaz to them is only the spoken word used in other than its literal meaning.
As for ellipsis (Idmar), it is the omission of a word that gives the literal meaning, while one of its adjuncts appears to provide the non-literal meaning, such as:
وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ
"And ask the town." (Surah Yusuf 12:82)
The omitted word is "people" (Ahl), which is what provides the literal meaning. As for the mentioned adjunct, "the town" (al-Qaryah), it is what provides the non-literal meaning. The questioning is not for the town itself but for its people. Thus, they consider Idmar distinct from Majaz based on this consideration.
However, the weightier view is that they are one and the same, because using a word for other than its literal meaning is Majaz. Whether you estimate an omitted word as in:
وَاسْأَلِ الْقَرْيَةَ
"And ask the town." (Surah Yusuf 12:82)
Or you do not estimate one, as in:
إِنِّي أَرَانِي أَعْصِرُ خَمْراً
"Indeed, I saw myself [in a dream] pressing wine." (Surah Yusuf 12:36)
And:
يَجْعَلُونَ أَصَابِعَهُمْ فِي آذَانِهِمْ
"They put their fingers in their ears." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:19)
In all cases, the apparent word was not used in its literal sense. The "town"—meaning its buildings—was not asked, but its people were. "Wine" was not pressed, but grapes were. The "fingers" did not enter the ear, but rather their tips did.
This is the subject matter.
As for why we mentioned them as five and not four—even though we place Idmar under the chapter of Majaz and prefer they be from the same category—it is because the research is about "what impairs understanding." The more precise and detailed the matter, the further it is from impairing understanding. Distinguishing between Idmar and Majaz based on omission versus non-omission is more precise and clear.
As for the five conditions that must be met to provide certainty, the matter is as follows:
As long as what is required from the textual evidence is certainty (Yaqin), it must be definitive in its indication (Qat'i al-Dalaalah). Naturally, it must also be definitive in its transmission (Qat'i al-Thubut), but the research here is about understanding the speaker's intent, so it pertains to the indication. For the indication to be definitive, the textual evidence must not be subject to any other possibility. If the text is liable to abrogation (Naskh), you cannot take a definitive indication from it until you are sure it is not abrogated. The same applies if it contains precedence and delay, a change in syntax (I'rab), morphology (Tasrif) and derivation, or if it has a rational contradiction.
Examples of these are:
1- Abrogation (Naskh). The Almighty says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِذَا نَاجَيْتُمُ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ نَجْوَاكُمْ صَدَقَةً ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَإِنَّ اللهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
"O you who have believed, when you [wish to] privately consult the Messenger, present before your consultation a charity. That is better for you and purer. But if you do not find [the means], then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (Surah Al-Mujadila 58:12)
Can you take from this the ruling regarding private consultation without ensuring that abrogation is negated for it? The answer is clear because it is abrogated...
2- Precedence and Delay (Taqdim wa Ta'khir). The Almighty says in Verse 142 of Surah Al-Baqarah:
سَيَقُولُ السُّفَهَاءُ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَا وَلَّاهُمْ عَنْ قِبْلَتِهِمُ الَّتِي كَانُوا عَلَيْهَا قُلْ لِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ يَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ
"The foolish among the people will say, 'What has turned them away from their qiblah, which they used to face?' Say, 'To Allah belongs the east and the west. He guides whom He wills to a straight path.'" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:142)
And the Almighty says in Verse 144:
قَدْ نَرَى تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْضَاهَا فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ...
"We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram..." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:144)
It is clear that there is precedence and delay. First is His saying: "and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased." After Allah turned him toward the Sacred Mosque, the foolish among the people said: "What has turned them away from their qiblah." If you heard the first verse and did not realize the precedence and delay, it would be difficult for you to understand the meaning of the speech. How would the foolish people say "What has turned them away from their qiblah," and then after that, you hear the next verse "and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased"? Thus, unless precedence and delay are negated in the text, you cannot understand the intent.
3- As for the change in syntax (I'rab), the Almighty says:
وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ...
The difference in I'rab between the Waw being conjunctive ('atifa) or resumptive (isti'nafiyya) makes the meaning different, and this is explained in The Islamic Personality Volume 3.
4- As for morphology (Tasrif), the Almighty says:
قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ
Here, the word "صُرهن" (surhunna) is either from sara-yasuru or sara-yasiru. Consequently, it was read as "فصُرهن" with a dammah on the authority of Hafs, and it was read as "فصِرهن" with a kasrah on the authority of Hamzah; both are mutawatir recitations. If you do not know how to deal with Tasrif, you cannot understand the verse because the word here has a different morphology. But when you know the Tasrif, you understand the intent. You would say:
(فصرهنّ) with dammah means to cut it or to incline it.
And with kasrah, it means cutting, as Al-Farra said.
Since the two recitations are mutawatir and the meaning is one, the definitive meaning between the two recitations is "cutting," and the meaning of "فصُرهن" would be to slaughter them and cut them into pieces.
5- Rational Contradiction (al-Mu'arid al-'Aqli). The Almighty says:
ذَلِكُمُ اللهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ
"That is Allah, your Lord, Creator of all things." (Surah Ghafir 40:62)
The phrase "all things" (kullu shay) is a general term (lafdh 'amm). If you do not realize that this is specified (mukhassas) by the intellect to exclude Allah the Almighty, then you do not realize the requirement. This is because Allah the Almighty is the Creator and is not among the created things; i.e., He is not included within "all things" in this verse. This contradiction which necessitated the specification (takhsis) is a rational contradiction. If a text contains a rational contradiction, you cannot realize the meaning of the text without understanding this issue.
Summary: You do not reach the speaker's intent with certainty unless you remove the possibility of abrogation, change of syntax, precedence and delay, morphology, and rational contradiction. In other words, if you encounter a text, you will not be able to understand the intent from the words of the text alone unless those five are negated (and of course, the five that preceded them). If they are not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without combining them with their adjuncts from the five mentioned.
To put it more clearly:
If you encounter a text and abrogation is negated, you understand the intent from its words alone. If abrogation is not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without joining it with the abrogating text (al-nasikh).
If you encounter a text and precedence and delay are negated, you understand the intent from its words alone. If precedence and delay are not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without returning the precedence and delay to its original order.
If you encounter a text and a change in syntax is negated, you understand the intent from its words alone. If it is not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without resolving the syntactic issue (I'rab).
If you encounter a text and a change in morphology is negated, you understand the intent from its words alone. If it is not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without resolving the morphological issue (Tasrif).
If you encounter a text and a rational contradiction is negated, you understand the intent from its words alone. If it is not negated, you cannot understand the intent from the words of the text alone without resolving the issue of the rational contradiction.
The conclusion of the summary: What was mentioned in our book in the chapter on "what impairs understanding": "...textual evidences do not provide certainty except after ten conditions: these five, and the negation of abrogation, precedence and delay, changing syntax, morphology, and rational contradiction..." is in its correct place regarding the provision of certainty... February 27, 2010.] End.
I hope the matter has become clear to you.
Your brother, Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
23 Muharram al-Haram 1445 AH Corresponding to 10/08/2023 CE
Link to the answer from the Ameer's (may Allah protect him) page on Facebook