CHAPTER FOUR

Approaching the Sacred Texts in a Superficial Manner

Approaching the Qur’ân and Sunnah requires intellect,probity,experience,and a deep understanding of the intents and purposes of Islamic Law.It requires broad knowledge of the Arabic language and its idioms.Some students,however,possess none of these faculties.Moreover,some of them have no aptitude for Islamic Law.They cannot cope with uncertainties and multiple possibilities and have not the insight to derive rulings from their proper sources.Such people have a tendency to take a single text and derive from it all the legal rulings that come immediately to mind,and then adhere doggedly to these rulings,hurling at anyone who disagrees with them a number of unsavory epithets.

There are two closely associated problems here.One is that of taking an overly literal approach to the texts.The other is that of being hasty in drawing conclusions from them. Let us look at a few examples of each:

Taking an Overly Literal Approach to the Texts

First Example:

Take an issue related to Islamic beliefs.The Prophet (peace be upon him)said:“If anyone possesses four qualities,then he is a hypocrite,and whoever possesses one of these qualities has within him an aspect of hypocrisy until he gives it up.They are as follows:If he is entrusted with something,he betrays his trust.If he speaks,he lies.If he makes a covenant,he breaks it.If he gets into a dispute,he acts sinfully.”Sahîh al-Bukhârî (33,2279).Sahîh Muslim (88). Some people take this hadîth on its face value and ignore all the other texts dealing with hypocrisy.In this way,they fall into error.On one occasion,someone went so far as to say that the hypocrisy mentioned in the hadîth refers to absolute unbelief,so that anyone who breaks a promise,lies,breaches a covenant,or acts sinfully in an argument is an unbeliever and is no longer a Muslim!

This person,by making this declaration,has disregarded hundreds of passages from the Qur’ân and Sunnah that indicate that a sinner does not become an unbeliever on account of his sins.This is a principle of faith in Islam.Al-Tahâwî says in his classic treatise on Islamic beliefs:“The followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him)who commit major sins and die without repentance will not remain in the Fire forever as long as they die on monotheism,knowing Allah.”This is a point of consensus among all orthodox Muslims. This shows us the danger of taking a cursory reading of one text and ignoring all the others.

Second Example: The prophet (peace be upon him)said:“No ablutions need to be made unless you hear the sound of flatulence or feel the passage of gas.”Musnad Ahmad (9712).Sunan al-Tirmidhî (69).Sunan Ibn Mâjah (508). If we were to take this hadîth on face value,no one would ever have to make ablution except for the stated causes.This is the literal meaning of the hadîth .But is it the intended meaning?The answer to this question is:certainly not!A person who wishes to pray must make ablutions after going to the bathroom,after waking up from sleep,and for other reasons.However,if a person was going to base his understanding solely on the literal meaning of the text cited above,he would have to come to that false conclusion. This is why the people of knowledge have always emphasized the need to compile all the relevant texts on a matter before drawing any conclusions.Ahmad said:“If we did not receive a single hadîth in seventy different ways,we would never have understood it.”He was referring here not only to different chains of transmission for a single hadîth,but also to numerous hadîth on a single topic.

Third Example: The Prophet (peace be upon him)said:“No one should urinate in still water and then bathe in it.”Sahîh al-Bukhârî (232).Sahîh Muslim (424). Some literalist scholars of the past have opined that if a person were to urinate in a cup then pour the contents of the cup into the water,there would be no objection to bathing in it,since the only thing that the hadîth prohibits is direct urination!You can read about this opinion and the refutation of it in Ibn Hazm,al-Muhallâ (1/166)and al-Nawawî,al-Majmû`(1/118). This is a good example of severely dogmatic literalism.The intent of the Prophet (peace be upon him)in this hadîth is perfectly clear.

Hastiness in Drawing Conclusions from the Texts

We will now turn our attention to the problem of being hasty when attempting to derive rulings from the texts.The examples that we will be citing below are in fact matters of disagreement between scholars.Our point here is not to support a given legal position, but to illustrate the importance of being methodical and deliberate when dealing with the sacred texts.

First Example: There are numerous hadîth in which the Prophet (peace be upon him)said:“There is no prayer for one who has not made ablution,and there is no ablution for one who has not invoked the name of Allah upon performing it.”Musnad Ahmad (9050,16054,22152,25894,25896).Sunan Abî Dâwûd (92).Sunan Ibn Mâjah (392, 393,394). Numerous scholars have attested to the authenticity of this hadîth.Some scholars have understood from it that ablutions are only valid if the name of Allah is invoked before performing them.This was the opinion of Ishâq b.Râhawayh,one opinion of Ahmad,and the view of a number of hadîth scholars.

Now,I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of this opinion,but I would like to point out the other opinion and the evidence used to support it.

The majority of scholars,including Abû Hanîfah,Mâlik,and al-Shâfi`î,consider mentioning Allah’s name before performing ablutions as a preferential sunnah act and do not see it as obligatory.This is also one of the opinions related from Ahmad and the view of many later scholars including Ibn Taymiyah,as well as the opinion of most contemporary jurists.

Should we assume that all of these eminent scholars took the hadîth mentioned above and threw it against the wall,like some rash students today have insinuated? In actuality,a few classical scholars did not deem that hadîth to be authentic.Many of them,however,did consider it authentic but had a different understanding of the words “there is no ablution for one who has not invoked the name of Allah upon performing it”. They did not take the hadîth to mean that ablutions without mentioning Allah’s name are invalid,but simply that such ablutions are not performed in the best manner.There is a decent amount of evidence to support their interpretation.

First of all,there is a hadîth with a good chain of transmission in Sunan Abî Dawûd wherein a man comes to the Prophet (peace be upon him)and asks him how purification is to be carried out.So the Prophet (peace be upon him)calls for water and gives him a demonstration.He washes his hands three times,washes his face once,wipes over his head,traces his wet fingers and thumbs around his ears,and washes his feet three times. Then he says:“This is how ablutions are to be made.Whoever adds anything to this or leaves anything out has done wrong.”Sunan Abî Dawûd (116). The man asking the question was a desert Arab who had no idea how to perform ablutions.Therefore,since the Prophet (peace be upon him)did not teach him to invoke the name of Allah,we can safely assume that it is not necessary to do so. A second piece of evidence comes from the fact that at least twenty-two Companions have described how the Prophet (peace be upon him)made ablutions and not one of them mentioned that he invoked Allah’s name.

Another argument offered by the scholars is that a full ritual bath can be done in lieu of performing ablutions,and nowhere is it mentioned that Allah’s name must be invoked before taking such a bath.Scholars actually assume that mentioning Allah’s name is recommended before performing a ritual bath on the strength of the fact that the regular ablutions are performed as part of the bath.

A fourth piece of evidence is that mentioning the name of Allah is not given in the verse of the Qur’ân that spells out to us how ablutions are to be made.Allah says:“O you who believe!When you prepare for prayer,wash your faces and your arms up to the elbows. Wipe your head with water and wash your feet to the ankles.”[Sûrah al-Mâ’idah:6]

These arguments show us that the opinion of the majority of the scholars is not due to their pointedly ignoring the hadîth,as some hasty students today are wont to believe.It is, in fact,based on sound juristic principles as well as a deeper insight into the meaning of the text that takes into account other textual evidence.

Second Example The Prophet (peace be upon him)said:“When any one of you wakes up from his sleep, he should not place his hands in a bowl of water until after he washes them three times, because he does not know what his hands might have touched while he was asleep.”Sahîh al -Bukhârî.Sahîh Muslim (416). Some scholars of the past understood from this hadîth that it is obligatory to wash your hands after sleeping before you can place them in a bowl of water and that it is forbidden to do otherwise.This was one of Ahmad’s opinions on the matter.Some contemporary scholars have held this view as well.

On the other hand,according to most scholars,including Abû Hanîfah,Mâlik,al-Shâfi`î, and Ahmad in another one of his opinions,doing so is merely recommended.Should we assume that these eminent scholars simply tossed this hadîth behind their backs or that they just did not care very much about the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him)? Some brash young students today are actually saying such things about them.

These scholars are as far removed as you can get from such accusations.They merely took into account a number of factors which demonstrate that the command given in the hadîth is indicative of preference,not obligation.Let us consider the following:

First of all,there is the reason cited by the Prophet (peace be upon him)for the order that he gave.He said:“…because he does not know what his hands might have touched while he was asleep.”Now,the ruling about impurity in Islamic Law is that unless you are certain that there is some impurity upon something,you are not obligated to wash it. Suspicions are not enough to make a washing obligatory.Therefore,it would not be obligatory on a person to wash his hands after waking from sleep for the reason that the Prophet (peace be upon him)gave.This leads us to believe that the command to wash the hands is meant merely to encourage a preferable act. Another indicator that we are not dealing here with an obligation is that the Prophet (peace be upon him)said we should wash our hands three times.In Islamic Law,if impurities are removed after only one washing,then one washing is sufficient.

A third indicative factor is that there is another authentic hadîth that goes:“When one of you wakes up,he should rinse his nose out with water three times,because Satan spends the night in his nasal passages.”11 In this case,consensus has been established among all scholars save Ibn Hazm that rinsing the nose is not obligatory.

All of these factors support the idea that the hadîth encourages washing the hands after waking from sleep and does not obligate it.

I would like to repeat here that I am not saying all this to support one opinion over another.You are free to agree with these opinions or disagree with them.Someone might say that it is obligatory to mention Allah’s name before making ablutions or feel that it is obligatory to wash one’s hands upon waking.There is nothing wrong with this.My only purpose in bringing up these issues is to show how dealing with texts requires understanding and knowledge of how to deal with numerous pieces of evidence and diverse indicative factors.I also wished to highlight the necessity of referring back to the discussions of people of knowledge when investigating any issue.This allows the student to choose the opinion that convinces him on the basis of knowledge and probity,not merely on a cursory reading of a single text.Then,whatever position you choose in these matters is acceptable,because you have a precedent for your choice among the earlier scholars.

A Look at the Zâhirî (Literalist) School of Law

It is appropriate at this point to discuss the great Zâhirî scholar Ibn Hazm.No doubt,he was a great jurist with a number of great works to his credit.The most important of these is his legal encyclopedia entitled al-Muhallâ,a substantial work of law containing numerous insights.However,it also contains its share of errors and mistakes.All works of such scope do.

The problem is that some students read al-Muhallâ and become totally enamored of Ibn Hazm.Ibn Hazm has a very assertive style of writing,especially when it comes to refuting his opponents’use of analogous reasoning.His specialty is showing how his opponents contradict themselves.Some students become enthralled by this style and end up judging by his decisions in all matters,whether or not his opinion agrees with that of the majority of the scholars.They accept from him even his strangest rulings.

This behavior is incorrect.For this reason,I feel that a beginning student should not read al-Muhallâ,but should start with other books that are more comparative,more balanced in their treatment of the issues,and less confrontational.In this way,the student will develop a broad perspective and learn the proper way in which matters should be discussed.I recommend the works of scholars like Ibn `Abd al-Barr,Ibn al-Mundhir,Ibn 11 Sahîh al -Bukhârî (3052).

Qudâmah,and Ibn Taymiyah.Afterwards,the student will be more prepared to read whatever reputable books he chooses.