Q324 :A religious teacher working in South Indian
state of Tamil Nadu (having studied in the Islamic University of
Madinah) has been stressing most emphatically that Muslims can only
follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet. There are no other
guides or sources to follow. In scholarly books, however, consensus, or
“Ijmaa” and analogy, or “Qias”, are mentioned as sources for lawmaking.
Many people have found the discrepancy most confusing. It will be most
appreciated if you could clarify this apparent contradiction.
A324 : I will start by saying that there is no
contradiction between the two opinions advanced by the teacher from the
Islamic University of Madinah and the written work which has mentioned
the other two sources. This is due to the fact that both the other
procedures of consensus and analogy can only operate within the
framework of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, or Hadith. This places them
within the criterion established by Islam which makes the Qur’an and
the Sunnah the only acceptable lawmaking authority. What your scholar
has been saying is indisputable. To rely on the Qur’an and the Sunnah
is the basic requirement of Islam. Indeed, it is the practical
implementation of the declaration by which a person benetes Muslim.
That declaration states: “I bear witness that there is no deity save
Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger.” As you
realize, this declaration is made of two parts. The first stresses the
Oneness of Allah as the only God and Lord in the universe. This means
that He alone has the authority to legislate. Whatever legislation He
enacts must be obeyed by all human beings. The second part makes it
absolutely clear that it is only through Allah’s Messenger, Muhammad
(peace be upon him) that we receive Allah’s netmandments, instructions
and legislation. There is no other way for those to be conveyed to us.
Anyone who claims a role to netmunicate to us a legislation, other than
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), is an impostor. Allah has
given us a detailed code to implement in our lives. However, no legal
code which aims to be applicable to all netmunities in all periods of
time can give in advance a ruling for every situation human life may
present. As human life develops, certain things or practices are
discarded while new ones are adopted. Changing situations require
different rulings. This is the reason why the lawmaking authority in
every country provides for the repeal of past laws and the enactment of
new ones in their place. This cannot be done in Islam, because the
authority to legislate belongs to Allah. No one can repeal Allah’s law.
How do we, then, deal with developing situations? To answer this, I
have two Hadiths to quote: The Prophet sent his netpanion, Moath ibn
Jabal, to the Yemen as a governor. Before Moath left, the Prophet asked
him, “How will you adjudicate in matters that will be put to you?”
Moath answered, “According to Allah’s Book (i.e. the Qur’an).” The
Prophet then asked him, “What if you find nothing to guide you?” Moath
answered, “Then according to the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger.” The
Prophet repeated his question. “What if you find nothing to help you?”
Moath said, “I will use my discretion, making every effort to arrive at
the right decision.” The Prophet said: “Praise be to Allah who has
guided Allah’s messenger to implement what pleases Allah and His
Messenger.” The Prophet is quoted to have said: “My nation will never
agree on something which is wrong.” These two Hadiths give us the
basis on which analogy and consensus rely as legitimate sources of
rulings. We note that in the first Hadith, the Prophet refers to the
possibility that a ruler or a judge may find nothing in the Qur’an or
the Sunnah to help him arrive at the right ruling in a certain case.
The method of deduction explained by Moath is one of scholarly
discretion. What this means is that he will consider what may be
analogous to the case in hand of matters that have a clear judgment in
the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This then is scholarly discretion. The
Prophet was pleased with this method and stated that it was
satisfactory to Allah and to himself. The second Hadith is clear. It
does not mean that every single person in the Muslim netmunity should
agree to something for the consensus to take place. What it means is
that the scholars in a particular time may unanimously arrive at a
certain decision. If they do, then that decision cannot be wrong. A
clear case which explains both matters is the verdict on smoking. When
the question whether tobacco smoking is permissible in Islam was put to
scholars in the past, many of them did not object strongly to it,
although some pointed out that it was reprehensible or discouraged, due
to its smell and other factors. However, when more recently the
question was put to a number of scholars together with the medical
evidence about the damage tobacco can cause to health, a verdict of
total prohibition was returned by an overwhelming majority of them.
Obviously, there is no specific ruling in the Qur’an or the Sunnah to
tell us that smoking tobacco, as such, is forbidden. Scholars,
however, relied on the general rules which apply to Islamic law, such
as the one which states that: “No damage may be caused, whether to self
or to others.” Since smoking causes serious health damage, it is
considered forbidden. Some scholars also added that a smoker should not
go to the mosque because of the bad smell of tobacco. In this, they
have drawn on the analogy with garlic and onion. The Prophet says that
a person who has just eaten garlic or onion should not attend
congregational prayer in order not to annoy other worshippers. All this
is a ruling based on analogy. However, the question was put to ten
leading scholars of the University of Al Azhar and to Dar El-Ifta in
Saudi Arabia. Altogether, answers were given by fourteen scholars,
twelve of them returning a verdict that smoking is netpletely
forbidden, the other two put their ruling only a shade less than
forbidden, making it as “strongly reprehensible.” However, more and
more scholars, everywhere in the Muslim world, are giving an ever
clearer verdict of prohibition on smoking. Those who are still
reluctant to make such a ruling are certainly less aware of damage
tobacco causes to health. Hence, we see a case of consensus being
progressively built. If one day a large council of eminent scholars
from all over the Muslim world is formed and it holds an annual meeting
to consider cases and situations that are put to it, then the rulings
passed by this council will enjoy a degree of consensus. Therefore,
they will be binding on Muslims. However, if one or two scholars
expressed a different view on a certain matter, each view is given its
value, as long as it is based on a clear understanding of the question
and a scholarly interpretation of Qur’anic and Hadith statements. An
example may be given from the rulings published by the Fiqh Council of
the Muslim World League, which may be considered as the nucleus of the
council I would love to see formed. A few years ago, this council
considered questions on insurance, and returned a verdict of
prohibition on many types of insurance, allowing only the ones which
may be included under the general title of “cooperative insurance”.
One eminent scholar, Sheikh Mustafa Al-Zarqa, took a different view,
allowing most forms of insurance. In its published decision, the
council referred to this disagreement and stated that the view of
Sheikh Al-Zarqa must be given its due respect. I hope I have made it
clear that whether we arrive at the decision through consensus or
through analogy, we are following the Sunnah of the Prophet and not
deviating from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Our Dialogue ( Source : Arab News – Jeddah )