the hadith and the concept of two revelation

7/25/2019 The Hadith and the Concept of Two Revelation

1/36

Al-Shfi', the adth, and the Concept of the Duality of RevelationAuthor(s): AISHA Y. MUSAReviewed work(s):Source: Islamic Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer 2007), pp. 163-197Published by: Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, IslamabadStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20839066 .Accessed: 16/01/2013 13:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Islamic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloade d on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:24: 38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iriiiuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20839066?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20839066?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iriiiu


2/36

Islamic Studies 46:2 (2007)pp. 163-197

Al-Shafi% the adith, and the Concept of the DualityofRevelation*

AISHA Y. MUSA

Abstract

This article examines al-Sh?fiYs most important contribution to both thefoundationsof Islamic jurisprudence and to Islamic thought in general as we know it today: hisdoctrines regarding the Had?th. Al-Sh?fi? laid the foundations which eventuallyestablished Had?th as the second revelatory source of law and guidance. His Kit?b

Jim?* al-'Ilm and al-Ris?lah are the earliest and most important extant works thatestablished the authority of the Had?th. A close examination of these works

demonstrates the early opposition to the authority of theHadith and the responseswhich overcame that opposition. The aim of this examination is to better understandthis crucial contribution to the status o/Hadith in Islam.

Muhammad ibn Idris al-Sh?fi'? (d.204/820) occupies a very important lace inthe history of Islamic doctrine and law.Muslim and non-Muslim scholars ofIslamic

historyand law have

recognizedhis contributions and

praisedhis

accomplishments. Al-Shafi'i's status as a legal theorist whose aim was to builda comprehensive jurisprudential ystem swidely recognized by both. He isconsidered the eponymous founder f one of the four surviving unn? schoolsof law, and has been called the "master rchitect" f Islamic legal theory.1 ael

Hallaq has demonstrated that recognition of al-Sh?fiTs status as the premiertheorist f Islamic jurisprudence ame in later generations rather than duringhis lifetime.2 he posthumous nature of his status has not detracted from t in

*This article forms part of the discussion in the academy about the authority and authenticityof Sunnah/Hadith for well over a century. In view of the subject's vital importance, slamicStudieswould bewilling to consider publication of other articles on one or the other aspect of itaswell as comments on the present article. Editor.1N.J. Coulson, AHistory of slamicLaw (Edinburgh: dinburgh University Press, 1994),53.2Wael B.Hallaq, "WasAl-Shafi'i theMaster Architect of Islamic Jurisprudence?," nternational

Journal ofMiddle East Studies,no. 25 (1993),587-605.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/36


4/36

AL-SH?FII, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OFTHE DUALITY OFREVELATION 165

dating and authorship of the Ris?lah and Kit?b al-Umm, he accepts that "theSh?fi'? schoolwas ahead of other schools in devising hermeneutic arguments

thatwould assure the accommodation of the law to a growing set of Prophetichadith."6 Thus, while he disagreeswith the dating and authorship of theseworks, he does not disagreewith their importance n relation to the authorityof the Hadith. Joseph Lowry has since offered compelling evidence that

challengesCalder's "sensational redating"7 f these works and that is "broadlyconsistent with their traditional datings and ascriptions."8 he questions of

dating and authorship are of secondary importance to the question at hand.Whether one accepts Schacht's chronology or Calder's regarding dating and

authorship, there is no question that these works are the earliest extantarticulations of the arguments that would eventually ensure forHadith thestatus nd authority f divine revelation econd only to theQur'?n.

Belief in a duality of revelation is also central to Rabbinic Judaism, ndthe concept in both Judaism and Islam sharesmany of the same aspects. In

Judaism, od is said to have revealed both a "written" nd an "oral" law, bothofwhich were given toMoses at Sinai.9The Written Law is contained in theTorah scrolls.The Oral Law was recorded in the Mishnah and the Gemara,which together make up the Talmud. The Talmud and various other worksknown asMidrash10 servemuch the same function that the adith have cometo serve in Islam. Like Hadith the Oral Law contains rulings related to thedetails of such issues as ritual purity, prayer, marriage, divorce, etc., which

complement the teachings of the written Torah.11 In Islam, theHadith areunderstood to have much the same role in relation to theQur'an. Also, likethe adith, thematerial in the Talmud was passed on orally for an extended

periodof time before

beingcommitted to

writing,and there was fierce ebate

over the appropriateness f doing so.12 hile there re anumber of similaritiesbetween theOral Law in Judaism and theHadith, there is a very importantdifference. While the Oral Law in Judaism incorporates the teachings ofvarious rabbis and sages throughout Jewish history as part of the divine

6Ibid.7Joseph Lowry, "The LegalHermeneutics of Al-Sh?fi'i and Ibn Qutayba: A Reconsideration,"

IslamicLaw and Society, 11:1 (2004),2.8Ibid., 41.

9David Kraemer, aThe Formation of Rabbinic Canon: Authority and Boundaries," Journal ofBiblical Literature, 110:4 (1991),613-30.10"Oral Law,* TheEncyclopedia ofJudaism New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2006), 367-368.11Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to theTalmud andMidrash (NewYork: Atheneum, 1969),29ff.12

Ibid., 12ff.



5/36

166 AISHA Y. MUSA

revelation,13 al-Sh?fi'? reserves revelatory status for the words, actions, and

tacit approvals ofMuhammad (peacebe on him) himself. The position of the

Prophet (peacebe on him) as the practical exemplar of how to understand andimplement the teachings f theQur'an is central to his argument for necessityof accepting ad?th as a form f divine revelation.14

Both Kit?b Jirn?* l-'Ilm and the Ris?lah contain a detailed discussion ofthe religious obligation to follow the Prophet (peace be on him), which

together with al-Sh?fiTs arguments for the duality of revelation wouldbecome the basis for the obligation to acceptProphetic reports. it?b Jim?'al

presents al-Sh?fiTs debates with those who reject Prophetic reports(khabar/akhb?r), ither in total, or in part. It is a short treatise ncluded in alSh?fiTs Kit?b alUmm. The Ris?lah is a treatise n the principles of religiousjurisprudence. t is also part of Kit?b alUmm, but has come to us as an

independent opk aswell. Some parts of each work are in the form f debatesbetween al-Sh?fi'? and unidentified interlocutors, while other parts are

presented as al-Sh?fiTs own direct statements.

Drawing on the works of Ab? Bakr Ahmad b. Al-Husayn al-Bayhaq?

(d. 458/1066)and Ibn

HajarAhmad b.Ah

al-'Asqal?n? (373-852/1372-1448),Majid Khadduri maintains that l-Sh?fi'? rote two versions of theRis?lah, thefirst while in Baghdad (194/810-198/814) and the second while in Egypt(198/814-204/820), and that only the second Ris?lah has survived.15 it?b

Jim?(al-'Ilm is also believed to have been written while al-Sh?fi'? as inEgypt,but there is some question as to which work was written first. Khadduri leans

toward the view that the Ris?lah was "written or revised as the last of alSh?fiTs works."16

Kit?bJim?c l- lmKit?b Jim?* l'llm forms part of the multi-volume Kit?b al-Umm. Inmodern

print editions, it is the eighth of thirteen reatises hatmake up the seventhvolume of the Umm. Perhaps because it is one part of a collectedwork, itdoesnot beginwith the customary benediction praisingGod and invoking blessingson the Prophet (peace be on him) that normally introduces independentworks. Though it generally comes to us as part of Kit?b al-Umm> an

13Kraemer, "The Formation of Rabbinic Camon: Authority and Boundaries," 618.14Muhammad ibn Idris al-Sh?fi% l-Ris?lah, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Sh?kir (Cairo: al-B?b? alHalab?, 1940),78-79.15

Majid Khadduri, "Translator's Introduction," l-Sh?fiVs isala: Treatise on the oundations ofIslamicJurisprudence, econd edition (Cambridge, K: IslamicTexts Society, 2003), 22-23.16

Ibid., 37.



6/36

AL-SH?Fll, THE HAD/ , AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OF REVELATION 167

independent version of it was published in Cairo in 1940.17 he work is

relatively hort and consists of an introductory aragraph that is followed by

four sections: "The Section Relating The Doctrine of The Group WhichRejects All [Traditional] Reports" (B?bHik?yat Qawl al-T?'ifab aliati Raddatal-Akhb?r Kullah?); "Section Relating the Doctrine of Those Who RejectIsolated Reports" (B?bHik?yat Qawl man Radda Khabar al-Kh?ssah); "An

Explanation of the Ordinances of God Most High" (Bay?nFar?'id All?h

Ta'?l?); "Section on Fasting" (B?b al-Sawrr?)" ach of these sectionswill beexamined in detail below to show not only what each section contains, butalso how all four sections fit together o showcase the best andmost successful

arguments for the authority f the ad?th.The logicalorganization of the work may not always be readily apparent

to a reader of the treatise. n his 1999University of Pennsylvania dissertation,"The Legal-Theoretical Content of the Ris?la of Muhammad B. Idris al

Sh?fi'?," Joseph Lowry describes Kit?b Jim?( al-llm as "a short, somewhat

rambling dialogue inwhich a variety of topics are discussed, and inwhichorder is difficult to discern."18 l-Sh?fiTs sometimes-tortuous language and

style oes give this nitial impression. owever, a closer examination leads to adifferent iew. While the work is indeed somewhat rambling, its orderbecomes easier to discernwhen we consider that l-Sh?fiTs purpose inwritingit is to establish both the binding scriptural uthority f the ad?th aswell astheir necessity inmatters of religious ractice and law.

In order to better appreciate al-Sh?fiTs writing style it is important toremember hathe enjoys a reputation s amaster ofArabic prosewho excelledin the use of language.19he complex use of language that typifies heArabic

prose of al-Sh?fiTs timewas a

markof erudition and

eloquence,but to the

modern reader it often seems loquacious and verbose. Ibn Hajar al-'Asqal?n?

quotes one of al-Sh?fiTs students as comparing al-Sh?fiTs language to an

intoxicant or enchantment and saying that they never heard an error from

him. The same author also quotes al-Rabi* ibn Sulaym?n (d.270/884), whotranscribed nd transmitted l-Sh?fiTsworks after is death, as saying:

If you saw al-Sh?fi'i and the beauty of his explanations, you would be amazed. If

he hadcomposed

these books in the Arabic that he used in debates with us, it

17Muhammad b. Idr?s al-Sh?fi'I,Jim?' al-'Ilm, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Sh?kir (Cairo:Matba'at

al-Ma'?rif, 1940).18Joseph E. Lowry, "The legal-theoretical ontent of the Risala of Muhammad . Idr?s al

Sh?fiT (Ph.D. diss.,University of Pennsylvania, 1999),8.19'Abd al-Halim al-Jindi, l-Im?m al-Sh?fil: N?sir al-Sunnab wa Wad? al-Us?l (Cairo:Dar alKit?b al-4Arabi i 'l-Tib?'ahwa l-Nashr, 1967),70.



7/36

168 AISHA Y. MUSA

would be impossible to read them because of his eloquence and recondite

expressions. But he was striving tomake his writing clear to the masses.20

Despite his efforts t clarity, l-Sh?fi'fs writing is at times complex andoratorical. This style probably served him well in debates, but his writingoften defies succinct translation. he introductory aragraph ofKit?b Jim?'alIlm21 isan example of this nd typical f al-Sh?fiTs rhetorical style.

I have not heard anyone whom people considered knowledgeable? or who

considered himself knowledgeable?

dispute that God Almighty and Exalted hasmade following the command, and submitting to the judgment of God's

Messenger (peaceand

blessingse

upon him) obligatory,n that od

Almightyand Exalted has ordained that everyone other than him [the Messenger] onlyfollowhim, and that the only saying qawl)thatmust be adhered o in everysituation are the Book of God or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and

blessings be upon him). Everything other than these two is subordinate to them.

Indeed, God the Most High has made accepting reports from God's Messenger(peace and blessings be upon him) obligatory for us and for those before and afterus. No one disputes the obligation and duty of accepting reports from God's

Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), except a faction whose doctrine I

will describe, ifGod Most High wills.... Furthermore, the adherents of kal?m areclearly divided about affirming the validity of reports from God's Messenger(peace and blessings be upon him); some others whom the general publicconsiders jurists are also divided about it.As for some of them, they are excessivein following lindly, nmaking light f rational inquiry, nheedlessness nd in

hastening to gain [popular] authority. Iwill give you examples that indicate whatis behind the doctrines of each group of which I am aware, ifGod Most High

wills."22

As the above indicates,refuting

heview of those whoreject Propheticreports s themain purpose ofKit?b Jim?' alllm. In the introduction l-Sh?fi'?

sets the tone for the rest of thework and makes his position clear from the

beginning: Knowledgeable people agree that obeying the Messenger is an

obligation and the majority of people understand that this entails acceptingProphetic reports. Only a minority disputes the necessity of acceptingProphetic reports nd even they differ mong themselves n the issue.

Al-Shafi'? uses theword qawl,meaning something that is said, to refer o"the Book of God or the Sunnah of God's

Messenger," declaringthat one or

the other is the only qawl thatmust be adhered to.This terminology eems to

20IbnHajr Ahmad b. cAlial-'Asqalan?,Tawal? -Ta's?s iMa'?l?Muhammad ihn d?s> ed. Abu 1Fida' 'AbdAllah al-Q?di (Beirut: ar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, 1986),96.21Muhammad ibn Idris al-Sh?fi'?, it?b Jim?' al-llm, inKit?b al-Umm. ed.Mahmud Matraj?(Beirut: ar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, 1993),7: 460-483.22

Ibid., 460.



8/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OFREVELATION 169

assign to the speech of theMessenger a statusmore or lessequal to that of the

speech of God, foreshadowing what will be the centrepiece of al-Sh?fiTs

argument in support of the need to accept Prophetic reports, namely theconcept of duality of revelation.

Al-Sh?fi'i also promises to present examples rather than an exhaustive

description of the positions of those who reject Prophetic reports. Theinformation al-Sh?fi'? presents in the rest of the work and the manner in

which he presents it serve more as a means of showcasing his views than as a

report on the views of his opponents.In the first wo sections, al-Sh?fi'?presents the examples in the form of

debates between himself and an unidentified member of each group, ratherthan as an expository description of the doctrines of these groups. The debates

highlight his own arguments for the necessity of accepting Prophetic reportsas an authoritative ource of law and guidance. In the last two sections of the

work?Explanation of the Ordinances of God the Sublime, and Section on

Fasting -al-Sh?fi'? discusses specific etails of the obligatory religious practicesof Islam, in further support of the necessity f accepting rophetic reports. econcludes the Section on Fastingwith a brief discussion of two ah?dtth, hich

he does not mention elsewhere. The first s a hadith cited by opponents ofProphetic reports, nwhich the Prophet (peace be on him) says that the peopleshould not adhere to anything that he has allowed or prohibited because he

only allows or prohibits that which has been allowed or prohibited by God.In rebuttal, al-Sh?fi'? ites a hadith inwhich the Prophet (peace be on him)

warns against thosewho claim to follow only the Book of God.23This bringsthe discussion back to the point atwhich it began. Together, all four sectionsrepresent the best and most successful arguments put forward by al-Sh?fi'?.

In the first alf of the work, al-Sh?fi'? rites about two groups: thosewhoreject all Prophetic reports and those who reject isolated reports.While alSh?fi'? refers o thosewho reject allProphetic reports s ahi al-kal?m, he doesnot identify ny particular group or individuals by name. Throughout Kit?bJim?( al- ,he uses the terms hadith and khabar (pi. akhb?r) interchangeablywhen referring oProphetic reports, utmost often the latter.

The first ection, addressing the doctrine of those who reject all reports,openswith al-Sh?fi'Fsuse of the generic phrase: "q?la Itq?'ilyunsab il? 'l-'ilm

himadhhab ash?bihi..." (Someone considered knowledgeable in the doctrine ofhis school said to me...).24 It then continues in the "q?la.... fa qultu..." ("Hesaid...then, I said....") point, counter-point format, a debate format common in

classical Muslim literature.

23Ibid., 481.

24Ibid., 460.



9/36

170 AISHA Y. MUSA

A similar format is used in the second section, which deals with thedoctrine of those who reject particular reports from individuals with

specialized knowledge (khabar al-kh?ssah). he introduction to this sectionconfirms that the debate format s indeed a literary evice used to frame alSh?fiTs recollections ofwhat he considers the most important oints in thesediscussions, rather than the record of an actual debate:

I do not remember specific individual or group discussions, or everything thatwas said to me or that I answered, so that Imight recount them; and I have

already exerted great effort in a thorough examination of everything theypresented as evidence, so Iwill set down some of the things I said and towhom I

said them.25

What al-Sh?fi'? hooses to present of his opponent's views and how hechooses to present them in the first alf of the work appears to serve primarilyas an opportunity for him to articulate his rebuttals. The third and fourthsections then add further upport with a discussion of religious practices that,according to al-Shafi?I, equire the details provided inProphetic reports. nmyinvestigation, have chosen to follow the format sed in the work, ascribing

the arguments to al-Sh?fi'? and his opponent. Let us now examine thearguments themselves in greater detail.

Section 1

The Section Relating the octrine of theGroupWhichRejects ll fTraditional] eports

(B?h ik?yat Qawl al-T?yifahliatiRaddat al-Akhb?rKullah?)

Al-Sh?fi'? opens the Section relating the doctrine of the group that rejects llreports (traditions: akhb?r) with this statement from a "knowledgeable"representative of that group:

You are an Arab, and the Qur'an was revealed in the language of your people,and you have memorized it. It contains the ordinances that God has sent down.If someone doubts even one letter that is obscure to him, you demand that he

repent, and if he does not repent, you kill him. God Almighty and Exalted hassaid

regardingthe

Qur'an:an

explanationof

everything.26Here, al-Sh?fi'? emonstrates hemost important octrinal foundations f

his opponents' thinking the absolute certainty that both sides agree that

25Ibid., 467.

26Ibid., 460; Qur'?n 16:89: "We have sent down to you the Scripture as an Explanation of

everything, Guide, aMercy, andGlad Tidings toMuslims."



10/36

AL-SH?RM, THE HAD ITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OF REVELATION 171

believersmust have faith n the text f the Qur'?n asGod's scripture, nd thatGod Himself has declared that the Qur'?n explains everything. The

implication seems clear: the Qur'?n explains everything and anyone whodoubts that is committing a mortal sin in thinking in the way that the

anonymous rejecter of Hadith has just attributed to al-Sh?fi'? himself.Moreover, the verse cited implies the completeness and sufficiency f the

Qur'?n.Al-Sh?fi'? follows the dramatic opening statement f his challengerwith

questions that the latter then asks based on the essential points in thestatement. e begins by questioning the types f distinction made by al-Sh?fi'?

among various Qur'?nic injunctions: ow can it be permissible to claim thatsomething God has ordained (shay*aradahu 'llah) is general (c?mm) in one

instance, while it is particular (khass) in another, or that one time thecommand (al-amr) is an obligation (fard), hile another time it ismerely a

suggestion dal?lah)}The terms (?mmy hass, l-amr, ard, and dal?lah representkey legal concepts,which al-Sh?fi'? iscussesat length ater nJima( al-'Ilm, andalso in the Ris?lah.27By using these terms, l-Sh?fi'? eveals that the concernshe ascribes to thosewho reject all Prophetic reports are not limited to those

reports dealingwith matters of belief and religious doctrine, but also includedreports dealing with expressly egalmatters. It could be argued that what alSh?fi'? has presented in this opening essentially exaggerates his opponents'objections to the use ofHadith in practical and legalmatters. However, suchan argument sproblematic because of the many indications f the existence fsuch objections to theHadith scattered throughout the various sources overthe centuries, up to and including the present day.28The evidence of bothearlier and continuing opposition toHadith as a competing source of religiousauthority suggests that the opposition to which al-Sh?fi'? is responding in

Kit?bJim?f l-'Ilmwas much ashe has portrayed t.Earlier evidence of opposition to the use of Hadith as a source of

scriptural uthority s found in a text that uslim tradition olds to be a letterfrom theKharijite 'AbdAll?h ibn Ib?d (d. c. 86/705) to the Caliph Abd al

Malik (r. 65/685-86/705) in 76/695.29Cook disagrees with the dating and

authorship of the letter, rguing for unknown authorship sometime in the

mid-second/eighth century.30 he uncertain dating and authorship of the letter

27Al-Sh?fi'?, Kitab Jama' al- , 460. For a detailed linguistic nalysis of the key religious-legal

terminology used by al-Sh?fi'?, eeLowry's "The legal-theoretical ontent of theRisala"28AishaY. Musa, "An Examination of Early and Contemporary Muslim Attitudes toward

Hadith as Scripture," Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2004.29Josef an Ess, ZwischenHadith und Theologie (Berlin:Walter deGruyter, 1975),56.30Michael Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source Cridical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1981),66-67.



11/36

172 AISHA Y. MUSA

does not minimize its import for the early debates over the authority f theHad?th, however. Whether it dates from the late first/seventh entury or the

mid-second/eight century, t predates al-Sh?fi'?; nd although the criticism fthe use ofHad?th here is presented as part of an overall attack against Shf?beliefs and practices, rather than Sunni beliefs and practices, those criticismsdemonstrate a clear objection to the general use and authority of the ad?th.Key portions of one passage that ook reproduces inEarlyMuslim Dogma are

particularly significant. n criticizing theKufans, the letter ays: "wa kharaj?min hukmi rabbihim wa ittakhadh? -ab?ditha di?an, wa za'am? anna

'indahum 'ilman as?b?hu min ghayri 3l-Qur'?ni" hich Cook translates s:

"They abandoned the judgment of their Lord and took hadiths for theirreligion; and they claim that they have obtained knowledge other than fromthe Koran...."31 This is clearly a criticism of the use of Had?th as anauthoritative source other than the Qur'?n. The same passage also indicatesthat the extra-Qur'?nic source is written: "wa ?man? bi-kit?bin laysa min

All?hi katabathu 'l-rij?lu i-ayd?him f.21 b) thumma snad?hu il? ras?l All?hi

(s).nThis Cook translates s, "They believed in a book which was not fromGod, written by the hands of men; they then attributed t to theMessenger ofGod."32

The data available in earlyMuslim literature oes not allow us to clearlyidentify pecific groups that held such a position. Only a few groups are

mentioned as doing so, and information n them is limited and inconsistent.InKit?b Usui al-Nihal, al-N?shi' al-Akbar (d. 293/906) identifies sub-sect fthe Az?riqah called theKh?zimiyyah who "impose only those laws that arebased on a Qur'?nic text, r that have been transmitted by the consensus of all

Muslim groups."He alsomentions an offshoot f the Kh?zimiyyah called theBid'iyyah.33 Several decades after al-N?shi' al-Akbar, in alMaq?l?t al

Isl?miyyah, b? -Hasan al-Ash'ar? (260-324/874-936) does not mention the

Bid'iyyah at all, and in his discussion of the Kh?zimiyyah, he does notattribute mti-Hadtth doctrine to them. This might suggest that the former o

longer existed and the latter o longerheld such a doctrine by al-Ash'ari's day.However, he also mentions another group, theHar?ri, towhom he also doesnot ascribe zrx?-Had?th octrine. Yet nearly half a century later, nKit?b alTanb?h wa -Radd al? Ahl alAhw?* wa 3l-Bidaf,uhammad b. Ahmad al

Malat? (d.377/988) describes the Har?ri as a group who take theQur'?n and

31Ibid., 9. For this passage, Ihave used both Cook's transliteration nd translation.32Ibid.

33 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-N?shi', Kit?b Usui al-Nihal in Fr?he Mu'tazilitischeH?resiographie, Zwei Werke des N?si'al-Akbar (Beirut: In Kommission bei F. Steiner,Wiesbaden, 1971),69.



12/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OF REVELATION 173

not the Sunnah as the basis of their religious practices.34Such discrepancies

couldmean that at different imes, nd in different places, different embers

associatedwith the same groups held differing iews on the use and authorityof the Hadith vis-?-vis heQur'?n or it could indicate that the authors of thevarious works were working with incomplete r inaccurate nformation. heexistence of a number of sects,many ofwhich also contained a variety of subsectsdivided on different octrinal issues, lso further complicates attempts to

clearly identify xactly who the earlyQur'?nic scripturalists ay have been.

Although it is not possible to easily identify ho the early scripturalists erewith any degree of certainty, he influence f their objections to the authorityof theHadlth is readily apparent in the arguments f the proponents of the

Had?th. The works of al-N?shi' al-Akbar and al-Malat?, oth written long afteral-Shafi'?'s time, clearly indicate the existence of groups that objected to theuse of the ad?th as a source of scriptural uthority nmatters of religious awand practice. Therefore, while al-Sh?fi'? as carefully hosen exactlywhat hepresents, and how he presents it, of his opponents' arguments n order to bestserve his own overall aim, what he presents cannot be dismissed as a straw

man.

After the opening question about the distinction between variousinjunctions, l-Sh?fi'? elates the issues that receive the greatest mphasis fromhis challenger doubt and error. His adversary compares the strict ttitudetoward doubting even a single letter f the Qur'an to the attitude towarddoubt regarding he adith:

I have found that you and those who hold your opinion do not consider anyoneyou encounter and prefer (qaddamtum?hu) for his reliability and memory, nor

do I consider anyone I have encountered whom you have encountered, free fromerring, forgetting, or making mistakes in the Had?th. Instead, I have found that

you say about more than one of them: "So-and-so made amistake in such-andsuch aHad?th and so-and-so in such-and-such aHad?th. I have also found that if a

man says about a Had?th by which you have made something lawful or

prohibited on the basis of something known only to a few elite: "God's

Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) never said that, you or whoeverrelated it to you has made amistake, or lied," you do not ask him to repent. Youdo nothing more than tell him, "You have said something pernicious."35

The acceptance of such serious errors and doubts regarding theHadithleads al-Sh?fi'?'s opponent to ask if it is permissible to make distinctions

34Ab? al-HusaynMuhammad ibnAhmad al-Malatl, it?b al-Tanbih wa -Radd 'alaAhl -Ahw?'wa H-Bida*(Istanbul:Matba'at al-Dawlah, 1936),42.35

Al-Sh?fi'?, Kit?b Jim?'al'Ilm, 460.



13/36

174 AISHA Y. MUSA

among the rulings of the Qur'?n on the basis of what has been heard fromsuch reports, giving them the same standing as the Book of God in

determining what is allowed and what is prohibited. Again, al-Sh?fi'?highlights his opponent's concern for the use ofHadtth in decidedly legalissues, dding an explicit reference o the status fHadtth vis-?-vis heQur'?n.

Al-Sh?fi'? responds to his challenger by saying that he and those whoagreewith him only accept credible reports from position of certainty asedon comparison. "We do not accept all of them," he says, "rather some of themare more established than others."36

When asked for an example, al-Sh?fi'? ites the various types of evidence

that can be used to convict a man in court?-his confession, evidence, hisrefusal to take an oath, or the swearing f an oath by his companion

- each ofwhich is stronger than the next. He then explains that there is a variety ofreasons for accepting a particular type. owever, he does not clarify whatconstitutes credible reports or how he arrives at a position of certaintyregarding them. Al-Sh?fiTs response does not satisfy the questioner, whoreiterates his primary concern, asking al-Sh?fi'?what he would offer asevidence against one who rejects adtth because of the previously mentioned

problems of error and doubt, and if it is possible to establish a position ofcertainty where there is none.

Al-Sh?fi'? declares that for one who knows the language of God's Bookand God's rulings (ahk?m), that knowledge will lead him to accept Propheticreports from trustworthy people. The determining factor, according to al

Sh?fi'?, is the position of God's Messenger. His opponent still seemsunsatisfied and presses al-Sh?fi'? to provide examples that would make hisarguments clearer and stronger gainst thosewho disagreewith him and that

might cause them to renounce their opinion in favour f his.37In spite of his adversary's persistence, l-Sh?fi'? ontinues to bypass the

questions of error and uncertainty for the time being. Instead, he turns to

something his challenger has already said in support of his own position, butwhich al-Sh?fi'? hinkshis opponent has still ignored: that it is not appropriateto be carelesswith any of the commands of the faith. n this way, al-Sh?fi'? etsthe stage for his theological arguments for the authority f the adtth. Thesearguments epend on two ideas:obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him),and the concept of two forms of revelation.

Al-Sh?fi'? begins by building his case for the latter two forms ofrevelation which is what will eventually lead to defining the former,obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him), as accepting Prophetic reports n

36Ibid.37

Ibid., 461.



14/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THEDUALITY OFREVELATION 175

addition to the Qur'?n. His arguments aid the theological groundwork for

establishing the sacred authority f the ad?th. Al-Sh?fi'? begins building the

first art of his argument by citing verse 62: 2 from the Qur'?n: "It isHe whohas sent amongst the unlettered aMessenger from among them, to rehearse to

them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in the Book andWisdom, although they had previously been inmanifest error."

With the above verse, al-Sh?fi'? pens his discussion on the nature ofrevelation, using it to introduce the idea of two types of revelation receivedand preached by the Prophet (peace be on him). The crucial question, whichal-Sh?fi'? ttributes to his opponent is: "We already know that 'the Book' is

the Book of God. But what is 'theWisdom?"38 Al-Sh?fi'? responds that it isthe Sunnah ofGod's Messenger. His opponent then asks: "Is itpossible that heis teaching them the Book in general, nd theWisdom inparticular, nd that sits rulings?"39 l-Sh?fi'? then reiterates hat itmeans theMessenger's Sunnahand what the Messenger explained regarding he obligations of prayer, alms,fasting, tc. that God ordained in general inHis Book. When his opponentconcedes that this ispossible, al-Sh?fi'? sserts that one can only arrive at this

position through ccepting rophetic reports.The challenger then asks: "and what if I am of the opinion that it is

reiteration f the Word (takr?r l-kaldm)}"Al-Sh?fi'? responds to this by askinghis opponent ifhe thinks that since the Book and theWisdom arementioned

they are two things r one thing. o this, his opponent replies: "It ispossiblethat it is as you have described, Book and Sunnah', then they are two things.But it ispossible that they re one thing."

Al-Sh?fi'? declares that the first possibility that it is the Book andSunnah ? is the most obvious answer, and he asserts that the Qur'an contains

evidence supporting his position and contradicting he idea that the Book andtheWisdom are one, citing ur'?n 33: 34: "And remember what is recited to

you inyour homes of the verses ofGod and theWisdom: forGod understandsthe finest mysteries and iswell acquainted [with them]."40

Al-Sh?fi'? asserts that this erse shows that there ere two different thingsthat were recited in the houses of the Prophet's wives

? theQur'?n and theWisdom. When his opponent askshim how theWisdom was recited, l-Sh?fi'?

says that the recitation must mean what Muhammad (peacebe on him) uttered

of the Qur'?n and also what he uttered of the Sunnah. Without furtherexplanation of how this is, al-Sh?fi'?quotes his opponent as saying that it isclear that the Wisdom is something ther than theQur'?n.

38Ibid.39Ibid.

?Ibid.



15/36

176 AISHA Y. MUSA

Now that he has made the point that the Wisdom referred o in theversescitedmeans something ther than the Qur'?n, al-Sh?fi'? oves on to develop

the second part of his argument in support of the acceptance and use ofHadith: obedience to the Prophet (peace be on him). He cites several of theQur'?nic verses that order such obedience.41

His disputant then asks al-Sh?fi'? hat themost appropriate response is tothosewho claim that theWisdom is found only inwhat God has revealed (i.e.theQur'?n), so that whoever submits to that is obeying theMessenger. AlSh?fi'? answers by citing part of aQur'?nic verse "takewhat the Messengergivesyou, and deny yourselves thatwhich he forbids you."42

By arranging the reported discussion in thisway, al-Sh?fi'?makes a clearconnection between the issue ofWisdom as a second form of revelation other

than theQur'?n and the issueof obedience to the Prophet (peacebe on him).Al-Sh?fiTs challenger then agrees that accepting the command of God's

Messenger is an obligation.Having successfully ade this point, al-Sh?fi'?poses another question to

his adversary: "Is the obligation on us the same on those before us and afterus?"When he answers "yes," al-Sh?fi'? skshow anyonewho did not seeGod's

Messenger can carry out God's command to obey theMessenger (peacebe onhim) except through rophetic reports.43

Up to this point, al-Sh?fi'? has relied primarily on interpretation fQur'?nic verses to convince his adversary of the obligation to accept theauthority f theHadith. The interpretation f hikmah as Sunnah is central toal-Sh?fi'?'s argument. In examining Qur'?n commentaries that predate or are

contemporary with al-Sh?fi'? in his work in the Ris?lah, where al-Sh?fi'?presents the same line of argument, owry finds that with the exception of

commentary of 'Abd al-Razz?q's b.Hum?m al-San'?n? (d.211/827) on 33: 34,no one interprets heword hikmah as sunnah**My own investigation f earlyQur'?n commentaries reveals much the same thing. However, the

commentary fH?d ibnMuhakkam (d. 280/893) does address the question ofhikmah and sunnah.H?d ibnMuhakkam was aKh?rijite commentator wholived during themiddle or late third/ninth century.45 ommenting on versessuch as 62: 2,which mention "the Book and the Wisdom," he says: "Some ofthem say the Book is the Qur'?n and that Wisdom is the Sunnah."^ The

41Qur'?n 4: 65; 4: 80; 4: 63;Kit?b Jim? al?lm, 461-462.42Qur'?n 59: 7.43Al-Sh?fi'?, Kit?b Jim?'al-Ilm, 462-463.44Lowry, "The Legal-theoratical content of theRisala ofMuhammad B. Idris al-Sh?fi* ,*' 51.45Al-H?jj ibn Sa'?d al-Sharif, Introduction" toH?d ibnMuhakkam, Tafs?r it?b Allah al*Aziz

(Beruit: ?r al-Gharb al-Isl?m?, 1990), 1:13.46Ibid., 4: 351.



16/36


wording that bn Muhakkam uses suggests hat therewas disagreement boutthe interpretation f hikmah as sunnah in the generations following al-Sh?fi'L

This together ith the paucity of earlier evidence for that idea suggests hat twas not a common interpretation before al-Sh?fi'Fs careful and forcefularticulation. The situation ismuch the same in the case of verse 59: 7,whichal-Sh?fi'? ortrays as the decisive evidence that convinced his adversary f theneed to accept the authority fHadlth, even though he had previously rejectedallHad?th because of potentially serious doubt and error. The key portion ofthe verse, which al-Sh?fi'i cited iswa m? atakum al-Ras?lfa-khudh?hu wa manah?kum (anhu fa'ntah? (Take what the Messenger gives you, and denyyourselves that which he forbids you). This phrase actually appears near theend of the verse. Before looking at the early commentaries, etus consider theentire verse:

Whatever God has restored toHis Messenger from the people of the towns is forGod and the Messenger, and for the relatives, the orphans, the needy and the

wayfarer, so that itwill not be circulating among those of you who are wealthy;and take whatever the Messenger gives you, and deny yourselves whatever heforbids

you,and be

waryof

God; surelyGod is severe in

reprisal.47

As with the hikmah verses, themajority of early commentators re silenton 59:7. However, there are three notable exceptions: al-Sh?fi'Fs

contemporaries, bu Zakariy?' Yah? ibnZiy?d al-Farr?' (d.207/823), 'Abd alRazz?q, andH?d ibnMuhakkam. The first f these, al-Farr?', dealswith the

phrase that al-Sh?fi'? as adduced; however, he interprets t as referring o theimmediately receding phrase: "so that twill not be circulating mong those

of you whoare

rich," explaining that "and take whatever the Messenger givesyou, and deny yourselves whatever he forbids you" is a command given to the

wealthy.48The second commentator, 'Abd al-Razz?q al-San'?n? does not comment

on the phrase adduced by al-Sh?fi'L nstead, he focuses first n the openingphrase of the verse: "Whatever God has restored toHis Messenger from the

people of the towns is forGod and theMessenger," linking t to 8: 41,whichdeals with the spoils of war, and further explaining that it also refers o the

jizyah (a taxon

the People of the Book), and the khar?j (land tax) collectedfrom the people of the towns.49Thus, neither of those of al-Sh?fi'Fs

47Qur'?n, 59: 7.48Ab? Zakariyy? Yahy? ibn Ziy?d al-Farr?',Ma'?n? 'l-Qur'?n, ed. 'Abd al-Fatt?h Ism?'il al

Tha'lab? (Cairo: al-Haya'ah al-Misriyyah l-'?mmah Ii1-Kitlb, 1972),3:144-145.49 'Abd al-Razz?q al-San'?m, Tafsir 'Abdal-Razz?q, ed.Mahmud Muhammad 'Abduh (Beirut:Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, 1999),3: 298-299.



17/36

178 AISHA Y. MUSA

contemporaries who comment on 59: 7 offers an interpretation that suggeststhat of al-Sh?fi'L

However, evenmore interesting sH?d ibnMuhakkam's commentary,which differs from those of al-Sh?fi'?'s two contemporaries. He begins byacknowledging that part of the verse used by al-Sh?fi'? to support the

obligation of accepting adith was revealed in reference o spoils ofwar, butthat it later came to refer o the totality f religion (s?rat ba'du jamV aldln).

Also, as in the caseof his comments on the interpretation f hikmah s sunnah,it indicates that there was still t least somemeasure of disagreement bout the

interpretation f 59: 7 for some time after l-Sh?fi'?'s nsistence hat the verse

proves that obeying theMessenger (peace be on him) requires more thanfollowing theQur'?n. If this idea and the interpretation f hikmah as sunnahdid not originate with al-Sh?fi'?,* e seems to be the first o have articulatedthese ideaswith somedegree of clarity nd success.

Having thus laid out his primary doctrinal arguments, l-Sh?fi'? hen goeson to illustrate further the need for Prophetic reports in addition to the

Qur'?n with examples ofwhat he considers abrogating nd abrogated verses inthe Qur'an. These verses require clarification, and for al-Sh?fi'?, such

clarification must come from Prophetic reports. This finally convinces hisopponent that accepting Prophetic reports s incumbent nMuslims and thathemust giveup his previous position, in favour f that f al-Sh?fi'?.50

It isonly after e has convinced his challenger hat the obligation to obeytheMessenger (peacebe on him) requires accepting Prophetic reports that alSh?fi'? turns to other points raised by his rival in the beginning of the debate:the issueof the general vs. the particular regarding he commands of God andthe question of certainty. In turning to these issues, al-Sh?fi'? touches on a

specific rea of legal theory. o demonstrate the validity of the concept of thegeneral and the specific, l-Sh?fi'? itesQur'?nic verses that contain both that

which isgeneral and that which is specific, mong them 49: 13:

O people We created you from amale and a female, and made you into nationsand tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you inthe sight fGod is themost righteous f you.And God has full nowledge ndiswell acquainted with ll things].

He explains that the first entence is a general statement with a generalmeaning, as every person has been created from a male and a female. Then,

*For amuch earlier instance of the view that hikmahmeans sunnah see comment of al-Hasan al

Basri (d. 110/728) on Qur'?n 62: 2.Al-Hasan al-Basri,Tafeir asan al-Basri, comp, and ed. Sh?r(Karachi: al-J?mi'ah l-'Arabivyah Ahsan al-'U??m, 1993),5:155. Ed.50

See, al-Sh?fi'?, it?h Jim?'al-'Ilm, 462-463.



18/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OFTHE DUALITY OFREVELATION 179

there s something articular n it, n the statement "Verily themost honouredof you in the sight fGod is themost righteous f you."What isparticular, n

this case, righteousness, applies to some people and not to others.51 His nowformer ontender then asks al-Sh?fi'? o explain something general forwhichthere snothing in the Book to indicate tsparticulars. his iswhere al-Sh?fi'?

begins building the practical and legal aspects of his arguments for the

authority f the adith. Al-Sh?fi'? points out the various religious duties, suchas prayer and alms that are commanded in the Qur'an, while the particularrules for them are not. He asks his opponent where the particular rules arefound. The answer, of course, is the Sunnah, because there is no text in the

Qur'an.52 This issue the issue of how to implement specific religious dutiesand practices will turn out to be the strongest ndmost persistent riticismof those who reject rophetic reports. l-Sh?fi'? presents t as a point raised byhis opponent.

His adversary first emphasizes that he only held an opinion contrary towhat al-Sh?fi'? as articulated ntil the error of thosewho hold it became clearto him. He then mentions two groups: one that does not accept Propheticreports because the Qur'an is clear, and the other that accepts reports that are

in agreement with theQur'an.53 At al-Sh?fi'?'s equest, his rival describes theserious issues that stem from the rejection f Prophetic reports:

It leads to from one serious issue to another. Then he said: Whoever does [only]what is required of him [in the Qur'an] as salah and gives the minimum as zak?hhas performed his duty. There is no established time for that, whether he praystwo rak'ahs every day, or he said, every few days. Moreover, he says, "Whateverisnot in the Book of God isnot required of anyone."54

After highlighting he issueof religious practices, al-Sh?fi'? eturns to the

questions of error and uncertainty that his opponent had stressed in the

beginning of the discussion. However, instead of answering the questionsraised by his adversary regarding rror and uncertainty, al-Sh?fi'? alls into

question his former rival's own standards on these issues. To do so, he uses a

hypothetical legal situation. It is not just any legal situation, but the mostseriouspossible onewhich may result n the death penalty:

"I said: 'what do you say about this man next to me? Is his blood and propertysacrosanct?'

"

51Ibid., 462.52See, ibid., 463.53See, ibid.

54Ibid., 463.



19/36

180 AISHA Y. MUSA

"He said:Tes.'"

"I said: 'And if two eyewitnesses testify that he killed a man and took his

propertyand that it is this, which is in his hand?'"

"He said: would kill him in retaliation nd givethe roperty hat s inhis handto the heirs of the victim.'""I said: 'Even though it is possible that the two eyewitnesses testified deceitfullyor erroneously?'*"He said:Tes.'""I said: 'How can you permit [taking] sacrosanct blood and property with

certainty, on the basis of two eyewitnesses about whom there isnot certainty?,w"He said: have been commanded to accept eyewitness testimony."'

"I said: 'Do you find a text in the Book of God the Exalted [saying] that you areto accept eyewitness testimony about killing?'*"He said: 'No, but by way of deduction. I have only been commanded it

according to implicit meaning (hima'na).'"55

Al-Sh?fi'? then asks about various other possible understandings that the

implicit meaning of God's Book may allow. He reports his challenger'sresponse as follows:

The evidence for this is that if the Muslims have agreed that killing requires two

eyewitnesses, then we hold that the Book carries the meaning upon which theyagree and that they will not collectively err in the meaning of God's Book, even

if some of them err.56

Here, al-Sh?fi'? ortrays his opponent as someonewho applies a doublestandard of certainty here certainty s concerned, challenging the acceptanceof Prophetic reports on the basis of certainty, yet accepting uncertaintestimony under the most serious of circumstances. If potential errors and

uncertainty are not used to challenge the reliability f eyewitness testimony,they should not be used to challenge the reliability of Prophetic reports.Instead of confronting and refuting is challenger's concern for error and

uncertainty in the ad?th, al-Sh?fi'? ocuses on the apparent double standardsand the incoherence it lends to his opponent's position on the question of

certainty.Al-Sh?fi'? then compares the standards for accepting an eyewitnesswith

the standards for accepting transmitter fHad?th (muhaddith), aying:

If you have been commanded to do that based on the reliability of the two

eyewitnesses, according to what is readily apparent, then you accept them

55Ibid., 464.

56Ibid., 463-464.



20/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OFREVELATION j^oj

according to what is readily apparent, and only God knows the unseen. But we

demand more regarding the muhaddith than we do regarding the eyewitness, forwe allow the eyewitness testimony of people from whom we would not accepteven a single hadtth. We find indications of the reliability or errancy of themuhaddith ith those who share suchqualities]with him among thosewhohave memorized the Book and the Sunnah. This is not possible in the case of

eyewitnesses.57

Al-Sh?fi'? does not explain, nor does he quote his interlocutor s asking,why the reliability r proneness to error of an eyewitness cannot be checkedin a similarmanner to that al-Sh?fi'? escribes in relation to a transmitter f

Hadtth. It is unclear why he asserts that it is not possible in the case ofeyewitness testimony l? yumkin hadhdfi -shah?d?t). erhaps he means thatnot all eyewitnesses ave character itnesses who can vouch for them. nsteadof clarifying his point, al-Sh?fi'? as his questioner return to several of theissues raised earlier that al-Sh?fi'? has yet to address: the discrepancy in

accepting some reports at one time, while rejecting similar reports at other

times, along with the problems of errors and contradictions in the reportsthemselves. f these, al-Sh?fi'? says:58 Inwhat we have said here and in thebook before this, there s evidence against them and others."59

Here in addition to providing a legal aspect to his arguments for the

indispensable authority f the adtth, al-Sh?fi'? lso introduces the next facetof his argument in support of such authority. In the exchange about theintrinsic meanings possible in the Qur'?n, al-Sh?fi'? has portrayed his

opponent as a blind follower of consensuswho says:

We hold that the Book carries themeaning upon which they [theMuslims] agree

and that they will not collectively err in the meaning of God's Book, even ifsome of them err.60

This iswhere al-Sh?fi'? oncludes the arguments regarding he obligationto accept Prophetic reports, namely with his now former adversary'sreiteration that he has accepted from al-Sh?fi'? that he must accept such

reports. After some discussion of what al-Sh?fi'? onsiders other valid sourcesof law and judgment, e turns his attention to the views of those who reject

57Ibid.58The text of each of the editions consulted has this sentence as a continuation of the

challenger's statement f his remaining oncerns. But it seems tomake more sense to read this sal-Sh?fiTs words, assuming that 'fa ultu' ismissing from the text. n this case, I understand thebook towhich he refers shis Ikhtilaf lHadlth.59

Al-Sh?fi'?, Kit?b Jim?'al-'Ilm., 463-464.60Ibid., 464.



21/36

182 AISHA Y. MUSA

the reports of isolated individuals with specializedknowledge. It is in SectionTwo that al-Sh?fi'? further develops the arguments gainst consensus that he

introduced n the end of SectionOn.

Section 2

Section Relating the octrine ofThoseWho Reject Isolated Reports(B?h ik?yat Qawlman RaddaKhabar al-Kh?ssah)

In the previous section, al-Sh?fi'? as arguing for the scriptural uthority fthe

PropheticSunnah as a form of divine

inspiration,for the

necessityof

accepting Prophetic reports, nd against thosewho rejected Prophetic reportscompletely. To accomplish this he asserted that the word hikmah used in the

Qur'?n refers to the Prophetic Sunnah as a form of revelation parallel and

complementary to the Qur'?n. Furthermore, he stressed the believer's

obligation to obey theMessenger (peacebe on him) and linked this with theacceptance of Prophetic reports, based on what appears at the time to havebeen an uncommon, if not novel, interpretation of Qur'?n 59: 7.

He then went on to illustrate how Prophetic reports are necessary as asource of guidance in both religious practice and legalmatters. Here in Section2, al-Sh?fi'?'s opponents agree that accepting Prophetic reports is incumbentonMuslims, but they reject any report transmitted by only one transmitter nany one link of the isn?d: in other words, any khabar al-kh?ssah. he word alkh?ssah can have somewhat different meanings, depending on the context inwhich it is used. I have translated t in the title of this section as "isolated"because this is how al-Sh?fi'? ortrays his opponent's understanding, aying:"ignorance, according to you, is the acceptance of khabar al-infir?d" (lit.isolatedrepori) "1

Al-Sh?fi'? summarizes is opponent's position:

In summary, their doctrine is that no judge or mufti (one entitled to render a

religious opinion) is allowed to render an opinion or judgment except from a

position of certainty. Certainty iswhatever he knows to be true in its apparent

aspectsand

its hidden aspects,about which he calls God as awitness.

That is, theBook, the agreed-upon Sunnah, and whatever the people agree on and aboutwhich they are not divided.... For example, that al-zuhr (the noontime prayer) isfour [units].62

61Ibid., 469.

62Ibid., 467.



22/36


As with thosewho rejected ll Prophetic reports, ere too, themain issueraised by al-Sh?fi'?'s adversary s the question of certainty. oth groups also

rely heavily on consensus in some form n order to interpret heQur'?n andrender legal judgments. owever, thosewho reject isolated reports recognizean agreed-upon sunnah that is valid and binding. For them, consensus alsodetermines which Prophetic reports are accepted as valid and binding. In hisdiscussion with the rejecter of all Prophetic reports, al-Sh?fi'? challenges his

adversary's certainty where the reliability of eyewitness testimony isconcerned. Al-Sh?fiTs challenge is meant to undermine his adversary'sassertion that lack of certainty s a valid basis for rejecting rophetic reports.

Here, in his arguments against an opponent who rejects isolated reports, lSh?fi'? challenges the notion of consensus in the samemanner.

Al-Sh?fi'? begins his arguments nd highlights nother aspect of the termal-kh?ssah by drawing a sharp distinction between the knowledge of the

general public ('Um l-'ammah) and that of isolated individuals ith specializedknowledge (Himal-kh?ssah). he first, ccording to al-Sh?fi'?, s that which

everyMuslim knows, such as the number of prayers and other religious duties.The second

(i.e.the

knowledgeof individuals with

specialized knowledge)is

that of the Companions of Muhammad (peace be on him) and theirSuccessors.By designating the Companions and their Successors as thosewho

possess such specializedknowledge, he grants the opinions attributed o theminHadith an interpretive uthority above that of judges and scholars. AlSh?fi'? also links such specialized knowledge with the use of analogicaldeduction (qiy?s):"Their opinions differ greatly regarding hat for which thereis no proof text (nass)by which they can interpret omething; and if theyresort to

analogicaldeduction, and

analogicaldeduction

permitsdisagreement."63

Al-Sh?fi'? then presents his adversary's view of the various types of

knowledge. These include thatwhich is transmitted by the general public onthe authority of the general public, such as the obligatory religious practices;that on which theMuslims agree and on which they report agreement in

previous generations; the specialized knowledge of isolated individuals; and

finally analogical deduction. The second of these includes what al-Sh?fiTs

opponent calls "the agreed-upon sunnah" of the community on issues forwhich there isnothing in theQur'?n or the Sunnah of the Prophet (peacebeon him). "That is to say," he explains, "their consensus is not a matter of

opinion, because there is division in opinions."64

"Ibid."Ibid.



23/36

184 AISHA Y. MUSA

Regarding the specialized knowledge of isolated individuals he says:"Proof isnot established on the basis of the specializedknowledge of isolated

individuals unless its transmission is completely safe from error."65 He alsoargues that analogical deduction can be applied only when all aspects of the

properties and relations of two things re equivalent and that division such asal-Sh?fi'? describes is not permitted. "Consensus," he says, "is proof for

everything ecause there sno possibility f error n it."66Al-Sh?fi'i asks his opponent if the second of these consensus is not

the same knowledge of the general public he had described which every sane,adult Muslim, both scholar and non-scholar alike, knows and about which

there sno doubt, such as the number of prayers. is adversary sserts that itis not the same thing. The consensus he is talking about is the consensus ofscholars that those without knowledge are required to follow, because proof isestablished on the basis of their agreement. owever, if they re divided, thenno such proof is established.He further sserts that they only agree on thebasis of binding reports and that if they are divided, whether or not theyrelated a report on which some of them agree, he will accept only those

reports on which there is agreement. Because if there is division as to the

acceptance of a report, there is a possibility of error in it and proof is notestablished, ccording to al-Sh?fiTs opponent, in anymatter where theremaybe error.67 his attitude is similar to that of al-Sh?fiTs adversary in the

previous section, nd al-Sh?fi'? objects to it strongly:

This is authorizing the invalidation of [Prophetic] reports and the confirmationof consensus, because you claim that their consensus constitutes proof whetheror not there is a [Prophetic] report regarding it, while their division does not

provide proof, whetheror not

there isa

[Prophetic) report regarding it.68

He then challenges his adversary: Who are those knowledgeable people,whose consensus constitutes proof?"69 o which his adversary responds: "Theyare those whom the people of a country appoint as religious legal scholars,

whose opinions they ppreciate, ndwhose judgment hey ccept."70Al-Sh?fiTs continues his criticism f consensus and begins to develop his

argument by repeatedly and intensely uestioning him: "Do you think that if

there are ten and one of them is absent, or present but not speaking, that the65Ibid."Ibid.67

Ibid., 468.68Ibid.69Ibid.70Ibid.



24/36

AL-SH?FI'i, THE H ADITH, AND THE CONCEPT OFTHE DUALITY OFREVELATION 185

agreement of nine constitutes proof?""If Iwere to say, 'No.'?"

"What if ne of them died or losthismind? Can nine render n opinion?""If Iwere to say, Tes.'?"

"Likewise, if five f them died, or nine? Can one render n opinion?""If Iwere to say,'No.'?""In whatever you say there is contradiction."

At this point, al-Sh?fiTs opponent declares: "Enough of this "71Havingfrustrated is adversary n the question as to how many scholarsmust agree toconstitute onsensus, al-Sh?fi'? ontinues his criticism f consensus

by bringingup an issueon which Muslim scholars disagree,whether or not aMuslim maysimplywipe over his shoes inwashing for prayer. His opponent asserts thatone should not do so becausewhen there isdisagreement, he should go backto the basic principle and that sablution.72

"Do you say the same about everything?"73 l-Sh?fi'? sks.When he replies in the affirmative, l-Shafi'I brings up another issue on

which there isdisagreement: "What about the non-virgin dulterer (al-z?n? l

thayyib)}ould

youstone him?"74

When he again replies in the affirmative, l-Sh?fi'? sks him how he canstone him when there are scholarswho claim that he should bewhipped onthe basis of the command inQur'an 24: 2:

The woman and the man guilty of adultery whip each of them a hundred lashes;let not compassion move you in their case, in amatter prescribed by God, ifyoubelieve in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the believers witness their

punishment.

"How can you stone him," he asks, "instead of going back to the basicprinciple that his blood is sacrosanct unless they agree that [shedding] it islawful?"75

His rival now asserts that he looks upon the opinion of "themajority" ofscholars as proof, and not to that of "theminority." Al-Shafic? asks him todefine "the minority" and "the majority." However, he insists that he isnotable to define them.76 his leads al-Sh?fi'? o say:

It seems that you want to make this doctrine absolutely undefined. Therefore,

when you accept an opinion about which there is disagreement you say it is

71Ibid.72See, ibid., 468.73Ibid.74Ibid.75Ibid.76See, ibid.



25/36

186 AISHA Y. MUSA

according to the majority. But if you want to reject an opinion, you say: "Theyare theminority.

"77

Just as al-Sh?fi'? as portrayed his opponent in the previous discussion assomeonewho applies a double standard here certainty s concerned, here heaccuses his opponent of the same thing regarding onsensus. Thus, in bothsections he attempts to undermine the positions of his adversaries n both the

general principles of certainty nd consensus, by highlighting heir wn faultyadherence to these principles.

There is a significant ifference n how al-Sh?fi'?proceeds in this latter

discussion, however. In the previous discussion, al-Sh?fi'? portrays hisopponent asmore persistent n pressing the issuesof doubt and error, whichal-Sh?fi'? bypassed until later in the discussion. In this later discussion,however, he seems to switch roles. Although he indicates that he has

thoroughly frustrated is opponent on the issue of consensus, he continuesthis Une of argument at great length before turning to the topic of acceptingisolatedProphetic reports. n both cases, al-Sh?fi'? s using the positions of hisadversaries as a platform for articulating his own positions. He has structured

each section to emphasize hismost important oints. Here, al-Sh?fi'? s seekingto undermine consensus as a basis of decision-making by highlighting theconfusion that exists over the nature of the very ideaof "consensus." f there sno agreement on exactly what constitutes consensus, how can it be used as a

basis for making decisions aboutwhich Prophetic reports to accept andwhichto reject. This discussion differsmarkedly from the discussion of consensus inthe Ris?lah, where al-Sh?fi'? uances the concept and establishes it as a validsource of law.78 The differences between what al-Sh?fi'? argues here and what

he argues in theRis?lahmust be considered n light f the different urposes ofeach work. Unlike the Ris?lah, Kit?b Jim?' al- is not a treatise on thefoundations of jurisprudence usiil al-fiqh).Rather, it is a response to those

who opposed the use of reports from the Prophet (peace be on him) as asource of law. In it, al-Sh?fi'? ddresses the arguments of both those who

opposed all reports s a source of law, and those who opposed only the use of

single-individual eports. Both of these groups relied heavily on consensus insome form in interpreting heQur'?n andmaking legal judgments. o, it is in

the context of his being against the doctrines of the opponents of Propheticreports that l-Sh?fi'? eals with the notion of consensushere.

After dealingwith the question of consensus, al-Sh?fi'?finally urns to theissueof isolated reports, sking his antagonist: "Bywhat do you consider the

77Ibid., 469.

78Al-Sh?fi'?, al-Ris?lah, 471-465.



26/36

AL-SH?FIM, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OF REVELATION 187

Sunnah of God's Messenger, peace and blessing be upon him, to beconfirmed?''79

His rival answers that the Sunnah ofGod's Messenger is confirmed n oneof three ways:

a report transmitted by the general public on the authority of the generalpublic;the uninterrupted multiple transmission of a report (taw?tur al-khabar)-*0

andwhen a single ndividualCompanion relates ruling n the authority fGod's Messenger (peacebe on him) on which no one is known to havedisagreed with him.81

An absence of disagreement, ccording to al-Sh?fiTs opponent, indicatesconsensus.82 l-Sh?fi'I has no objection to the first f these,which is the sameas the first ategory of knowledge described by his opponent at the beginningof their discussion. It is the second and third means of confirming that

something sSunnah that concern al-Sh?fi'LHe challenges his adversary to define the minimum standard by which

taw?tur confirms the validity of a Prophetic report. He explains that if, forexample, four individuals in different places relate a single story on the

authority f the Prophet (peace be on him) that each learned from a differentsource, and if their stories agree, there is no possibility of error.83 l-Sh?fi'?seeks clarification of his opponent's position by asking if the four must befrom different places in order for a report to have sufficient frequency ofrepetition. "Yes," his opponent replies, "because if they were in one place, it

would be possible for them to conspire in the matter of the report. But thatwould not be possible if theywere in different ountries."84

Al-Sh?fi'? is shocked by this statement, hich he sees as an insult to thoseconsidered leaders in the religion, n both the earlier and later generations. shis opponent impugning he reputations f every trustworthy ransmitter f a

report, each ofwhom established the validity of the report on the basis of themerit of the transmitter efore him all theway back to theCompanions of the

79Ibid., 473.80For a succinct classical definition of this type of report seeWensinck's translation f al-Nasafiin TheMuslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, 2nd edition (New Deli: Oriental

Reprint, 1979),263.81Al-Sh?fi'i, Kit?hJim?fal-Tlmt 474.82Ibid., 473-474.

83See, ibid., 473.

84Ibid.



27/36

188 AISHA Y. MUSA

Prophet? "For this," he says, "is the method with which you find fault."85When his opponent claims that this isnot what he has said, al-Shafi'? ells him

that his only recourse is to evasion or withdrawal.86 Once more, he hasportrayed his adversary s inconsistent, ven hypocritical in the views he usesto accept or reject Prophetic reports. Once more, his opponent declares in

frustration: "Enough of this "87

Turning to the third means that his opponent wants to use for thevalidation of Prophetic reports gives al-Sh?fic? he opportunity to present even

more arguments against the idea of consensus on any but the most basic issues.

He stresses hedifferences f opinion found in all areas of the Muslim world,

from the time of the Prophet's Companions until his own day. Thesearguments take up the rest of this section of the work.88 Al-Sh?fi'? ends thissection by saying:

Until today, udges ndmuftis iffer n some of the judgments nd religiousopinions they render; and they do not render judgments and religious opinionsexcept according to what they think is permitted to them. In your view, this isconsensus. How can there be consensus when there are differences inwhat theydo? God knows best.89

Although al-Sh?fi'? recounts this latter opponent's frustration everal times

throughout the discussions, he does not report that he persuaded him to giveup his position in favour of that of al-Sh?fi'?, s he did with the previousopponent. However, unlike the previous opponent, this one already agreeswith al-Sh?fi'? n the need to accept at least those Prophetic reports on whichthere is consensus among Muslims. What this adversary rejects is isolated

reportson which he does not find consensus

amongMuslims.

Just s he did with his previous opponent, al-Sh?fi'? alls into question the

validity, the consistency, nd even the sincerity f the grounds on which thisopponent rejects isolated reports. n both cases,al-Sh?fi'f taking the offensivein this way proves much less effective han his use of Qur'?nic arguments.

Using the Qur'?n appeals to the ultimate source of authority that both alSh?fi'? nd his adversaries recognize.Calling into question the consistency ndeven the sincerity f his opponents' arguments epresents eveloping standards

of trustworthiness hatwill prove crucialto

the isn?d system, ywhich Haditbauthenticity ill eventually ome to be judged.

85Ibid.86

See, ibid., 473.87Ibid., 474.88See, ibid., 474-477.

89Ibid., 477.



28/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITY OFREVELATION 189

Sections 3& 4

AnExplanation f

the rdinancesof

GodMostHigh(Bay?n araidAll?hTa'?l?)ScSectionnFasting

(Bab lSawm)

The remaining sections, xplanation of the rdinances ofGod the ublime, andSection on Fasting are much shorter and contain additional supportingarguments hat are not presented in the point-counterpoint ebate form foundin sections 1 and 2.Al-Sh?fi'? opens section 3with an idea that he expressed

early in his discussion with the representative f those who rejected allProphetic reports: the ordinances inGod's Book are of two kinds: those thatHe has clarified in the revelation itself, nd those that He has explainedthrough the words ofHis Messenger (peace be on him).90The second typenecessitates acceptance of Prophetic reports. He repeats the section of Qur'?n59: 7 that convinced his first opponent that the revelation calls for obedienceto the Prophet (peace be on him) beyond what is in the Qur'an.91 He thenoffers more examples of the details of the ritual prayers and alms that are

taken from the Hadith rather than the Qur'an. Section 4 contains a similardiscussion on the details of fasting nd pilgrimage. n thisway, al-Sh?fi'?againemphasizes one of the most frequent nd persistent rguments made for the

necessity of Prophetic reports: without such reports it is impossible to haveuniform religious practices.92

Al-Sh?fi'? also takes the opportunity to present some other ideas that are

important to the question of the authority f the Had?th after the discussionon pilgrimage. At this point, without preamble al-Sh?fi'? mentions a hadith

reported to him by Sufy?n b. 'Uyaynah (d. 198/814.) that seems to prohibitthe acceptance of Prophetic reports: "The people must not cling to anythingon my authority.... (l? yumsikanna alnas (alayya hi shay'...)." Though he saysthat this hadith has been reported to him "with its chain of transmitters" (hiisnddihi) e does not include the chain.93

Al-Sh?fi'? criticizes such a use of the above hadith on several grounds.First, he says that it ismunqati, that is, it does not go back to the Prophe(peacebe on him) in an unbroken chain of transmitters. ecause he does not

include the chain of transmitters, e do not know where the break occurs.Nevertheless, al-Sh?fi'? s reluctant o reject ny hadith, preferring o findways

90See, ibid., 477.

91Qur'?n 59: 7 reads:Take what theMessenger gives you, and deny yourselves that which he

forbids you.92. ee, al-Sh?fi% it?b Jim?*

- ,481.93

See, ibid.



29/36

190 AISHA Y. MUSA

to reconcile apparent contradictions. Therefore, he argues further that even if

it can be confirmed to have come from the Prophet (peace be on him), it

contains the prepositional phrase 'alayya (on me), rather than 'anni {fromme/on my authority). his is significant or al-Sh?fi'? ho understands this tomean that people are not to adhere to those things that were specificallyordained by God for the Prophet (peace be on him) and no one else, such as

takingmore than fourwives.94Al-Sh?fi'? also cites another hadith reported tohim by Sufy?n ibn 'Uyaynah:

Let me not find any one of you who receives a command or prohibition from me

rechningon

his couch and saying, "We donot

know about this.We follow whatwe find n the ook ofGod, Almighty ndExalted.95

This time he includes the complete chain of transmitters. Altogether, these

things ndicate for al-Sh?fi'? hat the earlier hadith cannot be understood as a

prohibition of accepting Prophetic reports.96 fter dealing with the abovehadith, he turns again to his most successful arguments against those who

rejected allProphetic reports, eiterating he sameportion ofQur'?n 59: 7 and

4: 65.97Here, too, al-Sh?fi'? also returns to the idea that is central to hisposition: duality of revelation. To support the idea that the Prophet'scommands and prohibitions outside of the Qur'?n were also inspiration(wahy)from od, he cites threeQur'?nic verses:

But when Our Clear Signs are recited unto them, those who rest not their hopeon their meeting with Us, say: "Bring us a Reading other than this, or changethis," say: "It is not for me, ofmy own accord, to change it: I follow naught but

what is inspired unto me: if Iwere to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the

Penalty of aGreat Day." "Follow what you are taught by inspiration from yourLord...." "He who obeys theMessenger obeys God...."98

Next, he cites a hadith inwhich the Prophet is said to have declared that he hasneither neglected to command anything ommanded by God, nor to prohibitanything rohibited by God.99 So he ends Kitdh Jima*al-llm where he began,

with two ideas that form the theological basis for the authority of theHadith ? obedience to the Prophet (peacebe on him), and the concept of two

94See, ibid.

95Ibid."Ibid.97Ibid.*

Ibid., 482-483; Qur'?n 10:15, 6:106, 4: 80."See, al-Sh?fi'?, it?bJim?'al-'Ilm, 482-483.



30/36

AL-SH?FI'?, THE HAD/ ,AND THE CONCEPT OF THE DUALITYOF REVELATION 191

forms of revelation that together require accepting Prophetic reports inaddition to theQur'?n.

A brief discussion of religious laws and practices that are ordered in theQur'?n, but the details of which are taken from theHadith, reinforces theneed to accept the adith in practicalmatters. For al-Sh?fi'?, onsensus isnotsufficient s a basis for decision-making in these areas. The means for

determining the appropriate details of required religious practices must be

somethingmore consistent nd reliable than consensus.That source is adith,which are the repository f the Prophetic Sunnah and a second form f divinerevelation.When looked atwith this understanding, he order and logic in the

Jim?c l-llm becomes clear. Al-Sh?fi'? begins by setting ut what he sees as thestrongest arguments of his opponents. He then presents his own broad,doctrinal arguments. e thenmoves from his doctrinal arguments to issuesof

legal theory and then specific religious practices. At each step, he adduces

examples to illustrate is points, and then ends thework with more examplesand reiteration of his key arguments. erhaps the greatest weakness of theJim?( al'ilm as a book is that al-Sh?fi'? ttacks his opponents repeatedly nd at

great length on the concerns they have raised regarding the acceptance ofHadith rather han addressing hoseconcerns directly.

TheRis?lahLike Kit?b Jima' al-llm, the Ris?lah is written in al-Sh?fi'Fs characteristic

language and style, but the format of the two works differs. he Ris?lah isdivided into three parts. Each part contains discussions relating to the issueofthe position and authority of Hadith, along with other issues. Only whatrelates to the

authorityf the adith will be dealt with here.

The main ideas that al-Sh?fi'? presented inKit?b Jim?'al-llm in the formof debates are presented in amore developed form, s general principles in theRis?lah. However, in the subsection entitled: "Defects in the Traditions" (B?bal-llal fi -Had?th), n the section on Traditions, he uses the familiar debateformat sed in the first alf of Kit?b Jim?(al-llm. Here, too, al-Sh?fi'? oes not

identify is challenger, gain using instead the generic phrase: "q?la li q?'il..."(a speaker said to me...).100

In PartOne,

al-Sh?fi'?emphasizes

thereligious obligation

offollowingthe Sunnah of God's Messenger (peace be on him) and its importance in

relation to various religious practices, such as prayer, alms, fasting, and

pilgrimage, tc., ashe did inKit?b Jim?(al-llm, but here he goesmuch furtherin stressing the important position in which God has placed the Prophet

100Al-Sh?fi'?, al-Ris?lahy assim.



31/36

192 AISHA Y. MUSA

(peace be on him).101 art Two contains the subsection on defects in thetraditions, followed by a detailed treatment of apparently contradictory

ah?dith. This part endswith a chapter on singular reports khabar l-w?hid), aterm al-Sh?fi'? seems to use synonymously with isolated reports (khabar l

kh?ssah)}02 art Three beginswith further iscussion of singular reports, fterwhich al-Sh?fi'? ends the work with discussion of other principles of

jurisprudence.

The Ris?lab's opening section begins with the customary invocation,praising God and seeking is help, alongwith the Muslim testimony f faith,or shah?dah. brief discussion of the religious state f humanity at the time of

Muhammad (peacebe on him) follows.Next, al-Sh?fi'? ets the stage for the

topic of Sunnah and Hadith by stressing uhammad's role and importance sGod's Messenger and the causeof humanity's religious ndworldly gain.103

In the second chapter of the Ris?lah, al-Sh?fi'? deals with the variousrelated meanings of the word albay?n (clear declaration, explanation,elucidation, information). These correspond roughly to the categories of

knowledge discussed inKit?b Jim?''al-7lm:

What God has declared n the ext f the Qur'?n,The Prophet's explanations of the text,

What the Messenger established (m? satina Ras?l Allah) in the absence of atextualruling rom od (minm? lays ill?hf?hi asshukm).104

He devotes a separate section to each category, iting specific examples fromreligious laws and practices. Of course, all but the first category requireaccepting rophetic reports.

As in Kit?b Jim?( al-'Um, the two central ideas are obedience to the

Prophet (peace be on him), and the recognition of two forms of divinerevelation. Having already stressedMuhammad's importance and role as

God's Messenger, al-Sh?fi'? urther develops his arguments bout the nature oftheMessenger's authority y citing theQur'?nic

the hadith and the concept of two revelation

Documents