Understanding the Statements of the Illustrious Imams: ‘When a Hadith is Sahih it is my Madhab”

What is the meaning of the statement by the four Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, that ‘when a hadith is found to be authentic that is my adopted position (in fiqh)’?

Summary:

• Statements such as these by the illustrious Fuqaha are to be understood in their proper context. They were addressing them to their students and scholars alike and not to any lay people and non-specialists in fiqh and hadith.
• The statements could also be interpreted to mean that an individual scholar will be given license to investigate Ahadith (if he is capable) but must not contradict the Usul or the principles of the Imam (madhab) in its entirety.
• Language should not be (always) taken literally. Speech should be understood in their correct context by considering the addresser and the addressee of a particular statement(s).
• Single or a group of Ahadith are not sufficient for deducing Ahkam (rulings) from the sources.
• Those who are competent and fulfil the criterion of ijtihad are only suitable to directly investigate and deduce rulings from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
• Those who are novices in the Arabic language and fiqh (jurisprudence) are required to conform to the views and investigations of qualified scholarship.
• Each of the great mujtahidun scholars opined certain methodology when investigating Ahadith and fiqh. If a competent scholar ignores to apply a particular authentic hadith it does not necessarily imply that he is neglecting the narration intentionally nor does it necessarily mean that he was unaware of the narration.

Understanding language

One of the most important branches of Usul al Fiqh, Tafseer and other sciences is the study of language. Linguistics includes principles relating to the way in which words convey their meanings, and to the clarity and ambiguity of words and their interpretation. The knowledge of these principles is essential to the proper understanding of the sources of the Shari’ah, the Qur’an and the authentic Ahadith of the Prophet, which laws and rulings are deduced.

Language[1] is employed by people to communicate with each other; teach, express emotions and feelings. Without the correct understanding of language there would be much difficulty in the way in which people and civilisation develops.

However, although there are universal modes of language, the way in which we express our thoughts and communicate our speech will vary from country to country, culture to culture and person to person. An educated man, for example, will differ in expression and the method of articulation of his thoughts from the way a man who has a simple elementary education; a doctor’s level of communication will differ from that of a farmer; a lawyers method of expression and choice of phrases and words will differ with a student; a university professor’s writing and usage of prose and rhymes therein will differ from a beginner learning a language, so on and so forth.

Furthermore our language or the words and phrases we employ in our day to day conduct and communication with other people will differ immensely when we consider our environment, context or to whom we address our message etc. Our cognitive and emotional state of mind will also effect and influence, to a large extent, the way in which we communicate and express our feelings and inner understanding. An intelligent person will survey the listener and articulate his or her thoughts appropriately. Conversely and, depending on the level of the understanding of the audience, each person or group will determine or interpret the conveyed message in varied forms and elucidations.

Speech and its objectives

Ibn ‘Ashur explains this very succinctly in his treatise on Maqasid al-Shari’ah under the chapter heading ‘Insufficiency of the literal methodology without knowledge of the Higher Objectives’:

‘’Never has speech in any human language, nor of its genres and styles in a particular language, been sufficient by itself to indicate the intent (Maqsad) of the speaker in such a way that would preclude any possibility of doubt about the signification (dalalah) of his words. I mean the kind of signification referred to as explicit expression (nass) that is unequivocal in denoting one particular meaning to the exclusion of others. However, the meaning of words in different languages, and the meanings of different types of speech in the same language, vary greatly in the degree of doubt and probability (ihtimal) arising in the mind about the purport (murad) of that speech. Some types of speech are more open to interpretation than others, just as speech authors differ in their capacity to articulate in an unequivocal way the meanings they intend by the words they use. Hence, some speakers are described as fluent or eloquent.’’[2]

He also highlights that the understanding of the listeners or the audience of a particular speech will vary depending on their capacity to understand the various contours of language,

‘’Similarly, in so far as their understanding of its import is concerned, the share of listeners to a speech also varies according to their understanding and practice of the idioms of that speech and the styles of those who belong to the same category as the author of that speech. Likewise, neither speakers nor listeners can afford to ignore certain features that surround a speech act, namely the context, the capacity (maqam) from which that act flows as well as its background information. All these elements consolidate one another in such a way as would exclude some possibilities of interpretation that might concur to the listener’s mind concerning the speaker’s intention. This is the reason why the speaker’s direct words to his listeners express his intention more clearly than when they are conveyed by another person. Likewise, a speech conveyed to others in writing is more open to different interpretations that a speech conveyed verbatim, let alone speech that is addressed directly. This is because a written speech loses the connotations of context and the features of both the speaker and the conveyer, despite the fact that it is more accurate for it is less subject to distortion, omission, or having its meaning expressed in different words when the conveyer fails to retain the original words of the speaker.’’[3]

Additionally he clarifies the mistake of those who only take the literal words in a speech without considering the context and import of the conveyer and the variant capacity of the listeners.

It is in this light that the reported statements ‘when a hadith is found to be authentic then that is my adopted position’ (and similar statements) by the illustrious Imams of the four acceptable and popular schools of thought have been and should be understood and interpreted. Ibn ‘Ashur in his treatise on Maqasid further explained:

‘’It is here also that we can realise the inaccuracy and unsoundness of the statement attributed to al-Shafi’i, in which he is reported to have said: ‘’If a tradition (khabar) from God’s Apostle is proven authentic, then that is my adopted position,’’ for such as statement cannot be uttered by a scholar who has attained the level of a mujtahid. Moreover, evidence from al-Shafi’i’s juristic doctrines compels us to believe that this statement is either wrongly attributed to him or has been distorted, unless he means by authenticity the perfect signification based on the considerations that we have explained, and provided it is free from opposition from what we have warned against.’’[4]

Ibn ‘Ashur then clarifies how this statement from al-Shafi’i (and others) should be understood,

‘’Accordingly al-Shafi’i’s statement can be interpreted as follows: When you examine my juristic views, you should know that they are based on authentic tradition.’’[5]

The issue and the confusion

Unfortunately in recent times these statements by these great scholars of Islamic law have been taken out of context and sometimes used to substantiate an adopted methodology in fiqh by certain individuals and groups. Many books have been authored on denouncing the concept of taqlid (conformation) by all, even the non-specialists who may not have the basic understanding of the Arabic language or even unable appreciate the vast intellectual differences in the areas of Usul al-Fiqh, Usul al-Hadith, Usul al-Tafseer and other such disciplines in Islamic law.

Countless articles, YouTube videos, discussions on forums and even lectures have been produced to propagate the notion of completely rejecting the views of these scholars when an ‘authentic’ narration, according to them, is found which stands incongruity to the perceived authentic narration they have.

Much confusion and sedition (fitnah) arose from these inaccurate interpretations of these scholars to the extent that lay people or non-specialists in the sciences of the Arabic language and Islamic law have been going around shouting and screaming to shun conforming to the views of the four established schools of thought and take from where they took, i.e., directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), without understanding or possessing the qualifications of the precepts and principle of language and methodology of deduction.

Henceforth I shall endeavour to further explain the correct and sound purport of these scholars when they uttered such statements and how we the audience and listeners should understand and analyse them.

Following are some of the reports by the heads of these schools of thought and their brief analysis:

Abu Hanifah:

1. “When a hadith is found to be sahih (authentic), then that is my adopted position.” [6]
2. ‘’It is not permitted for anyone to accept our views if they do not know from where we got them from.’’[7]
3. ‘’It is not permissible for someone to give legal verdicts from my books that he should do so without knowing from where I took from.’’[8]
4. ‘’It is prohibited for someone who does not know my evidence to give verdicts on the basis of my words.’’[9]
5. ‘’For indeed we are human: we say one thing one day, and take it back the next day.’’[10]
6. ‘’Woe to you, O Ya’qub! Do not write down everything you hear from me, for it happens that I hold one opinion today and reject it tomorrow, or hold one opinion tomorrow and reject it the day after tomorrow.’’[11]
7. ‘’When I say something contradicting the Book of Allah the Exalted or what is narrated from the Messenger , then ignore my saying.’’[12]
8. ‘’What has come from the Prophet , then we take it without hesitation, and what has come from his companions we select from them as long as we do not depart from their sayings (in totality).’’[13]

Malik Ibn Anas:

1. Indeed I am only a human: I make mistakes (sometimes) and I am correct (sometimes). Therefore, look into my opinions: all that agrees with the Book and the Sunnah accept it; and all that does not agree with the Book and the Sunnah, ignore it.’’[14]
2. ‘’Everyone after the Prophet will have his sayings accepted and rejected – except the Prophet .’’[15]
3. ‘’The Messenger of Allah passed away and the affair has been completed; therefore the athar (narrations) of the Prophet should be followed, and (mere) opinions should not be followed.’’[16]

Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafi’i:

1. ‘’In every issue where the people of narration find a report from the Messenger of Allah to be sahih which is contrary to what I have said, then I take my saying back, whether during my life or after my death.’’[17]
2. ‘’Every hadith on the authority of the Prophet is also my view, even if you do not hear it from me.’’[18]
3. ‘’For everything I say, if there is something authentic from the Prophet contrary to my saying, then the hadith of the Prophet comes first, therefore do not taqlid of my opinion.’’[19]
4. ‘’The sunnah of the Messenger of Allah reach, as well as escape from, every one of us. So whenever I voice my opinion, or formulate a principle, where something contrary to my view exists on the authority of the Messenger of Allah then the correct view is what the Messenger of Allah has stated, and it is my view.’’[20]
5. ‘’The Muslims are unanimously agreed that if a sunnah of the Messenger of Allah is made clear to someone, it is not permitted for him to leave it for the saying of anyone else.’’[21]
6. ‘’If you find in my book (writings) something different to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah , then speak on the basis of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah , and leave what I have said.’’[22]
7. ‘’When a hadith is found to be sahih (authentic), then that is my adopted position.’’[23]

Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

1. ‘’ Do not follow my opinion; neither follow the opinion of Malik, nor Shafi’i, nor Awza’i, nor Thawri, but take from where they took.’’[24]
2. ‘’The opinion of Awza’i, the opinion of Malik, the opinion of Abu Hanifah: all of it is opinion, and it is all equal in my eyes. However, the proof is in the athar (narrations).’’[25]
3. ‘’Whoever rejects a statement of the Messenger of Allah is on the brink of destruction.’’[26]
4. ‘’From the lack of understanding of a man is to follow his religion from men.’’[27]

Brief discussion:

• Every scholar is bound to follow this precept of following the authentic narration over anything else. However, not all authentic hadith is to be implemented and actioned. Some could be abrogated; others could be specified or qualified. Furthermore there are varied opinions among the scholars in a given hadith as regards to the authenticity of it. Not all authentic Ahadith are in the same level of authenticity. There are countless number of Ahadith upon which the hadith specialists and Fuqaha have differed upon its authenticity and grade of authenticity. Therefore whose gradation does one follow? One who is not qualified to sieve through the corpus of hadith collections must conform to the experts and specialists in that field.

To perform ijtihad is a challenging task. Scholars cite some conditions:

– Knowing the Arabic Language which includes: Nahu [grammar] sarf [Arabic morphology], Balagha [science of rhetoric] and the knowledge of al-huruf [‘Ilm al Huruf]

– Knowledge of the Qur’an which includes: Ahkam al-Qur’an, the knowledge of the nuzul of the Qur’an, the science of Nasikh and Mansukh, the science of the Qira’at, and the science of tafsir.

– Knowledge of the Sunnah which includes: Mustalah hadith [also jarh wa ta’dil and the ilal of hadith], the legal ordinances contained in the Sunnah, the causes or instances of the ahadith [asbab wurud al hadith] etc.

– Usul al Fiqh which includes: Knowing the general and the specific texts, the mutlaq and the muqayyad, the abrogating and the abrogated, and the qawi’d al fiqhiyiat and their application, and the Maqasid ash Shari’ah.

– Knowledge of those matters that have consensus [ijma’ as sahih].[28]

• The canons of hadith collections were not available during their era. Scholars were still collecting Ahadith from various locations and hadith masters, it was not till later that the books of hadith we have today were codified and written. The narrations were not available to the masses but mostly restricted to students and scholars. It is quite impossible to infer from the Imams that they were referring to non-specialists. Even if they were the statements of the Imams such as ‘when a hadith is found to be authentic then that is my adopted position’ are referring to competent scholars to make that judgement.

• Statements such as ‘take from where they took’ suggest that the Imams are making it clear that one should investigate the root sources, i.e., the Qur’an and Sunnah directly and evaluate the verses and narrations. This surely is suggesting that the one who should do so should be well versed in the sciences of the Arabic language and possesses the tools of ijtihad and istinbat, does it not? The Imams are not referring to a novice in the Arabic language nor are they referring to ill-equipped and unqualified individuals.

• Reading the writings and the Usul of Imam Malik, for example, makes it clear that he did not mean what some suggest in our times; he followed certain Usul or principles in fiqh and accepting Ahadith. For example, he would give preference to the ‘amal ahlal madinah when a narration contradicts the widespread action of the people of madinah.

• Statements such as ‘do not follow my opinion but follow the narrations’ or ‘whoever is rejecting a narration is on the brink of destruction’ if taken literally from the Imams seems contradictory since they themselves disregarded certain Ahadith in their writings because they believed certain particular Ahadith have been abrogated or specified or even there are other more authentic Ahadith to a particular narration.

This has been clarified by many scholars. For example, Imam al-Razi explains why it is not possible to extract rulings from a single hadith or a group of Ahadith without looking at the verses and Ahadith in their entirety and comprehensively. This can be done only by a specialist in that field. The following is a summary of the reasons:

1. There is a possibility that the ruling that one conclude from the single evidence has been restricted to certain circumstances, without one’s knowledge.

2. There is a possibility that the expression of the single evidence is metaphoric.

3. Our reference in language is linguists, which are people who could err.

4. Arabic grammar is conveyed to us via ancient Arabic poetry, which was narrated through individuals’ narrations (riwayat ahad). These narrations are not certain and the original poets themselves could have made grammatical mistakes.

5. There is a possibility that one or more of the words of this single evidence have multiple meanings.

6. There is a possibility that one or more of the words of the single evidence have been altered, over time, in a way that alters the original meaning.

7. There is a possibility that the expression has a hidden (khafī) meaning that we do not understand.

8. There is a possibility that the ruling that we conclude from the single evidence has been abrogated, without evidence our knowledge.

9. There is a possibility that a ruling that we conclude from single evidence is at odds with ‘reason.’ In such case (al-Razi says), if both reason and narration are confirmed, then one of them is wrong. Moreover, reason is our means to confirm the validity of narration itself. Therefore, reason has precedence over narrations. Thus, we should follow reason, and not the linguistic evidence of the narration.[29]

• Each of these mujtahidun were addressing competent students, who themselves were qualified to deduce rulings directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah; students like Abu Yusuf, al-Shaybani were qualified to make judgements on the sources.

Many scholars past and present have explained the correct way to understand these statements. For example, Taqi al-Din al-Subki’s Ma‘na Qawl al-Imamal-Muttalibi Idha Sahha al-Hadithu Fahuwa Madhhabi; Ibn al-Salah’s Adab al-Mufti waal-Mustafti; and the first volume of al-Nawawi’s al-Majmu’, all have understood these famous statements in the manner that have been clarified above. Please refer to these writings in particular for a more detailed discussion.

The correct way to understand these statements may be summarised as follows:

1. Is that the Imams restricted the instructions to qualified individuals in the various sciences who are capable of sifting the abrogating and sound Ahadith from the abrogated and unsound ones as well as extract the rulings from their collective evidence according to the principles of the Law and those of the Arabic language.

Al-Nawawi explained: ‘’What Imam al-Shafi’i said does not mean that everyone who sees a sahih hadith should say “This is the madhhab of al-Shafi’i,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person as has the rank of ijtihad in the madhhab. It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imam al-Shafi’i was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of al-Shafi’i and similar other books of the companions of al-Shafi’i, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them. This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfil. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times. What we have explained has been made conditional because Imam al-Shafi’i had abandoned acting purely on the external meaning of many hadiths, which he declared and knew. However, he established proofs for criticism of the hadith or its abrogation or specific circumstances or interpretation and so forth. Shaykh Abu ‘Amr [Ibn al-Salah] said: “It is no trivial matter to act according to the apparent meaning of what Imam al-Shafi’i said. For it is not permissible for every faqih – let alone a layman (‘ammi) – to act independently with what he takes to be a proof from the hadith… Therefore, whoever among the Shafi’i’s finds a hadith that contradicts his School must examine whether he is absolutely accomplished in all the disciplines of ijtihad, or in that particular topic, or specific question. [If he is,] then he has the right to apply it independently. If he is not, but finds that contravening the hadith bears too heavily upon him–after having researched it and found no justification for contravening it–then he may apply it if another independent Imam other than al-Shafi’i applies it. This is a good excuse for him to leave the madhab of his Imam in such a case.”[30]

Ibn Abidin wrote: ‘’It is not hidden that this is for one qualified to examine the texts and has knowledge of its non-abrogated from its abrogated, so when the scholars of the madhhab deliberate on an evidence and act upon it, its attribution to the madhhab is sound due to it issuing by permission from the founder of the madhhab, since there is no doubt that if he knew the weakness of his proof, he would go back on it and follow the stronger proof.’’[31]

2. That the scholar should not contradict the Usul of the madhab in its entirety. As mentioned before each scholar is certain Usul in accepting or applying hadith etc. If a scholar wishes to implement a hadith then he should not go against the madhab in its entirety.

Ibn Abidin stated: ‘’That must be conditional within the madhab whether the view agrees to a view in the madhab. Since he is not given permission to perform ijtihad in so far as that goes against the school in its entirety in which the Imams (of the school) have agreed upon, because their reasoning (ijtihad) is stronger than his. Therefore the clear thing is that they saw evidence more strong than what he understood and did not act upon it.’’[32]

An example:

Abu al-Walid Ibn Abi al-Jarud, a scholar of the Shafi’i school pronounced that al-Shafi’i’s position in the issue of cupping while fasting is that one’s fast is nullified as per the rigorously authenticated hadith of the Prophet :

‘’The one administering the cupping and the one being cupped have both broken their fasts.’’[33]

However, the view of al-Shafi’i and other scholars including Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Thawri, and Companions, like Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Ibn Mas`ud, `A’ishah, and Umm Salamah, and Successors like `Urwah and Sa`id b. Jubayr, was that cupping does not invalidate the fasting nor the one who is administering it.

How did al-Shafi’i and others understand or interpret the above authentic narration?

A number of explanations have been forwarded by these scholars. One plausible justification they gave is that of abrogation. They argued that that the above hadith has been abrogated by other authentic narrations, for example, “The Prophet granted permission for a fasting person to sit for cupping.’’[34]

Here is a clear example of how scholars interpreted certain authentic narrations. If a person were to exclaim the slogan of ‘follow sahih hadith only’ and ignore the view of al-Shafi’i and others on this particular issue without knowing and understanding the scholastic heritage and Usul al-Hadith interpretations, how silly would he sound!

1. If indeed the Imams were ignorant of a particular hadith around a given issue the scholars of the school or competent masters of hadith and fiqh later came and adjusted the position of the madhab. This arduous task has been carried out by scholars over the centuries, and of course this can only be done by qualified and competent scholars.

An example:

In the Hanafi school the Sunnah of bathing (ghusl) before going to Friday prayer (Jumu’ah). The position of the school is that the validity of this Sunnah bath is nullified if one’s ablution (wudhu) is broken between the bath and the Friday prayer, in which case one needs to bathe again to attain the reward of the Sunnah.

Yet we find in the Radd al-muhtar of Ibn ‘Abidin, the foremost fatwa resource for the late Hanafi school, that Imam ‘Abd al-Ghani Nabulusi, after mentioning the above ruling, notes that there are two positions about it among scholars of the madhhab: The first is the position of those who hold the legal reason for this bath is purification (Taharah), in which case nullifying one’s ablution between it and the prayer would invalidate it. The second is the position of those who hold that the reason for the bath is cleanliness (nadhafa), in which case nullifying ablution and repeating it between the bath and the prayer would not invalidate it, for the extra ablution, if anything, increases cleanliness. Nabulusi adopts this second position because in his words “the hadiths on this matter imply that the aim is attaining cleanliness alone”,[35] and Ibn ‘Abidin inclines towards it also, because of the Ahadith about the merit of coming to the mosque from the first hour on Friday morning to wait for the congregational prayer (Jumu’ah). Abu Hurayra relates that the Prophet said:

‘’Whoever bathes on Friday as he would for major ritual impurity (janaba), then goes early [to the mosque] is as though he has sacrificed a she-camel. Whoever goes in the second hour [of daylight] is as though he has sacrificed a cow. Whoever goes in the third hour is as though he has sacrificed a ram. Whoever goes in the fourth hour is as though he has sacrificed a chicken. Whoever goes in the fifth hour is as though he has offered an egg. And when the imam comes out [to begin the sermon], the angels [stop recording, and] come to listen to the remembrance.’’[36]

Ibn ‘Abidin says of Nabulusi’s position (that the bath (ghusl) on Friday is not invalidated by having to renew one’s ablution before the Friday prayer):

‘’It is attested to by the demand to go early to the prayer, best done in the first hour of the day, which extends till sunrise. When doing this, it might prove difficult to keep one’s ablution (wudhu) until the time for the prayer arrives, especially on the longest days of the year. Repeating the bath would be even more arduous, while [Allah says in Surah al-Hajj:] “He has not placed any hardship upon you in religion” (Qur’an 22:78). It might also lead to holding back from going to the bathroom while praying, which is unlawful.’’[37]

Here we see an early position of the Hanafi School (that the Friday bath is nullified by having to renew one’s ablution after it) re-evaluated in light of a hadith by two of the school’s principal later scholars, ‘Abd al-Ghani Nabulusi and Ibn ‘Abidin.

This is not exclusive to the Hanafi madhab but all other schools have similar evaluations and developments made by their leading accolades.[38]

Conclusion:

From the cursory discussion above it is evidently clear that the statements by the four illustrious Imams ‘when a hadith is found to be authentic then that is my adopted position’ and similar remarks are to be understood in the proper context as explained above. A), they were instructions to qualified individuals in fiqh and language. B), they are encouragement for people to study language and fiqh with scholars.

To understand these statement in any other light than the way in which has been clarified is trying to interpolate the comments of the Imams, which no classical scholar understood, to a meaning they did not intend.

Allah knows best.

References: