This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: e still regarded as sahabi. The fact of being a Companion may be established by means of continuous testimony, or tawatur, which is the case with regard to the most prominent Companions such as the Khulafa' Rashidun and many others. To be a sahabi may even be established by a reputation which falls short of amounting to tawatur. Similarly, it may be established by the affirmation of another well-known Companion. According to some ulema, including al-Baqillani, we may also accept the Companion's own affirmation in evidence, as they are all deemed to be upright ('udul), and this precludes the attribution of lying to them. There is, however, a difference of opinion on this point. The preferred view is that reference should be made to corroborating evidence, which may affirm or refute a person's claim concerning himself. This precaution is taken with a view to preventing false allegations and the admittance of selfstyled individuals into the ranks of the Companions. [5. Shawkani, Irshad, p.71; Isma'il, Adillah, p. 283.] The saying of a Companion, referred to both as qawl al-sahabi, and fatwa al-sahabi, normally means an opinion that the Companion had arrived at by way of ijtihad. If may be a saying, a considered opinion (fatwa), or a judicial decision that the Companion had taken on a matter in the absence of a ruling in the Qur'an, Sunnah and ijma`. For in the face of a ruling in these sources, the fatwa of a Companion would not be the first authority on that matter. If the fatwa is related to the Qur'an and Sunnah, then it must be on a point that is not self-evident in the source. There would, in other words, be a gap in our understanding of the matter at issue had the Companion not expressed an opinion on it. pp. 284-85.] As stated earlier, there is no disagreement among the jurists that the saying of a Companion is a proof which commands obedience when it is not opposed by other Companions. Rulings on which the Companions are known to be in agreement are binding. An example of this is the grandmother's share of one-sixth in inheritance on which the Companions have agreed, and it represents their authoritative ijma`. The ulema are, however, in disagreement with regard to rulings which are based in opinion (ra'y) and ijtihad, and in regard to matters on which the Companions differed among themselves. 95.] There is general agreement among the ulema of usul on the point that the ruling of one Companion is not a binding proof over another, regardless as to whether the ruling in question was issued by one of Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~ Kamali 211 [6. Cf. Isma'il, Adillah, [7. Khallaf, Ilm, p. the caliphs, a judge, or a leading mujtahid among their number. For the Companions were themselves allowed to disagree with one another in matters of ijtihad. Had the ruling of one Companion been a proof over another, disagreement among them would not have been tolerated. But as already noted, the ulema of usul have differed as to whether the ruling of a Companion constitutes a proof as regards the Successors (tabi`un) and the succeeding generations of mujtahidun. There are three views on this, which may be summarised as follows: [8. Amidi, Ihkam, IV, 149; Shawkani, Irshad, p. 243.] 1. That t...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/13/2013 for the course ISLAM 101 taught by Professor Islam during the Spring '13 term at Harvey Mudd College.
- Spring '13