This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: i'i has further stated that he prefers the rulings of the first three caliphs over those of the other Companions, but that when the Companions are in disagreement, we should look into their reasons and also try to ascertain the view which might have been adopted by the majority of the Companions. Furthermore, when the ruling of the Companion is in agreement with qiyas, then that qiyas, according to al-Shafi`i, is given Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~ Kamali 214 priority over a variant qiyas which is not so supported. 170.] [20. Shafi'i, Risalah, p. 261; Shawkani, Irshad, p. 243; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. Imam Abu Hanifah is also on record as having said, `When I find nothing in the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet, I resort to the saying of the Companions. I may follow the ruling which appeals to me and abandon that which does not, but I do not abandon their views altogether and do it not give preference to others over them: It thus appears that Abu Hanifah would give priority to the ruling of a Companion over qiyas, and although he does not consider it a binding proof, it is obvious that he regards the fatwa of a sahabi to be preferable to the ijtihad of others. [21. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 170.] Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal has distinguished the fatwas of Companions into two types, one being a fatwa which is not opposed by any other Companion, or where no variant ijtihad has been advanced on the same point. Ibn Hanbal regards this variety of fatwa as authoritative. An example of this is the admissibility of the testimony of slaves, on which the Imam has followed the fatwa of the Companion, Anas b. Malik. Ibn Hanbal is quoted to the effect that he had not known of anyone who rejected the testimony of a slave; it is therefore admissible. The second variety of fatwa that Ibn Hanbal distinguishes is one on which the Companions disagreed, and issued two or three different rulings concerning the same problem. In this situation, Imam Ibn Hanbal considers them all to be valid and equally authoritative, unless it is known that the Khulafa' Rashidun adopted one in preference to the others, in which case the Imam would do likewise. An example of such disagreement is the case of the allotment of a share in inheritance to germane brothers in the presence of the father's father. According to Abut Bakr, the father's father in this case is accounted like the father who would in turn exclude the germane brothers altogether. Zayd b. Thabit, on the other hand, counted the father's father as one of the brothers and would give him a minimum of one-third, whereas `Ali b. Abi Talib counted the father's father as one of the brothers whose entitlement must not be less than one-sixth. Imam Ibn Hanbal is reported to have accepted all the three views as equally valid, for they each reflect the light and guidance that their authors received from the Prophet, and they all merit priority over the ijtihad of others. [22. Abu Zahrah, Ibn Hanbal, p. 287; Isma'il, Adillah, pp. 295-96.] The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah quotes Imam al-Shafi'i as having said, `It is...
View Full Document
- Spring '13