This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: to be discouraging. The best form of testimony under the first Hadith is unsolicited testimony, whereas this is frowned upon in the second. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~ Kamali 309 [4. Abu Since neither of the two Hadith have specified a particular context, it is suggested by way of ta'wil that the first Hadith contemplates the Rights of God (huquq Allah) whereas the second Hadith contemplates the Rights of Men (huquq al-'ibad). In this way, the apparent conflict between the two texts is removed through an allegorical interpretation. [7. Badran, Usul, pp. 466.] Allegorical interpretations may offer a solution even in cases where two conflicting orders are both specific (Khass). Recourse to ta'wil in this case would once again serve the purpose of distinguishing the subject matter and scope of each of the two conflicting orders. For example, if Ahmad issues two orders to his employee, one of which tells the latter to 'pay 1000 dinars to Zayd' and the other tells him `do not pay 1000 dinars to Zayd', then if circumstances would so permit, the first order may be assumed to have contemplated normal relations between Zayd and Ahmad while the second had envisaged a hostile situation between the two parties. [8. Cf. Khudari, Usul, p. 361.] In the event where one of the two conflicting rulings is general ('Amm) and the other specific (Khass), they can be reconciled by excepting the latter from the scope of the former through a procedure which is known as takhsis al-`Amm, that is, `specifying a part of the general'. This would once again mean that each of the two rulings applied separately from one another to a different subject-matter, and both can remain operative. Similarly, a text may be absolute in its wording and appear to be in conflict with another text. They could be reconciled and the conflict between them removed if one of them is so interpreted as to limit and qualify the absolute terms of the other. Examples to illustrate these and other methods of interpretation can be found in the separate chapter of this work devoted to the rules of interpretation. Should the attempt at reconciliation fail, the next step in resolving a conflict, as stated above, is to give preference to one over the other. Investigation may reveal that one of the two texts is supported by stronger evidence, in which case we are basically dealing with two texts of unequal strength. To prefer the one over the other in this case may even amount to a form of clarification or explanation of one by the other. Inequality in strength may be in content (matn) or in proof of authenticity (riwayah). The former is concerned with the clarity or otherwise of the language of the text, and the latter with the historical reliability of the transmitters. Preference on the basis of content would require that the literal is preferred to the metaphorical, the clear (Sarih) to the implicit (Kinayah), the explicit meaning (`ibarah al-nass) to the allusive meaning (isharah al-nass), and the latter is preferred to the inferred meaning of the text (dalalah al-nass). Similarly, words which convey greater clarity are to be preferred to those...
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