Clear all

Basic premises . . .  

Still heart . . .

(Note: The following is a simple attempt at outlining the basic framework from which Dhahiri thought and method operates...)

Basic premises:

1 - We are obligated to follow Allah's Commands

2 - Allah has clarified His Commands through the Qur'an and the correctly-transmitted Sunnah

3 - Allah revealed the Qur'an in the Arabic language so that we can understand; the Prophet, sallaa Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, was sent with the tongue of his people so that he clarify to them

4 - Allah has not burdened us with more than we can bear

5 - We are prohibited from putting ourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger, sallaa Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam

6 - The Religion has been completed and perfected, and our Lord is never forgetful

7 - The Qur'an and Sunnah are preserved


8 - The Qur'an and correctly-transmitted Sunan are all we need to understand how to worship Allah and carry out His Commands, since all manner of clarification of the Religion has been relegated to them

9 - It is possible for us to correctly understand these two sources through the Arabic language, which has been preserved, since they have been revealed to us in this language in order for us to understand, and since Allah does not burden us with what we cannot bear

10 - In which case: We are not in need of Ra'i/subjective opinion, which falls outside the scope of: Language-based understanding of the Texts

Wallahu a'lam...

"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 06/10/2020 12:07 pm
Coffee + Hatred

Sometimes, one would be faced with the request to provide Dalīl (evidence) where the Dhāhiriyyah would say a matter is permissible or indifferent (Mubah, where a matter is neither encouraged/rewarded nor impermissible/punished). I know that the premise I mention below is a result of premises mentioned by brother @qalbi1435 , it is nonetheless a well known principle that I would say it would be a foundational premise when entering a discussion of Fiqh.

But it is a known principle and premise, not only within the Islāmic circles, but within the circles of logicians, philosophers and common law practitioners that the Burden of Proof is on the claimant.

In this case, who is required to provide the Dalīl? The Textualist (we will call this person A) claiming the matter is permissible or the individual (b) claiming it is Harām (as the position of his Madhhab*)

The original ruling is that everything is permissible until proven impermissible when it comes to general actions (the opposite is the principle when it comes to act of Worship, where the Worship MUST be proven before being acted upon).

Some of the basis for this premise are the following:

Therefore, it is not in fact the person who claims something is permissible, person A, that needs to provide Dalīl, rather, it is the other party, person B, for he has made an exception from the original ruling.

Let say, person provides an evidence from the Sunnah to make a matter Harām but person A rejects this for he claims it is weak - it is now upon him (as he now becomes a claimant) to provide the evidence(s) to support his claim (i.e. the Hadīth used by person B is weak).

Whenever a claimant fails to provide any evidence(s) to support their claim, then the other party is free to discard that person's claim. The one who provides the proof is closer to the truth than the one who does not have proof ( ).

As per Hitchen's razor "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

*His Madhhab could be Dhāhiriyyah too, this mistake isn't reserved to followers of the four school of thought.

Posted : 07/10/2020 9:22 am
Still heart . . .


Yes, this is true.

1 - Regarding this sub-topic, it is sometimes the case that, when trying to understand a particular issue, a person will feel confused when reviewing the evidences for the various positions concerning it

2 - Which is why, an approach I use that I find very helpful, is to immediately ask myself: What is the nature of this issue? Is it is one of worship, or non-worship/worldly matters?

3 - Once I determine this, I immediately make my position its Asl, or general rule:

4 - If it is worship, then the Asl is that I am not permitted to engage in this action, except with Burhan from Allah, due to the Hadith of 'Aa'ishah here; and this Aayah, here.

5 - Whereas if it is an issue of worldly matters, then I know from this Aayah, here; and this Aayah, here; that if the ruling of this issue is not explained in either the Qur'an or Sunnah in detail, then it remains according to its Asl: That it is permissible.

6 - With this in mind, one should understand that it is the responsibility of others, and not oneself, to prove that the ruling of the issue in question has been transferred from its Asl, and thereby made an exception of, because this is the nature of an Asl, or base and general rule

7 - At this point, you will have achieved some measure of clarity. Your objective from this point on in reviewing these evidences for these various positions, is to understand whether or not there is proof that necessitates making an exception of this Asl.

Wallahu a'lam...

"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 07/10/2020 4:21 pm
Coffee + Hatred


Jazāk Allāh khayr.

That is essentially how one should navigate Fiqhi issues 👍🏻👍🏻

Posted : 07/10/2020 8:49 pm
Still heart . . .

(Note: The following are brief comments on why some types of evidences in Dhahiri thought and method are considered valid, while others are not...)

1 - The basic premise regarding why some evidences are deemed valid, while others are not, is rooted in the Dhahiriyyah's distinction between certain and speculative claims of knowledge

2 - Certainty, in Dhahiri thought, is any claim that cannot possibly be any other way, on account of: One: Linguistic construct, two: sensory perception, and three: what the intellect requires to be true, necessarily. 

3 - Regarding one: It is when what is mentioned in an Aayah or Hadith means such-and-such according to the Arabic language. This is something that no one will deny; disagreement between Dhahiriyyah and non-Dhahiriyyah will occur regarding whether or not this was the actual intent of Allah and His Messenger, sallaa Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.

4 - The actual, linguistic meaning can be understood on either the basis of a single Text, or on the basis of one Text's clarification of the other.

5 - The former is obvious. But regarding the latter: In such a case, the one Text will contain a word/ing that has both a Dhahir, and more well-known and more commonly used meaning according to the Arabs, and another that is non-Dhahir, and as such: Less commonly used in such a manner. The other Text(s) will clarify that the actual meaning of the word/ing used in this Text, is the less commonly used one --- its non-Dhahir meaning.

6 - Linguistically speaking, we are able to understand the certain, and therefore Dhahir meaning of the Text in both the former and latter scenarios in this manner.

7 - Regarding two: This is like when urine (regardless of how much or little) is spilled into a container of water (regardless of how much or how little the amount of water), upon which we find that either the water's taste, smell, or color changes as a result. As such, we know with certainty through such sensory observation that the water has been overwhelmed by the urine, in which case: Where we to use this water for purposes of purification, we would certainly be using the urine, as well. As such, we cannot possibly use such water for purification purposes.

8 - Regarding three: In reality, we have already touched upon its use in points no. 3-7. This is because, as mentioned in the original post of this thread (see points no. 2,3,4,9), in the Dhahiri framework, we are bound to a linguistic understanding of the Texts. The intellect therefore requires any such meaning understood in the way described in points no. 3-7 of this post to be true.

9 - Another way to understand the intellect's role in understanding the Shari'ah, is that it does not establish rulings; it used to understand them, and derive them from the Texts, when they are not explicitly mentioned.

10 - We can understand this latter point from the following example, which I learned from Ibn 'Aqil Al-Dhahiri's writing. If Zaid is better than 'Amr in A, B, C, and if 'Amr is better than Salim in that very same A, B, C, then the intellect requires it be true that Zaid is better than Salim in A, B, C.

11 - An example closer to the Texts, is understood through the following Hadith. If every Muskir is Khamr, and if every Muskir is Haram, the intellect requires it be true that all Khamr is Haram.

From here we can move on to the stated subject of this note, in shaa' Allah:

12 - With this in mind, we can see that comparing one thing with another, on account of similar, shared characteristics between them (Qiyas), is not invalid in and of itself, according to Dhahiri thought.

13 - According to such thought, it becomes invalid when seeking the ruling of one issue through such means is on account of speculative reasoning

14 - However, within this framework: Were we to know with certainty that: One: Issue A was prohibited for X, and two: That issue A was prohibited due to X, not just for a reason exclusive to itself (issue A), but on account of X in absolute terms, then:

15 - Giving issue B the same ruling as issue A on account of X, would be "Qiyas" achieved through means of certainty.

16 - The same applies to other types of evidences the Dhahiryyah do not normally except, like the statement of a Sahabi: If a Dhahiri is unable to ascertain whether or not this statement is certainly the ruling of Allah and His Messenger, sallaa Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, then in adopting this statement and applying it to the Shari'ah, a person has both committed an instance of Taqlid, and spoken about Allah's Shari'ah without certain knowledge

17 - However, on account of this Aayah, a Dhahiri knows with certainty that a Sahabi's explanation of a word, or his understanding of an Aayah or Hadith's linguistic construct (when we know that a Sahabi's understanding was derived through such a basis, as opposed to his own speculation and Ijtihad), is the actual, correct meaning of the word or linguistic construct of the Text, because we are being addressed in this language, as mentioned in points no. 2,3,4,9 of the original post of this thread.

However, regarding the issue of speculative reasoning, some Dhahiriyyah ascribe to another position:

18 - Some Dhahiriyyah, like Ibn 'Aqil, believe that a claim made through speculation that is preponderant (Arabic: Dhann Rajih) is valid proof.

19 - As far as I understand: When a claim has, on one hand: A basis in an Asl, and is not contradicted by anything else, and on the other: Strong, apparent evidences that give weight and support such a claim, then even when it does not rise to the level of certainty, this claim is valid. On these grounds, they say: To reject such a claim, when there is no proof to show its invalidity, when such conditions are met, is obstinance

20 - It is perhaps for this reason that some Dhahiryyah will give issue B the same ruling as issue A, when the 'Illah (X) of issue A was explicitly mentioned in issue A's Text, and is also found in issue B

21 - It is also for this reason that Ibn 'Aqil Al-Dhahiri himself accepts as evidence the statement of a Sahabi, regardless of its linguistic basis (or lack thereof), that has not been known to have been contradicted by other Sahabah, radi Allahu 'anhum.

Wallahu Ta'aalaa a'lam...

"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 08/10/2020 7:52 am
Still heart . . .

(Notes concerning basic principles on the Dhahir...)

First scenario:

1 - The objective is to understand the Text according to the language of the Arabs...

2 - ...But as they understood their language

3 - What this means, is: It could be the case that a word used in an Aayah or Hadith means something specific in the language. However, the Arabs understand this word, used in this manner, to mean something less literal. This is understood through the way the sentence is structured.

4 - Thus there is a difference between the Dhahir of a word in an Aayah or Hadith understood independently, in and of itself; and the Dhahir of that word in an Aayah or Hadith understood in conjunction of, or within, its context, respectively --- distinguishing between the two, is based on how the Arabs understood words used in their language.

5 - In both cases, this is when we are dealing with one, single Text.

Second scenario:

6 - A word in an Aayah or Hadith carries more than one meaning in the Arabic language.

7 - The Asl is to understand the word in the Text to include all those meanings...

8 - ...So long as this is possible.

9 - Otherwise: The Asl is to adhere to the more well-known, widely and commonly used meaning of that word --- its Dhahir. The lesser known, and less-used meaning, while also having an origin in the Arabic language, is, in this case, its non-Dhahir meaning.

10 - Except when another Text (or other Texts) show with certainty that its non-Dhahir/lesser used meaning is the intended meaning; or when proof of intellect requires such to be the case; or sensory perception. For an example, see here.

11 - This would then be the Dhahir, because it is the certain meaning understood as such by certain means: Textual, intellectual, or through sensory perception.

Wallahu Ta'aalaa a'lam...

"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 09/10/2020 6:46 am
d_dhahiri liked