Between Scripture & Intent

The Banū Qurayzah expedition is the classic example of disagreement between the Companions on a matter of Islamic practice. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sent a number of Companions to the Banū Qurayzah settlement on the outskirts of Madinah, and ordered: “No one should pray the afternoon prayer until after they reach Banū Qurayzah.” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī (2692) and Sahīh Muslim (2605)]

The settlement was not all that far from Madinah, lying approximately at the outskirts of the city. It would not difficult for people to reach it in a reasonably short time. However, many people were being sent on the expedition and they would have to make preparations, which could lead to some people being delayed. Not everyone would arrive at the same time.

The Companions understood different things from the Prophet’s command. Some of them took his words literally and resolved not to pray the afternoon prayer until their arrival, even if it meant delaying the prayer until after the timeframe for offering it had elapsed. Others interpreted the Prophet’s words as indicating the haste in which he wanted them to undertake the expedition. What he meant was that they should hurry up and get to Banū Qurayzah in time to offer the afternoon prayer there, and not stop on the way. He did not intend for them to miss offering the afternoon prayer on time.

This is the most well-known example of the Companions disagreeing on the meaning of a prophetic statement during the Prophet’s lifetime. It is important because the Prophet (peace be upon him) was aware of their disagreement, and that the matter was one that had practical implications for a matter of Islamic worship. Nevertheless, the Prophet (peace be upon him) never declared either group to be right or wrong.

It might be said that this is the foundation of the most fundamental difference that exists between Islamic legal scholars with respect to interpreting the scripture. It is possible to divide the many schools of Islamic Law into two general categories: the literalist school and the purposive school.

The literalist school endeavours to take scriptural statements on their face value. Matters of religious belief and praxis must be based upon what the texts explicitly state. Those who adhere to this approach do not dismiss the wisdom and rationales that exist behind the various scriptural injunctions, nor do they deny how those injunctions seek to ensure humanity’s wellbeing and protect people from harm. They are willing to apply the general rulings specified in the scriptures to new situations by way of analogy, on the basis of the rationales for which those rulings were set forth in the scriptures. Historically, there were some scholars who took the literalist approach to its logical conclusions, denying the validity of finding rationales for legal rulings and thereby categorically rejecting the use of analogous reasoning to derive laws. However, they were few in number, the most famous of them being Ibn Hazm and Dāwūd al-Zāhirī.

As for the purposive school, they focus their investigations on the purposes of Islamic Law and the rationales behind the rulings, while being respectful of the scriptural evidence and being careful not to contradict the sacred texts. They pay particular attention to why the texts say what they say, and apply this understanding in cases of apparent contradictions between the texts, or when there is a matter of clear human welfare which is better served by favouring somewhat weaker textual evidence or a less obvious but valid interpretation. They also show a greater concern for the effect that context has on meaning. The application of this approach leads to the formulation of general legal axioms as well as overarching principles for addressing political, economic, and social concerns. It also allows for creative responses to new and complex situations which do not have a clear precedent in the sacred texts, and where the relevance of particular established legal rulings may be unclear.

These two approaches are what divides the famous schools of Islamic Law, though many individual jurists of the various schools combine between them in practice.

As for the Companions, they were known to exercise juristic discretion when faced with new problems and difficulties. They were willing to apply the meaning of different texts to different situations, or to leave acting upon the restricted indication of a single text in favour of a general axiom derived from the cumulative meaning of a number of other texts. Only the most erudite, insightful, and sincere of jurists can use such an approach. The second Caliph of Islam, `Umar b. al-Khattāb, was particularly noted for it. We see it in how he exempted thieves from capital punishment during the year of famine, how he stopped using the general welfare fund to give grants to people whose hearts were being won over to Islam, and how he did away with the punishment of exile for people found guilty of fornication. These are but a few examples of his approach to major issues of public policy.

Determining Who is Right and Who is Wrong

There is another good example of a disagreement between two Companions about a practical matter of Islamic worship, but one in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) identified who was right.

These two Companions were travelling on an errand the Prophet (peace be upon him) had sent them on. The time for prayer came and they had no water for ritual ablutions, so they made dry ablutions instead, and offered their prayers. This is due to the injunction in the Qur’an: “If you are ill or on a journey, or any of you has answered the call of nature, or you have been in sexual contact with women, and you find no water, then perform dry ablutions with clean earth.” [Sūrah al-Mā’idah: 6]

After praying, the two of them continued on their journey. After a while, they came upon a source of water. The time for the prayer that they performed had not yet expired, and they disagreed about what they should do. One of them decided to perform ablutions and offer his prayer over again. The other decided that the prayer he had performed was valid and should not be repeated.

When they returned from their journey, they went to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and told him about what they had done. The Prophet (peace be upon him) turned to the one who had repeated his prayer and said: “You have the blessings for your prayer twice over.” Then he turned to the one who did not repeat his prayer, and said: “You have correctly ascertained the proper practice, and your prayer obligations are fulfilled.” [Sunan Abī Dāwūd (338) and Sunan al-Nasā’ī (1/213)]

We should take a lesson from how gently the Prophet’s spoke to these two people, affirming them both in their disagreement and their exercise of judgment, and not rebuking either of them. If these two people were brought before many students of Islamic Law today, we would hear a different tone altogether. We can imagine their answers. One of them would certainly say: “How did you think you could offer the same exact obligatory prayer twice in one day? That is patently false! Allah has prescribed five obligatory prayers a day, not six.” Then he would go on listing all the negative consequences that are implicit in what he had done.

What did the Prophet (peace be upon him) say to the man who repeated his prayer? “You have the blessings for your prayer twice over.” Then he turned to the other man and confirmed that he was right for not repeating his prayer.

(This hadith has a slight weakness in its chain of transmission. Al-Nasā’ī and al-Dāraqutnī narrate it with a gap in its chain of transmission, and this is considered to be the more likely chain of transmission for the hadith. Refer to Sharh Bulūgh al-Marām, 3/1221.)

Similar disagreements have come up between Islamic legal scholars of later generations, and we find their disagreement to have been amicable. One of these is whether “In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful” is a verse of Sūrah al-Fātihah, or a separate verse on its own, like it is for other chapters of the Qur’an. This question is important with regard to religious practice, since this opening chapter of the Qur’an is read in every unit. Nevertheless, none of the scholars who uphold that it is a verse have ever turned to the others and accused them of falsely rejecting a verse of the Qur’an, nor have they said that the prayer of one who omits this verse is unacceptable. Likewise, none of those scholars ever turned to the others and said: “How dare you add an additional verse to a chapter of the Qur’an which is not a part of it?” They all recognised that this disagreement is reasonable, and that there is room for more than one opinion.

There are so many other examples like this one, like how and when a prayer should be shortened, or how long a journey must be before it is permitted for a traveller to shorten the prayer, or whether a person must pray both the `Īd prayer and the Jumu`ah prayer if `Id falls on a Friday. Today, we have newer questions, like when a person should offer the night prayer in the summer near the poles where the Sun never sets.

Regarding the story of the Banū Qurayzah expedition, we can observe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) never identified which group of Companions were right. This is why Muslim legal scholars have been debating the issue ever since. Some of them support those who stopped on the way and offered their afternoon prayers on time. They argue that these Companions succeeded in praying on time as well as in hurrying to their destination, obeying both the general command to pray on time as well as the intent of the Prophet’s specific command to hurry to their destination.

Other jurists argue that those who postponed their prayer were correct, because they obeyed the Prophet’s specific instruction to the letter. This disagreement is as old as Islam and is just as strong today as it ever was, but it is not a problem for anyone.

Perhaps this is why Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) refrained from telling us who was right. He wanted to establish that disagreements of this kind are acceptable and are an unavoidable part of life, and that it is not always necessary to know for certain who is right and who is wrong.

Source: IslamToday.net