In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
The FAQ
In recent times, various Muslim circles have discussed whether we
should follow the fiqh of one of the four Imams, such as the fiqh of
Imam al-Shafi`i, the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa, etc., or whether we
should follow the fiqh of the Sunna, or, better still, the fiqh of the
Quran and Sunna. This dichotomy comes into high relief when a position
documented in the fiqh of Imam al-Shafi`i, for example, is seemingly
contradicted by the outward meaning of a hadith of the Prophet (Allah
bless him and give him peace). Should we, in such cases, follow the
fiqh of Imam al-Shafi`i, or should we be faithful to the Prophet (Allah
bless him and give him peace) and follow the sahih hadith?
The way that this question is phrased only allows for one answer.
The problem, however, is that the question isn�t phrased correctly in
the first place. To understand why, we need digress briefly into the
field of Arabic Grammar.
Grammatical Digression
Two weeks ago in my http://www.sunnipath.com/Academy/Online/CourseCatalog/Department/Arabic/Intermediate-Arabic-1.aspx - Intermediate Arabic 1 class, we learned the difference between the two kinds of idafa in the Arabic language: the idafa ma`nawiyya and the idafa lafdhiyya. Mastering this simple concept gives remarkable insights into the Arabic language.
An idafa, for those unfamiliar with the term, is an �X of Y� association between two words. So, for example, rasulu Llahi (رسولُ اللهِ), meaning �the messenger of Allah,� is an idafa, as is kitabu zaydin (كتابُ زيدٍ), which means, �the book of Zayd.�
In post-Ajurrumiyya grammar manuals�such as the Qatr al-Nada of Ibn Hisham�scholars of Arabic grammar explain that an idafa is either a real idafa that actually associates one word to another�this is termed an idafa ma`nawiyya�or a �cosmetic� idafa that conceals something else going on behind the scenes�this is termed an idafa lafdhiyya.
In kitabu zaydin (�the book of Zayd�), for example, we have associated a �thing��a book�to another �thing��Zayd. This is a real idafa and is straightforward to understand. When, however, the associated (i.e., the first word in the idafa, often called the mudaf)
is not a mere �thing� but rather an �action-word�, then we need to put
our minds on high alert and be a little smarter in order to figure out
what�s really being said.
There are many kinds of �action-words� in the Arabic language, but this post will restrict itself to the verbal noun (masdar). Examples of verbal nouns are: qira�ah (�reciting�), ta`allum (�learning�), and hifz (�memorizing�). Note that each of these words doesn�t merely signify a �thing�; rather, it signifies an action that is being done.
When such words are associated to other words, we need to inquire
further about the nature of the association: have we associated the
action to its doer (i.e. the subject), or to its done-to (i.e. the
object)?
For example, if I say qira�atu L-qurani (قرائةُ القرآنِ),
then I have associated the action of recital to its done-to�the Quran
is the object of the recitation, the thing that is recited. If,
however, I say qira�atu Zaydin (قرآئةُ زيدٍ), then I have
associated the action of recital to its doer�Zayd is not the thing that
is being recited, but rather the doer of the recitation, the one who is
doing the recitation.
Returning to the FAQ
After that quick grammatical digression�necessarily superficial in
the interests of blog-post length�we can now revisit the question asked
at the top of the post.
Fiqh, as it turns out, is a verbal noun that means �understanding�. Fiqh al-Shafi`i��the understanding of Shafi`i��is an idafa lafdhiyya where the action-word fiqh
(�understanding�) has been associated to Shafi`i. The question that the
grammarians will ask at this point is, �Has the verbal noun been
associated to its doer, or to its done-to?� In other words, is Imam
al-Shafi`i the one who is doing the action of understanding, or is he
the one who is being understood?
We then ask the same question of the other idafa lafdhiyya in the question: in Fiqh al-Sunna��the understanding of the Sunna��has the action-word fiqh
been associated to its doer or its done-to? In other words, is the
Sunna the thing that is doing the action of the understanding, or is it
the thing that has been understood?
The answers, as well as the conclusions that I�m about to mention
should already be obvious to those of you who have been following the
discussion thus far.
When we use the term Fiqh al-Shafi`i, we are associating
the verbal noun to its doer and omitting mention of the done-to. In
other words, Shafi`i is the one who is doing the action of
understanding, and the object of his understanding is the Sunna, but
this is not mentioned for reasons of brevity and obviousness (what else
would Shafi`i be trying to understand?).
Those who use the term Fiqh al-Sunna are associating the
verbal noun to its done-to and omitting mention of the doer. In other
words, the thing that is being understood is the Sunna, but the one who
is doing the understanding has not been mentioned. Why has the doer not
been mentioned?
The reason why the doer has not been mentioned is to give the misleading impression that someone who is following Fiqh al-Sunna is following the understanding of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself, whereas someone who is following Fiqh al-Shafi`i is merely following the understanding of a fallible human being. In other words, we are being made to believe that in the idafa, Fiqh al-Sunna, the verbal noun has been associated to its doer instead of its done-to.
The answer to the question at the top of the post is eloquently
summarized by Shaykh Nuh Keller in his wonderful introduction to his
book http://www.sunnipath.com/bookstore/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=BKAMANA1001 - Al-Maqasid : Nawawi�s Manual of Islam, where he says,
To follow the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) was a simple matter for the Companions (Sahaba); they knew and
loved him, and when he would tell them something, they said, �We hear
and obey.� When he passed from this world, the Quranic imperative
remained, �
� we have been ordered to follow the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace), and he is no longer alive to personally teach us. All
that has reached us of it [i.e., Sacred Law, or Sharia], has
reached us through men. And this is why Muslims from the earliest times
have relied on the most knowledgeable of these men to take their
religion from�whether in hadith, tenets of faith (`aqida), Quranic
exegesis (tafsir), or the other Islamic sciences. The foremost of them
were termed Imams, or �leaders�, in view of their position in each
field, so their knowledge could be accepted and followed. (Al-Maqasid:
Nawawi�s Manual of Islam, ix,x)
The question, in other words, is not whether we should follow Imam
Shafi`i or the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)�any Muslim
who has a single brain cell knows the answer to that question. The
question is whether to follow the Sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him
and give him peace) as understood by Imam Shafi`i, or to follow the
Sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as understood
by the mysterious, unnamed person, who is probably the author of the
book that you�re holding in your hands.
Source :
http://blog.sunnipath.com/?p=173 - http://blog.sunnipath.com/?p=173