Selections on the Sunna and its relationship to the Qur’ân from

Selections on the Sunna and its relationship to the Qur’ân from

Harmonizations in the Science of the Roots of the Revealed Law

by Abû Ishâq al Shâtibî
Rough translation for teaching purposes by David Vishanoff from: Abû Ishâq al Shâtibî, Al muwâfiqât [sic] fî usûl al sharî‘a, part 4, ed. ‘Abd Allah Darâz, Muhammad ‘Abd Allah Darâz, and ‘Abd al Salâm ‘Abd al Shâfî Muhammad (Beirut: Dâr al Kutub al ‘Ilmîya), 3-21 (selections).
The Second Indicator: The Sunna.

To which relates the inquiry into several matters.

The first matter:

The expression ‘sunna’ is applied to that which has been transmitted specifically from the Prophet (God’s blessing and peace be upon him), which was not stipulated in the venerable Book, but which he stipulated himself (blessing and peace be upon him), whether it be a clarification of what is in the Book or not.

It is also applied to the opposite of innovation. One says: “so and so is [acting] according to sunna” if he does things according to the way the Prophet (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) did things, whether this be something that was stipulated in the Book or not. One says “so and so is [acting] according to innovation” if he does things in a different way. It is as if [the term sunna] is being applied here only in consideration of the action of the bearer of the revealed law, and the term sunna is used in this respect, even if the action is actually required by the Book.

The expression sunna is also applied to the Companions’ way of doing things, whether or not this is found in the Book or in the Sunna, because it constitutes either a following of a sunna that was established among them but was not transmitted to us, or an agreed-upon diligent inquiry from them or their caliphs [or successors]. Their consensus is a [genuine] consensus. The actions of their caliphs [or successors] are likewise due to genuine consensus, in that the people were induced to act in the same way, in accordance with what their investigation of the common good required. This application [of the word sunna] also encompasses ‘judgment according to common good’ (al masâlih al mursala) and ‘juristic preference’ (al istihsân), such as their decision on the punishment for [drinking] wine,¹ and making artisans responsible [for materials entrusted to them], and compiling the mushaf,² and getting the people to read according to only one of the seven Qur’ânic readings, and the keeping of records,³ and the like. The evidence for this application [of the term sunna] is his saying (blessing and peace be upon him) “You must follow my sunna and the sunna of the rightly guided caliphs who follow the right way.”⁴

If what precedes is summed up, four ways of applying [the term sunna] emerge: his speech (blessing and peace be upon him), his action, his acquiescence -- and all these are arrived at either by revelation or by diligent inquiry, on the premise that diligent inquiry is legitimate for him⁵ -- and this makes three. The fourth is what is reported about the companions and their caliphs [or successors]. It is counted as one way [of applying the term sunna], even though it can be divided into speech and action and acquiescence, since the matter is not distinguished at the same level of detail for what is reported about the companions as for what is reported about the Prophet (God’s blessing and peace be upon him).

The second matter:

The rank of the sunna is that it is taken into account after the Book. There are several proofs for this:

The first proof is that the Book is known with certainty, whereas the Sunna is known with probability. There is certainty concerning the Sunna as a whole, but not concerning its details, in contrast to the Book, which is known with certainty as a whole and in its details. What it known with certainty is given precedence over what is known with probability. This implies giving precedence to the Book over the Sunna.

The second proof is that the Sunna must be either a clarification of the Book, or something in addition to that. If it is a clarification, then it is taken into account as secondary to that which is clarified, since the absence of the clarified would entail the absence of the clarification, but the absence of the clarification would not entail the absence of the clarified, and things of this sort are more worthy of precedence. If it is not a clarification, then it is not taken into account unless it is not found in the Book, which is an indication that the Book is taken into account first.

The third proof is the reports and traditions that indicate [that the Sunna is taken into account after the Book,] such as the tradition of Mu‘âdh: “‘By what do you judge?’ He said ‘by the Book of God.’ He said ‘and what if you don’t find?’ He said ‘by the Sunna of the Prophet of God.’ He said ‘and what if you don’t find?’ He said ‘I reach my opinion by diligent inquiry.’ Etc.”⁶ Likewise it is reported from ‘Umar ibn al Khattâb that he wrote to Shurayh “if a matter comes before you judge by what is in the Book of God. If something comes before you that is not in the Book of God, then judge by what the Prophet of God (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) has established as sunna. Etc.” In another report he says: “If you find something in the Book of God, then judge by it and do not turn to anything else.” The meaning of this has been clarified in another report that he said to him “Look to what makes itself clear to you in the Book of God, and don’t ask anyone about it. As for what does not make itself clear to you in the Book of God, follow the Sunna of the Prophet of God (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) concerning it.” And something similar from Ibn Mas‘ûd: “If a judgment is presented to one of you, let him judge by what is in God’s Book. If something comes before him that is not in the Book of God, let him judge by that which His Prophet (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) determined. Etc.” And it is said that Ibn ‘Abbâs, if he was asked about something and it was in the Book of God, used to answer according to it, and if it was not in the Book of God but was reported from the Prophet of God (God’s blessing and peace be upon him), he answered according to that. There is much to this effect in the speech of the early Muslims and the scholars.

The distinction made by the Hanafis between duties (al fard) and obligations (al wâjib) is based on the precedence of taking into account the Book over taking into account the Sunna, and on the fact that the consideration due the Book is stronger than the consideration due the Sunna. It may be that others do not oppose them concerning the idea behind this distinction. What is certain in this matter is that the Sunna is not due the same level of consideration as the Book.

But suppose someone says: this contradicts the position of careful scholars [in two ways]:

First of all, among scholars the Sunna passes judgment over the Book, and the Book does not pass judgment over the Sunna, because when the Book allows for two or more possibilities, the Sunna comes and designates one of them, so recourse is had to the Sunna and what the Book requires is dropped. Or the apparent meaning of the Book can be one thing, and the Sunna comes and [shows that its meaning is other than] its apparent meaning. This is an indication that the Sunna is to be given precedence. It suffices to say that the Sunna qualifies its unqualified expressions, and particularizes its general expressions, and shows its meaning to be other than its apparent meaning, according to what is mentioned concerning the roots [of law.] [For example,] the Qur’ân provided for the cutting off [of the hand] of every thief, from which the Sunna singled out the thief who steals a minimum amount kept under guard. The Qur’ân apparently provided for taking the zakât from all wealth, and the Sunna specified particular forms of wealth. God (He is exalted) said: “Any beyond that are permitted for you,”⁷ and the Sunna excluded from that the marriage [to one husband] of a woman and her paternal or maternal aunt. All this constitutes departing from the apparent meaning of the Book and giving precedence to the Sunna over it. There are innumerable instances like this.

Secondly, if the Book and the Sunna contradict each other, the scholars of the roots [of law] have differed over whether the Book is given precedence over the Sunna, or vice versa, or whether the two remain mutually contradictory. People have spoken about the hadîth of Mu‘âdh and held that it is not a proof [for the precedence of the Book]. Not all that is in the Book is given precedence over the whole Sunna, for multiply transmitted reports are not weaker indicators than the indicators of the Book, and singly transmitted reports are on the same level as diligent inquiry based on the apparent meanings of the Book. This is why the difference of opinion arose. They explained the precedence given [to the Book] in the hadîth [of Mu‘âdh] as meaning ‘beginning with what is easier and more straightforward,’ which is the Book. If the matter is so, then there is no basis for unconditionally giving precedence to the Book; [it should be given] rather to the one whose evidence is most relevant.

The answer [to the first objection] is that the Sunna’s passing judgment on the Book does not mean that the Sunna is given precedence over the Book, and that the Book is set aside, but that what is stated in the Sunna is what is meant in the Book. It is as though the Sunna played the role of a commentary and an explanation of the meanings of the judgments of the Book, as is indicated by his saying “that you [Muhammad] may clarify for the people what has been sent down to them.”⁸ If his saying (He is exalted) “cut off the hand of a the thief, male or female”⁹ is clarified to the effect that the cutting off is at the wrist [or elbow], and that what is stolen must be at least a certain minimum and must have been in a suitably guarded place, then that is the meaning intended in the verse; we do not say that the Sunna established these judgments independently of the Book. This is just as if Mâlik or another commentator clarified for us the meaning of a verse or hadîth so that we came to know what it requires. We could not then say that we had come to know [what it requires] by the speech of such and such a commentator, without saying that we had come to know it by the speech of God or the speech of His Prophet (blessing and peace be upon him). It is the same with the rest of what the Sunna has clarified of the Book of God (He is exalted). To say that the Sunna passes judgment on the Book means that the former clarifies the latter, and that we do not hesitate over imprecision or ambiguity in the Book when the Sunna has clarified its intent. It does not mean that the former is given precedence over the latter.

[The answer to the second objection:] As for the disagreement between the scholars of the roots [of law] concerning mutual contradiction, it has been already stated at the beginning of the section on evidences that a singly transmitted report is acceptable [as a basis for] action if it rests on a basis that is known with certainty, but if not, then one suspends judgment. Its resting on something that is know with certainty stems from its being a particular detail of an overarching Qur’ânic meaning. The meaning of this was explained [at the beginning of the section on evidences.] If we subject this [objection] to this rule, then we find that the contradiction between the verse and the report really goes back to a contradiction between two Qur’ânic principles, so that it is not really a contradiction between the Book and the Sunna. And in that case, the contradiction [between Qur’ân and Sunna] can only occur between two things that are known with certainty. As for a report that does not rest on a rule that is known with certainty, the Qur’ân is given precedence over it without question. [As for a contradiction between two things that are known with certainty,] what has been mentioned concerning the multiple transmission of reports is mainly just a hypothesis of something possible, and it may well be that you will not find a single prophetic report whose multiple transmission is complete all the way back to the time of the event. To search [for such a report] is a search for something nonexistent or rare, and is not of much benefit. But God knows best.

The third matter:

The meanings in the Sunna stem from the Book. They provide detail where it summarizes, clarification where it is unclear, and fuller exposition where it is terse.

This is because the Sunna is a clarification of the Book, as is indicated by his saying (He is exalted): “We sent down to you the remembrance that you may clarify for the people what has been sent down to them.”¹⁰ You will not find in the Sunna a single matter but that the Qur’ân has already indicated the idea of it, generally or in detail. This is also indicated by everything that indicates that the Qur’ân is the whole of the revealed law, and its source. For God has said: “You are of a magnificent character,”¹¹ and ‘Â’isha explained that his character is the Qur’ân and added nothing further concerning his character. This indicates that his speech and action and acquiescence spring from the Qur’ân, since character is comprised of these things, and because God made the Qur’ân a clarification of all things. This entails that the Sunna, in its entirety, arises out of the Qur’ân, because command and prohibition are the foremost of what is in the Book. Likewise He says “We have neglected nothing in the Book,”¹² and “today I have completed your religion for you,”¹³ by which he means the sending down of the Qur’ân, and as a result the Sunna is a clarification of what is in it. This is what is meant by its stemming from it. This is also proven by a thorough investigation, as will be mentioned later, by God’s power. It has already been stated, at the beginning of the chapter on evidences, that the Sunna stems from the Book, and that if it does not we must suspend our acceptance of it. We have laid a sufficient foundation at this point.

But someone may say: this is not right, for four reasons:

The first is that God (He is exalted) has said: “No, by your Lord, they do not believe until they make you judge over the dispute that has broken out between them, etc.”¹⁴ The verse came down concerning the Prophet of God’s (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) assignment to al Zubayr of the right to use water before al Ansârî from Shirâj al Jarra. The hadîth is mentioned in the Muwatta’,¹⁵ and this is not in the Book of God (He is exalted). Then came the warning concerning [their] dissatisfaction.

And God (He is exalted) has said: “O ye who believe, obey God and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you, and if you dispute over something refer it to God and the Prophet, if you believe in God and the last day.”¹⁶ Referring things to God means referring them to the Book. Referring things to the Prophet, after his death, means referring them to the Sunna. And he has said “obey God and obey the Prophet and beware,”¹⁷ and the rest of the [verses] where obedience to the Prophet is connected with obedience to God. This indicates that obedience to God concerns what he has commanded and prohibited in his Book, and obedience to the Prophet concerns the commands and prohibitions that he brought that are not in the Qur’ân, since if they were in the Qur’ân they would fall under obedience to God. And He has said: “Let those who violate his¹⁸ command beware lest some trial befall them, etc.”¹⁹ The Prophet (blessing and peace be upon him) is distinguished by something in which he is obeyed, and this is the Sunna that did not appear in the Qur’ân. And He has said: “Whosoever obeys the Prophet has obeyed God,”²⁰ and “practice what the Prophet has brought to you, and desist from what he has prohibited for you.”²¹ The evidences of the Qur’ân indicate that all that the Prophet brought, and all that he commanded and prohibited, is appended as to its judgment to that which appeared in the Qur’ân, so it must be an addition to it.

[There follow three more objections.]

The answer is that these [objections] do not constitute proof, contrary to what has been said.

As for the first [objection]: If we start with the Sunna’s being a clarification of the Book, then what it makes known must be something such that the Book could mean that, or it could mean something else; so that the Sunna makes known one of the two possible meanings and not the other. If the person under obligation acts according to the clarification, then he has obeyed God in what he intended by His speech, and he has obeyed the Prophet as to what his clarification required. If he were to act contrary to the clarification, he would have disobeyed God in his acting contrary to the clarification, since his action was contrary to what He intended by His speech, and he would have disobeyed the Prophet as to what his clarification required. Distinguishing between the two obediences does not entail an absolute separation as to who is being obeyed, and if this is not entailed, then the verses [cited in the objection] are not a proof that what is in the Sunna is not in the Book. Rather, the two obediences can refer to the same thing, and the two obediences and the two disobediences can occur in two different respects. There is nothing impossible about this. There remains the investigation of whether the judgments the Prophet (God’s blessing and peace be upon him) gave are actually in the Qur’ân, and that will follow immediately after this, by God’s power (He is exalted). The statement in the objection that “[the Sunna] must be an addition to [the Book]” is accepted, but is this addition of the nature of the addition of a commentary to that which is commented on? (Since a commentary contains clarification that is not in that which is commented on, else it would not be a commentary.) Or is it the addition of another meaning that is not found in the Book? This is the point at issue.

[There follows al Shâtibî’s answers to the other objections.]

[There follows the fourth matter, in which al Shâtibî offers three ways in which the Sunna may be understood to stem from the Qur’ân.]

1 [In order to quell a growing social problem, the companions agreed to set the punishment for drinking wine at eighty lashes, though it had been left unspecified during the life of the Prophet.]

2 [This refers to the decision to produce a definitive written text of the Qur’ân.]

3 Refers to ‘Umar’s establishment of financial and military records, including a list of recipients for the distribution of the income of the state.

4 Published by Abû Dâwûd and al Tirmidhî.

5 [There is debate over whether the Prophet engaged in diligent inquiry (ijtihâd).]

6 [This is the core of the report of a dialogue between the Prophet and Mu‘âdh, on the occasion of the latter’s being sent to administer a region. The editor notes that this hadîth has been said to be very weak.]

7 Sûrat al nisâ’, 4:24.

8 Sûrat al nahl, 16:44.

9 Sûrat al mâ’ida, 5:38.

10 Sûrat al nahl, 16:44

11 Sûrat al qalam, 68:4.

12 Sûrat al an‘âm, 6:38.

13 Sûrat al mâ’ida, 5:3.

14 Sûrat al nisâ’, 4:65.

15 A book of law and hadîth by Mâlik, the founder of the Mâlikî school of law.

16 Sûrat al nisâ’, 4:59.

17 Sûrat al mâ’ida, 5:92.

18 I.e. the Prophet’s.

19 Sûrat al nûr, 24:63.

20 Sûrat al nisâ’, 4:80.

21 Sûrat al hashar, 59:7.