. J "" (cont.)

Before beginning the discussion of the different approaches to the above issue, a brief discourse to introduce the term umoom al-muqtadhaa is needed. In the commentary to Hadith #1, the concepts of idhmaar and taqdeer were introduced. This question is related to those concepts. The wording of the hadith here requires that something be assumed in order to give it a complete meaning. This leads to the question of how much can be assumed. This is the topic in Islamic legal theory known as ൒I r-.Y" umoom al-muqtadhaa or the generality or number of required assumption(s). This discussion revolves around one question, "How general or encompassing can one make one's required assumption when the text itself does not provide all of the essential components?" More precisely stated the issue is as follows: Suppose there are four possible assumptions that could be made concerning what is not stated in a text. Can one assume all four of those possibilities or can one assume only one of them? If a scholar accepts the notion of umoom al­ muqtadhaa, he will allow more than one assumption to be made, up to every assumption possible. If a scholar does not accept that notion, he will only allow one assumption or the minimum needed assumption. The Hanafi Approach.' In general, the Hanafis take the strictest approach, since they reject the application of umoom al-muqtadhaa. They argue that all agree that the sinful nature is pardoned. They then argue that to assume any further implication is not permissible. The principle is to assume as little as possible for, in essence, one is assuming only out of necessity and, in all cases of necessity, one must opt for the minimum needed to fulfill one's necessity. Since the expression can have meaning without assuming more, it is not permissible to assume more.2 Furthermore, one can assume that the word or phrase means one thing but one cannot assume that it means more than one thing. That is to say, one can assume that the hadith is in reference to the sinful nature or to the worldly ruling but one cannot assume that it is in reference to both. Therefore, from the Hanafi perspective, unless there is specific evidence regarding a particular issue, it is understood that this hadith only implies that the sin of the act is pardoned and not the worldly consequences of the act. 1 In the field of Islamic legal theory, due to historical developments, many topics are discussed from the point of view of the Hanafis (also known as the jurists or fuqahaa) vis-a-vis the point of view of the Shafi'ees/Maalikis/Hanbalis (also known as the "scholastic dialecticians" or mutakallimoon). For the sake of brevity, in the above analysis, the emphasis will be on the Hanafi rerspective vis-a-vis the Shafi'ee perspective. Cf., Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Sarakhsi, Usool al-Sarakhsi (Daar al-Kitaab al-Arabi, 1 372 A.H.), vol. 1 , pp. 248-254. Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi The Approach of the Mutakallimoon (Shafi'ees, Malik.is and Hanbalis). First there is the general question of whether or not the mutakallimoon accept the concept of umoom al-muqtadhaa. Although a detailed discussion of that question is beyond the scope of this work, it must be commented upon here to some extent. Those who Reject the Concept of Umoom al-Muqtadhaa. Many writers state that it is the Shafi'ee approach or the opinion of al-Shafi'ee himself to accept umoom al-muqtadhaa. Such has been attributed to them by al-Turki, 1 al-Duraini2 and others. The Shafi'ee scholar al-Alaai says that one can find evidence in which al-Shafi'ee himself accepted the concept and other evidence wherein he rejected it.3 However, concerning the example in which he supposedly accepted the concept, al-Shafi'ee himself, in his dictation, seemed to reject umoom al-muqtadhaa while accepting only analogy in a similar case.4 Al­ Khinn also noted that he had never seen al-Shafi'ee himself actually invoke this concept or anything similar to it, although the Hanafi scholars explicitly ascribe it to al-Shafi'ee himself.5 Furthermore, many of the leading Shafi' ee legal theorists throughout the years have also rejected umoom al-muqtadhaa. For example, al-Ghazzaali and al-Amidi6, also hold the same views as the Hanafis on this point. Al­ Ghazzaali argues that generality is a characteristic of terms only and cannot be a characteristic of the "meaning" of an expression. Al-Raazi also rejects the idea of umoom al-muqtadhaa on the basis that assuming one matter is all that is needed and all that can be resorted to in the case of necessity. 7 Other Shafi' ee scholars of the same opinion include al-Bannaani and Abdul Rahmaan al­ Sherbeeni. 8 1 Abdullah al-Turki, Asbaab lkhtilaaf al-Fuqahaa (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Riyaadh al-Hadeethah), r· 163. Fathi al-Duraini, al-Manaahij al-Usooliyyah fl al-ljtihaad bi-Rai fl al-Tashree al-lslami (Damascus: Daar al-Rasheed, 1 976), vol. I , p. 3 73, 3 Khaleel al-Alaai, Talqeeh al-Fuhoom fl Tanqeeh Siyagh al-Umoom (published by Abdullah Ali-Shaikh, 1983), p. 4 1 7. 4 See Abu Bakr al-Hisni, Kitaab al-Qawaaid (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 1 997), vol. 2, p. 271 .