Inquiries on the Science of the Objectives of Sharia (Part 21)
C: Imā’ and Tanbih
Type Four: Distinguishing between the ruling of two subjects by an attribute. When a difference appears based on the attribute and the cause in the ruling of two subjects, it is divided into two types:
1. Including the subject in a ruling that the ruling of the other subject does not include the address. For example: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “The murderer does not inherit.” In this hadith, it is clear that the murderer is not entitled to the inheritance of his heir, but the ruling regarding other heirs is not mentioned in this hadith. The absence of committing murder is not considered a reason for entitlement to inheritance; because the reason for entitlement to inheritance is lineage and other factors.
2. Including the ruling of two subjects in one address. This is further divided into five types:
A. Separating the ruling of two subjects by a condition: Example: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, salt for salt, like for like, equal for equal, hand to hand. If these types differ, then sell them however you wish, provided it is hand to hand.” In this hadith, the phrase “If these types differ” serves as a condition and indicates that the difference in categories is the reason for the permissibility of differentiation. From this, the basis for ruling between the two matters can be discerned.
B. The separation of the ruling of two matters by means of the end: The second case is that the ruling of two matters is different in terms of the end. For example, Allah Almighty says: وَلَا تَقْرَبُوهُنَّ حَتَّى يَطْهُرْنَ (“So when they purify themselves, there is no obstacle to approaching them.”) In this verse, purity is the ultimate cause.
C. The separation of the ruling of two matters based on an exception: The difference and separation of the ruling of two matters based on an exception is another method. For example: «وَإِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ مَا فَرَضْتُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ يَعْفُونَ» (“If you divorce them before you have touched them and you have prescribed for them a dowry, then give them half of what you have prescribed, unless they forgive.”) It is clear that before forgiveness, they were entitled to half the dowry, but after forgiveness, their entitlement is lost due to the exception (of forgiving).
D. Separating the ruling of two matters by a word that establishes the position of comprehension: This is also another way to achieve the objectives. Example: «لَا يَؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا عَقَدْتُمُ الْأَيْمَانَ» (“Allah will not hold you accountable for your empty oaths; but He will hold you accountable for oaths that you have sworn.”) The above verse indicates that conviction and certainty in an oath have an effect on accountability.
E. The difference in the ruling on two subjects by returning one of them to one of their attributes, provided that the attribute has the ability to explain: An example can be found in the following hadith: “On the authority of Abdullah bin Omar, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, divided the booty into two shares for the horse and one share for the man.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, distinguished between a person on foot and a person on horseback based on these two attributes in the ruling on entitlement to booty, determining that the person on horseback was entitled to two shares while the person on foot was entitled to one share.
Type Five: Arranging the ruling based on the attribute, in the form of a condition and penalty, is another way to derive the causes of the ruling. For example: «وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مَخْرَجًا» (“And whoever fears Allah, He will provide for him a way out.”) The letter (مَنْ) is a conditional particle, the phrase [يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ] is the conditional descriptive sentence, and [يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مَخْرَجًا] serves as the complement.
Type Six: For the sake of order, something is mentioned in the context of the sentence to establish the connection between the cause and both the beginning and end of the sentence. An example of this is this noble verse: «يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِي لِلصَّلَاةِ مِنْ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَ…» (“O you who have believed, when the call is proclaimed for prayer on the day of Friday, hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off selling…”) From this verse, it is clear that buying and selling is prohibited when it prevents the Friday prayer. The reason for the prohibition in the verse is the urgency in praying, since selling is not absolutely prohibited.
Type Seven: The indication of the reason for the absence of a ruling based on an obstacle to the ruling. Example: «وَلَوْلَا أَنْ يَكُونَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً لَجَعَلْنَا لِمَنْ يَكْفُرُ بِالرَّحْمَنِ لِبُيُوتِهِمْ سُقُفًا مِنْ فِضَّةٍ وَمَعَارِجَ عَلَيْهَا يَظْهَرُونَ» (“If it were not that people would become one nation, We would have made for those who disbelieve in the Most Merciful, houses with roofs of silver and stairs by which to ascend.”) This means that the temporary blessings of this life are worthless compared to the eternal blessings of the Hereafter.
Type Eight: Suspending a sentence with a derived noun that indicates a cause; as illustrated in the example: “I have honored more than the world.” In this case, the cause of honor is considered to be knowledge.
