Inquiries on the Science of the Objectives of Sharia (Part 25)
G. Do’ran
Do’ran means to gather; and in the terminology of the Usuli: the relationship between existence and non-existence is a ruling on the existence and non-existence of a description. That is, if the description exists, it is a ruling, and if it does not exist, it is not a ruling. An example of Do’ran: If intoxication is present in extracted substances, then the extract was lawful before intoxication. However, when the attribute of drunkenness and intoxication appears, it becomes forbidden. If the intoxication disappears and it becomes vinegar, it is considered lawful again. Thus, the prohibition here is related to the existence and non-existence of intoxication (the description).
The Authority of Do’ran
There are three opinions regarding the implication of Do’ran on the causality of a description:
1. First View: Most scholars of the Hanafi, Maliki, and some Shafe’i schools have said that Do’ran indicates suspicion of causality.
2. Second View: Some Mu’tazila have said that Do’ran clearly and definitely indicates the causality of the description.
3. Third View: The opinion of Abu Mansur, Ibn al-Sama’ani, Ghazali, Sheikh Abu Ishaq Shirazi, Amadi, and Ibn al-Hajjib is that Do’ran in the causality of the description does not indicate suspicion or certainty.
H: Tard (Exclusion)
Definition of Tard: Tard in the word means distance and succession. In terminology: the connection of the ruling with the description, without any intrinsic or consequential relationship. In other words, the analogy of Tard (specific) is an analogy that is based on the description of exclusion. Exclusion is a cause that has no knowledge of its appropriateness or its pseudo-description (necessarily appropriate), but it is a description that always accompanies the ruling.
Explanation: If an appropriate comprehensive description is found between the principle and the subjunctive, it requires that the principle and the branch share the same cause. If the pseudo-description is comprehensive, the principle and the branch share something that is necessary for the cause. However, if the cause of the ruling is neither a proper description nor a pseudo-description, but a description that always accompanies the ruling, that exclusionary description, the analogy that is comprehensive of that exclusionary description, is called the Tard (exclusionary) analogy (special). For example: the spread of a pungent smell that accompanies intoxicating alcohol.
The Validity of Tard (Exclusionary) Analogy
Usuli’in differ in their opinions on the validity of Tard analogy. According to the majority of Usuli’in, Tard analogy has no value or validity. Even those who consider the pseudo-description as an argument have turned away from Tard analogy. According to Hassan ibn al-Qassar and Abu Bakr al-Sirafi, Tard analogy is absolutely valid. Imam Razi and Bayzawi consider it to be an argument and valid when the ruling is accompanied by all the contrary forms in the place of dispute. Another view is that it is valid in the case of argument, but it is not permissible to resort to Tard analogy for action and issuing fatwas. This view is attributed to Allama Karkhi.
The majority view is correct and appears to be stronger from the point of view of argumentation so that the rulings of the Sharia do not become a cause for ridicule and mockery.
H: Tanqih Al-Manat
According to some Usulians, Tanqih Al-Manat is also one of the schools of reason; but according to others, it is not a school of reason. “Tanqih” literally means purification and distinction (purification and separation). And “Manat” means something (cause) that is attributed to it. “Tanqih Al-Manat” in the terminology of Usulians means: ijtihad in determining what is stated as a cause in the text, by eliminating the attributes along with those that have no bearing on the ruling, without the text having determined the cause.
Ibn Qudamah says: “Tanqih Al-Manat is when the legislator has stated the ruling along with its cause. But the attributes that do not have any bearing on the ruling are with the cause. So those attributes must be removed from value so that the scope of the ruling can be expanded.”
Thus, Tanqih Al-Manat is actually the refinement of the cause of the ruling, which is defined in two ways:
1. Removing the differences between the principle and the subsidiary in order to allow the subsidiary to participate in the ruling of the principle.
2. Refining the cause from the attributes that are stated from the perspective of the legislator, but do not interfere with the ruling of the legislator.
In the latter definition, Tanqih Al-Manat refers to the abolition of the characteristic if it does not lead to determining the cause and only involves the elimination of a series of attributes. As Muhaqiq al-Hilli said in “Ma’arij”: The combination of the principle and the subsidiary sometimes results in the absence of a difference, in which case it is called the Tanqih Al-Manat.
For example: It is narrated that a Bedouin intentionally had intercourse with his wife on a day in the blessed month of Ramadan. Then he came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and told him the incident, and he ordered him to pay atonement.
It can be seen that this hadith indicates causation, but it does not indicate a specific description as the reason for the ruling. That is, the text includes the cause but does not indicate a specific description as its cause. So the text includes the cause, but the cause is not pure from impurities and characteristics unrelated to causation. The mujtahid comes and purifies the real cause from these characteristics and complications; such as that the person who had intercourse was an Arab, the incident took place in Medina, and the intercourse took place in the month of Ramadan of that year.
However, the mujtahid considers these characteristics unlikely and then concludes that intentional intercourse on a day of Ramadan was the reason for the ruling that atonement is obligatory. This is the view of the Shafi’iyyah and their supporters. The Hanafis and their supporters have gone further in refining the cause and do not consider the specific matter of “intercourse” as the cause, but rather believe that the cause, after its complete refinement, is the intentional violation of the sanctity of the month of Ramadan by something that breaks the fast and invalidates the fast, such as intercourse or eating and drinking.
Thus, intercourse, as an act that invalidates the fast, has been proven by the implication of the text. Opinions of the mujtahids also differ regarding Tanqih Al-Manat; some believe in the causality of one attribute, and some believe in the causality of another attribute, as observed in the story of the Bedouin and the views of the Hanafis and Shafi’is on this.
Key Points and Conclusion
The Masalek Al-Illal or understanding the purposes of the Sharia through the causes of actions is one of the ways to achieve the Objectives of the Sharia. Achieving the causes of the commandments is possible in nine ways; the way to achieve goals and objectives through causes is to focus on the words of the rulings. Especially explicit words and phrases and focusing on them leads to achieving the objectives.
