Sources of Muhammadan Law: Qiyas
The scholars agreed that Qiyas to be used as a rational tool for deducing the rule of fiqh. The literal meaning of Qiyas is measuring, or ascertaining the length, weight or quality of something. It is the comparison that suggests similarity or equality between two things. Technically; Qiyas is an extension of a Shari'ah value from an original case (asl) to a new case, because the latter has the same effective cause (illah) as the former. The original case is ruled by the Quran or Sunnah and qiyas aims to extend the same ruling to the new case based on the same illah. Estimated Reading Time: 9 mins.
We have been assigned to discuss about the role of Qiyas as a secondary source of Shariah. This is important to be discussed because the what does a strut do of whether the usage of Qiyas to be accepted as source of Shariah or otherwise is still debatable in these present days. According to the majority of scholars, Quran and Sunnah are the primary sources of Shariah, while Ijma and Qiyas, they consider it as secondary sources of Syariah.
The purposd agreed that Qiyas to be used as a rational tool for deducing the rule of fiqh. The literal meaning of Qiyas is measuring, or ascertaining the length, weight or quality of something. It is the comparison that suggests similarity or equality between two things.
While in its technical meaning, it is defined as the extension of more widen understanding, of a Syariah value from the asl original case to a current or a new case because the latter has the how to open nintendo wii effective cause as the former.
According to Laldinthe text from the Quran or Sunnah ruled the original case and the qiyas aims to extend or to broaden the understanding of the same ruling to the new case based on the same illah. Qiyas does not create a new rule, regulation or even a law.
Indeed, it discovers and develops the existing law which was practiced since thousands of years ago. In order to apply the usage of Qiyas, there are four essentials elements or requirements must be fulfilled.
They are as what happens if your lung collapses. In order to ensure the accuracy and propriety in qiae usage of Qiyas, the scholars have laid down the conditions for each of the four iqas elements of the analogy.
All these conditions will be elaborate further in the section of discussion of results in this paper. There are some examples to demonstrate all the four important elements wha give a proper understanding of the application of Qiyas. By analogy, this ruling is extended to qiws or wasiyyah matter new case. This would implicate that the murderer cannot benefit from the will of his victim. The rationale is to prevent people from committing murder in order to get enriched.
Another example, in a case of a woman who already engaged to a man, another man cannot make an offer of betrothal to that woman. As in the hadith of the Prophet stated that it is forbidden for a man to make an offer of betrothal to a woman who is already engaged to another man unless the latter discontinues wnat relationship or has totally abandoned his offer original case. The illah is to cause conflict and hostility among people. By analogy, the same rule is extended to all other transactions new case in which the same illah is found to be operative.
However, the debate among the scholars whether to put Qiyas what is the purpose of qias one of the sources of Shariah is open for discussion as some say that the ruling of Qiyas is concluded by human which is not the same as Quran and Sunnah where the Quran is the word of Allah SWT revealed through Angel Jibril to Prophet Muhammad SAW and Sunnah is the established practice of the Prophet Muhammad SAW whether by his acts or sayings. In this assignment, it consists four sections namely literature review, methodology, discussion of results and conclusion.
It aims to help researchers to identify the organizational structure more qiias and systematic. Under literature review, we will highlight some studies of the role of Qiyas as secondary sources of Syariah and some issues that arise in Qiyas. In the methodology section, it deals with the methodology based on library research to collect the data.
We will also inform our difficulties in doing the research. In what is a bronchodilator inhaler of results section, we will discuss the validity of Qiyas as a source of Islamic Law. Last ov not least, the conclusion section being the last of all the sections, we will summarize all that we have analyzed in this paper, our findings and recommendations.
Qiyas is one of the four sources of law to establish a new ruling from the same Illah. This method is done by comparing the ever-occurring law described in the Quran and the Sunnah with the new law. Therefore, this task will explain the role of Qiyas method in Islamic law. In the article belong to Desa and Alias titled Qiyas and its impact on Islamic law, it focusing on explaining of Qiyas and its impact as a source of Islamic law in detail. Therefore from the study thhe this article, it can help to understand Qiyas in more detail.
At the same time, it can lurpose help to prove the ourpose of Qiyas as the source of the secondary Islamic law. Besides, Abbah wrote about Qiyas as a methodology in formulation of rules. The study covered explanation of Qiyas, procedure for Qiyas and arguments on the validity of Qiyas in detail. Therefore from the study of this article, the study found that there is an agreement of the Qiyas as a reason that can be used to pudpose any particular legal how to become a better guitarist because there are only a few examples and evidence about strong writing nass in the Al-Quran and Sunnah can be met effectively also majority of the scholars agreed that Qiyas is source of How long can you leave a laptop on law.
Fuad wrote that Qiyas as one of the method to deduce a ruling where the texts of Al-Quran and Sunnah does not has clear judgment regarding the current that need to seek for the solutions. The Study covered the definition and thf of Qiyas including the conditions of each elements. Mujtahid can deduce ruling base on cases with clear judgment because of the same illah. The initial purpose of this assignment is to give details on the information about Qiyas and the problem arise whether to accept Qiyas as secondary source of Shariah or otherwise, together with a valid reason and arguments will be provided in this puepose.
The information that we will be using is based on few Journals and few Books that we have found from the qkas as well as international journals online that purposs help purposs understand the issues that are related to the title of the assignment. However, there are some ehat when doing the research as some of the Books are in Arabic, Indonesian and Old Malay Language ks cause us some difficulties qiws translating it back to English.
According to Imam Hanafi, the Qiyas analogy will be used to deduce a decision if the Quran, Sunnah or Ijma does not give the qqias indication of solution to the current issue. However, Hanafi was not considered Qiyas as the final source to deduce a decision. He will consider Istihsanif the solution could not be found by the four sources Quran, Sunnah, Ijma and the usage of Qiyas. This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional kf writers.
Disclaimer This tge has been how to draw a chihuahua for kids by a student. Muslim Batuta in Muslim Religion. Court Theories of Adjudication in the Islamic Law. Muhammad Custom as an Obstruction to Direction. Muslim Most Beautiful Teaching of Islam. Muslim The Special Meaning of Ramadan. We can write it better! Just try! Choose your writer among professionals!
Order ot essay. Sorry, You cannot copy content from our website. By clicking "Send", you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails. Would you like to have an original essay? Uprpose to get a custom qiass from scratch? Do not miss your deadline waiting for inspiration! Our writers will handle essay of any difficulty in if time.
Essential elements of Qiyas Justification of Qiyas as a source of Islamic law• The majority of Muslim jurists are of the view that Qiyas is a source of Islamic law. It is relied upon in deriving legal rules. • Muslims are obliged to follow the legal ruling which is validly derived from qiyas.•. Qiyas (Analogical Reasoning) compatible with the purpose of the law. Types of Qiyas There are three types of Qiyas: 1) Qiyas of higher order (al-Qiyas al-Awla): The effective cause in the parallel case is of higher order than the effective cause in the original case. E.g. Apr 10, · In the Arabic language, Qiyas means ‘measurement’. In other words, it means measuring or comparing a thing in relation to a standard, or ‘to establish an analogy’. If there was any problem before the society on which the texts (Quran, Sunna, and Estimated Reading Time: 6 mins.
To prove this fact that there is hell of difference between Qiyas and Aql. I welcome my Usooli as well as Akhhbari brothers to come forward and prove their view point. Qiyas is totally haram in both schools of thoughts while Aql is source of law for Usoolis while Akhbaris consider it interference in the Shariah. The purpose of this thread is two fold. If they are different then Is Aql source of law as Usoolis claim or it amounts to interference in Shariah?
In its literal meaning, the word "Qiyas" means measuring or estimating one thing in terms of another. It also applies to making two things equal, that is, comparing. This comparison may be physical or rational. In the technical sense, as defined by the jurists, it applies to "the assignment of the "hukm" of an existing case found in the texts of the Quran, the Sunnah, or ijma to a new case whose hukm is not found in these sources on the basis of a common underlying attibute called " illah" of the hukm.
For the reasons why qiyas is forbidden in shi'a fiqh, please refer to: 'The Role of Reason in Ijtihad' by Murtada Mutahhari. In the previous discussion, "The Principle of Ijtihad in Islam", two trends in Islamic thought were referred to.
One of them related to the subject of the justifiability or unjustifiability of the use of qiyas and ijtihad bi al-ra'y , a practice that acquired prevalence among different schools of fiqh. The other was regarding the controversy about Divine justice and reason as the criterion of moral and legal judgements al-husn wal-qubh al-'aqliyyan among the mutakallimun.
These controversies actually revolved around the central issue of the role or the "rights" of reason. Some schools of fiqh which supported qiyas , especially the Hanafi school, believed in the role of reason in ijtihad, which in their interpretation took the form of qiyas and ijtihad bi al-ra'y. But the other schools opposed to qiyas , especially the Zahiri school, did not approve of any role for reason, neither in the form of qiyas nor in any other form.
Accordingly, the first group, while enumerating the sources of legislation, maintained that there were four: the Qur'an, the Sunnah, ijma' consensus and ijtihad qiyas. But the second group did not go beyond the Qur'an, the Sunnah and, at the most, ijma'. Among the mutakallimun , the Mu'tazilah believed in the independent role of reason, and also in Divine justice and the rational basis of moral and legal judgements.
They believed that the system of creation is established on the foundations of justice, and that the present system is the best possible.
They also explained away the problem of evil in the world and believed that in the next world too punishment and reward will be according to the unalterable criteria of justice.
The knowledge of these criteria is also within the province of reason. It is not possible that God should will anything that is not according to these definite rational criteria. With regard to legislation, also, they believed that the Divine commands have been set forth according to the criteria of justice and with due attention to a series of real benefits and harms that lie in obedience or disobedience to the laws.
According to the Mu'tazilite doctrine, there is a purpose and aim hidden in every Divine Act, whether it relates to creation or legislation.
But the Asha'irah did not believe in any of the above-mentioned doctrines. They did not acknowledge Divine justice or the rational basis of moral and legal judgements. They did not believe that the world is based on the principle of justice and that the present system of creation is the best possible. Neither, according to them, in the other world matters will be decided on the criteria of justice, nor the system of Divine laws has been patterned to ensure a series of benefits and to avoid harms.
They did not believe in any aim and purpose for Divine Acts either. According to their doctrine, the belief in the principle of justice, the belief in a rational basis of moral and legal judgements, and the belief that Divine Acts are subject to aims and purposes, usefulness and harmfulness, contradict the principle of tawhid and the idea of absolute freedom of God as a free actor.
No law or principle can be set forth as a criterion of His Will thus imposing limits upon Him. God's Will is neither subordinate to any criteria nor is it subject to anv laws or principles; on the contrary all laws and principles are subject to and proceed from His Will.
Judgements of reason cannot be relied upon to enable us to say definitely that such and such a thing is in accordance with justice or not. For instance, it cannot be said for certain that those people who obey God will be sent to heaven and those who sin to hell.
His Will and Acts cannot be restricted by any of such rules. He will not be questioned as to that which He doth, but they will be questioned. There is no criterion or standard applicable to Divine Acts so as to justify any question about God's Action or forbearance. The Asha'irah have formally objected to the statement that 'The Heavens stand on the foundations of justice', and said that it is not so; they point out that matters like pain and disease, the creation of Satan, social injustice and inequality, class distinctions, domination of the corrupt over the virtuous in the world, and the like, are things which are observable through reason, and, if the order of the universe were based on justice, should not have existed.
As for the religious laws and precepts, they have formally declared that they are not based on wisdom and prudence. They say that the Shari'ah and its laws bring together disparities and separate similarities.
Many matters, in spite of their being unlike, have the same judgement, and many other matters in spite of their being similar and parallel have different judgements applicable to them.
They have mentioned various examples, to mention which is not possible here. Anyhow, according to the Ash'arite doctrine, the process of creation is not subject to the principle of justice; rather, justice is subordinated to creation.
In the same way, the laws of the Shari'ah are also not subject to any real underlying benefits or harms; rather, benefit and harm, good and evil, are subservient to the provisions of the Shari'ah. That is, if we are to speak about justice and injustice, right and wrong, beneficial and harmful, what we should mean is that whatever God does is just, good and beneficial, not that God does what is just, good and beneficial.
This kind of thinking is not without similarity to the trend that existed among the ancient Greek thinkers and the Sophists two thousand and five hundred years ago about reality and the worth of human thought and ideas.
They raised the question whether reality is something which exists and our minds and their ideas, in order to be valid, should correspond to reality, or whether it is not so and reality is subject to our minds. For instance, during philosophical and scientific contemplation, we may make a statement about something and say that such and such is the case. Now does our statement correspond to some reality independent of our minds, which would be true if it corresponded with that reality?
Or whether, on the contrary, truth and reality are subservient to our minds, and whatever we perceive is the truth? And since it is possible that different individuals should perceive something in diverse ways, truth is relative to each one of them, being different from what it is for others? Therefore, truth and reality are relative? What a group of Muslim mutakallimun have said about religion in relation to truth, goodness, justice and benefit was said before them by the Greek Sophists about the mind in relation to reality and truth.
The arguments presented by the Sophists for proving their claim resemble those advanced by this group of mutakallimun. Due to this similarity it would be right to give them the name of 'Islamic sophists'.
This group of mutakallimun believed that they had discovered various contradictions, equal treatment of disparities, and unequal treatment of similarities in Islamic laws. They maintained that, on account of these contradictions, it is not possible for any real benefits and harms to be the criteria of religious laws. Therefore, it is the religious laws that are the criteria of good and bad, benefit and harm.
The Sophists had also made an excuse of the contradictions and errors of reason and perception, to hold that due to these contradictions it is not possible for a reality which is transcendental to the mind, and which the mind should follow, to exist.
Reality, on the other hand, is a function of the mind. The answer given by philosophers to Greek and non-Greek sophists is also similar to the one given by the 'Adlites those who believed in Divine justice, 'adl to that group of mutakallimun , but here we shall abstain from going into further details. The doctrine of taswib lit. According to the theory of relativity of truth, whatever one perceives is truth in relation to him though in relation to others it may be error, not truth. Also according to the theory of taswib , whatever one mujtahid may deduce is correct as far as he himself is concerned, although it may not be so for others.
There are many problems which are theoretically of profound significance, but practically are not so important. There are also many problems which are not so important regarding their theoretical value but from the practical point of view they are of extraordinary significance.
For instance, in theology we have the problem of Divine Attributes, which is of great importance so far as theory is concerned but is of little practical utility. For example, the study of and inquiry into the question whether the Attributes of God are identical with His Essence or not can be an important subject for theoretical study, but from the practical point of view it is of little consequence which one of the two doctrines you choose; it does not influence the life and behaviour of a Muslim society.
But the problem of jabr or tafwid predestination or freedom is important from the theoretical point of view as much as it is valuable for its practical aspect. Because the belief in the doctrines of determinism and fatalism and the negation of every kind of human freedom ruin the spirit of action and kill every kind of dynamism. The problem of Divine justice and belief in rational criteria of moral and legal judgements occupies the most important position in Islamic thought due to its great influence on the intellectual and scientific history and behaviour of Muslims.
It is a fact that those who discussed and studied this issue soon arrived at the crossroads, where they had either to accept religious laws as based on a reality discoverable by reason, to try as far as possible to discover that rational basis, to acknowledge a purpose and meaning of religion, to try to discover those purposes and objectives, and to recognize reason as an "inner proof and an "internal prophet" and to accept the definite judgements of reason as enjoying the approval of the Divine Lawgiver; or to consider the aim and purpose of the Shari'ah as entailing mere obligation and acts of absolute servility devoid of any objective, and close all the doors on research and intellectual inquiry.
How much it matters whether we conceive religion in terms of external forms and shapes, viewing any change in external forms and appearances as a change of essence and content, and, imagining some kind of inherent correspondence between those forms and the very spirit of religion, recognize that soul in every form and shape! And what a great difference it makes whether we consider the universal laws of Islam, which cover a wide range of social and ethical problems and concern all modes of human life, as based upon a series of realities relating to spiritual health and well-being and innate human rights, or if we deny the existence of those realities and believe, for instance, that vices like jealousy, falsehood, and suspiciousness are bad because they have been forbidden by the Lawgiver, and virtues like truthfulness, honesty, and benevolence are good as they have been commanded by Him, as if there is no difference between them in reality.
Similarly, human rights also are to be acknowledged as such on account of their being set forth by the Islamic lawgiver, or else had they been determined in some other fashion that would have been equally right. Justice and oppression are also defined in the light of these commandments, and if something else had been enjoined, justice and injustice would have been defined in quite a different way.
The two above-mentioned intellectual trends were discussed from the point of view of Sunni fiqh and kalam. Now it is necessary to study them from the Shi'ite point of view also.
The early Shi'ite logic concerning the first of the two trends is extremely sensitive and interesting. As for the first trend, that is, regarding the problem of justifiability or unjustifiability of qiyas , Shi'ah rejected qiyas on the basis of the express texts nusus of their Imams.
As mentioned in the former discussion, the Shi'ah disapproved of qiyas for two reasons:. Firstly, the use of qiyas was justified by others for the reason that the problems to be solved are unlimited, whereas the dicta of the Shari'ah are limited; therefore they are forced to resort to it. The Shi'ah do not accept this reason because, they say, it is not necessary that every event and problem should have a specified rule.
General rules applicable to all situations are given in the Shari'ah. The only thing needed is competent ijtihad, inquiry and reflection to derive the particular from the general. Many ahadith narrated from the Imams A and recorded in the collections of hadith, like al-Kafi, etc.
Secondly, qiyas is something which is based upon conjecture, surmise, and superficial similarities, and is a kind of interference made by reason in such matters which are not intelligible. At one time we may be concerned with the course of action in a case when reason comprehends a fact with certainty and clarity. At other times, in cases where the matter is not comprehensible to reason, is it justifiable to follow conjecture and surmise?
There is of course a great difference between the two kinds of situations, but evidently if the foundations of the religion are to be laid on ra'y , qiyas , surmise and guess-work, it will lead to its destruction.
This was the position held by the Shi'ah with regard to the first trend. As for the second, had the Shi'ah logic in rejecting qiyas been similar to that of its other opponents who rejected it because they did not believe in the rational basis of the religious laws and that they were based on facts of nature, they too would have been forced to take a hostile stand against the doctrines of Divine justice and the rational basis of moral and legal judgements.
However, as we have seen, the Shi'ah's reasons for rejecting qiyas were different. Therefore, in spite of strongly disapproving qiyas , they formally affirmed the share of reason in ijtihad. The Shi'ite fuqaha' and the usuliyyun officially recognized reason as one of the four sources of fiqh and the Shi'ite mutakallimun earnestly supported the doctrine of justice, to the extent that it came to be said: " 'Adl and tawhid are 'Alawids.
It is here that the sensitiveness of the Shi'ite stand comes to light. On the one hand they accepted the share of reason, and on the other they discarded qiyas and ra'y as something based upon surmise and conjecture.
In fact, with utmost discernment they followed the real path of the Qur'an, which eloquently approves of the use of reason but disapproves of surmise and conjecture, and considers it invalid.