TA’ARUDH AL-ADILLAH (REFUTATION OF PROOFS): METHOD FOR DEALING WITH CONFLICTING PROOFS IN UṢŪL AL-FIQH
Original text by:
Mohammad Idrus1 Translated by:
Muhamad Afiq Bin Abd Razak Department of Fiqh and Usul
Academy of Islamic Studies University of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Keywords: Ta’arudh al-adillah, usul al-fiqh, conflicting dalil, proofs
DEFINITION OF TA’ARUDH AL-ADILLAH
From linguistic perspective, the word ‘ta’rudh’ means conflicting of one thing to another.
Several scholar identified that ta’rudh is similar to tanaqudh, however, this is rejected by Wahbah Al-Zuhailiy which he believed that the terms have their own interpretation. According to Wahbah Al-Zuhailiy, tanaqudh will result implication to void one proof of the two. On the other hand, ta’arudh only blocks the hukm for one dalil but do not cancel it out.
The word adillah is the plural form of dalil, which means argument, reason, and proof. The study of ta’rudh come to the surface in usul fiqh studies when there are two conflicting dalil of same weightage in one hukm. There are several technical definitions provided by the usulis, and one them are given by Khuderi Beik:
ضر ع ا نأ
ىتقي ن يدا
نيو ست لا ى
ت ت ا يقن
م ي تقي خاا
Ta’arudh is a proof that shows a hukm which conflicts to other proof.
This notion is similar to the definition given by Ali Hasbalah:
ضر ع ا نأ
ىتقي ن يدا
نيو ست لا ى
ت ت ا يقن
م ي تقي خاا
Ta’arudh is two proof of the same weightage for one hukm in which opposing to other hukm of the same case.
From these definition, it is known that the confliction of two proofs arise based on the evaluation of a mujtahid to resolve the case. For example, one dalil might show a hukm of
1 Source: https://mohidrus.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/taarudh-al-adillah-dalil-dali-yang-bertentangan-dan- metode-penyelesaiannya/
compulsory (wajib), but there are too, another dalil that shows the prohibition (haram) within the same case. Furthermore, Wahbah Al-Zuhailiy defined ta’arudh al-adillah as:
ضر ع ا ه
نأ ىتقي حأ
يدا ح ى عقاو فاخ م
ي تقي يدا
اا خ يف
Ta’arudh is one of the two dalils which shows the hukm of one circumstance, but the other showh in difference in hukm from the latter.
Ibnu Qudamah, on the other hand, provided a definition:
Ta’arudh is a term which is used to mutually nullifying two dalils or several dalils which shows confliction and too complex to be compromised. For example one dalil shows hukm of wajib and another shows hukm of haram.
According to Karim Zaydan, by principle, there should not be a confliction in syara’ proofs.
Ta’arudh or confliction only occurs in the hands of mujtahids. For this reason, ta’arudh is identified as literal and do not considered as haqiqi (real) which only happen in the mind of mujtahid. There are times, when a mujtahid evaluate opposing dalils and this is bounded to their understanding of the meaning that particular dalil bear.
Therefore, ta’arudh occurs when mujtahid is sorting up a hukm based on a dalil, but within the same period, he founds that there are dalil which opposing the first one. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah verse 240 where it is mentioned about the determination of ‘iddah of a widow as follows:
َ يِ َٱَو ذ َنۡ ذفَ َتُي
َ َِإ ًعٰ َتذم ِ ِجٰ َوۡز َ ِ ِ
ّ م ذي ِصَو مجٰ َوۡز َ
أ َنوُرَ َيَو ۡ ُك ِم ِظۡ َ ۡ
ۚ لجاَ ۡخِإ َ َۡۡغ ۡٱ
Meaning: “And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind - for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out.”
In general, this verse shows the period of ‘iddah for a widow (due to death of her husband) is one year. Literally, this is confliction with the verse 234 of the same Surah;
َ يِ َاَو ذ َنْ ذفَ َتُي
ْ ُكْ ِم َنوُرَ َيَو
ًجاَوْزَأ َ ْ ذبَ َََي
ذ ِ ِسُفْن َ أِب َ َعَبْر َ
ُ ْشَأ أ اً َْْعَو
Meaning: “And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind - they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten [days]”
In the latter verse, Allah swt stated that the ‘iddah of widowed women due to the death of her husband is 4 months and 10 days. Therefore, these two dalils can be seen as conflicting on each other. Moreover, the verse of 234 of Surah Al-Baqarah is apparently conflicting with another verse as well, which is verse 4 of Surah Al-Talaq:
ُت او َ ُ ِظ َ ْْ َ ْ أَو
ّا ذ ُ ُ َج َ
أ ْن َ
أ َ ْع َ َي ذ ُ َ ْ َْ
Meaning: “And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth.”
In this verse, Allah swt explained that the ‘iddah of pregnant women is: until the baby is delivered. This verse do not differentiate from the ‘iddah of divorced women or due to the death of the husband. This verse indicates that, whether the divorce occur due to living or death causes, the period is accounted until she delivered the baby. This is contradicting with the verse of 234, Surah Al-Baqarah, which is 4 months and 10 days for divorce of death cause.
Ta’arudh al-adillah just occurred when the two conflicting dalils are on the same level. The level can be ranked by either Qur’anic verse-to-verse or hadith-to-hadith. Therefore with this notion, it is not valid if the confliction involved dalil qat’ie (definitive) and dalil zhaniy (speculative) (note: because both are not the same level); so thus the invalidity of confliction between nas-to-ijma’ (legal proof-to-consensus) and nas-to-qiyas (legal proof-to-analogical deduction). This is because the comparison is not on the same power and value; the powerful dalil will subdue the weaker dalil so that the qat’ie dalil will vanquish the zanni dalil.
The confliction however, can occur in almost every type of dalil, whether it is qat’ie, zanni, or even in naqli and ‘aqli. Nevertheless, ‘ulamas believed that there will be no confliction in two definitive dalils as both will produce yaqin or strong believe, and it is illogical to make refutation of two yaqins.
METHODS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING PROOFS
In order to deal with confliction of dalil literally, there several ways than can be carried out:
1. Naskh
Naskh linguistically means elimination or removal. It can be also defined as transference from one state to other state. This is in accordance to Quranic verse:
Technically, naskh can be defined into two definitions. According to Wahbah Al- Zuhailiy:
خسنلا ه ن يب ء تنا كح مأ
ب ير خاَم
ع
Meaning: Naskh is the explanation of termination of period for a hukm via syara’ dalil which has come later.
By this definition, it is understandable that hukm which has been naskh is removed by the will of Allah and this removal marked the end of the period of that particular hukm.
Secondly, Karim Zaydian opined that:
خسنلا ه فر كح ير
ي ب ير
خأتم م
Meaning: Naskh is the exemption of syara’ hukm which is obliged before with the dalil which comes later.
By these definition, there are several key points that must be highlighted:
(a) Naskh or the amendment are made by the order or khitab of Allah. Therefore, no one is authorised to instruct naskh other than Allah Himself. Even though the prophet’s act on naskh is identified, it is actually a manifestation to inform that Allah had ordered to amend or cancel a hukm. Khitab or obligation of naskh is not
originated from the prophet, because he has no power and authority to cancel out any hukm of syari’ah.
(b) The hukm that is amended in syara’ are in three types only; which contain either order, prohibition or khabar. Therefore any amendment made on ‘aql-dervied hukm such as al-aṣlu al-ibāḥah or based on custom are not considered as naskh.
(c) The hukm which amend the previous hukm must come later. The one which will be amended must come first before the hukm that amends comes. Therefore, any hukm related to istisna’ (exclusion) and syarṭ (condition) are not naskh.
2. Tarjīh
The word ‘tarjīh’ means ‘to empower’. The study of tarjīh involve two literally conflicting dalil of similar level. To resolve the confliction, method used named al- jam’u wa al-tawfīq. When the method cannot resolve the confliction, therefore, tarjīh will come to play. The more powerful dalil is known as rājih, while weaker dalil known as marjūh. There are several definitions given by scholars, and these are some of them.
Al-Amidi defined as:
ةر ع لاَق ع
نۡ ا لاد
ى ب ط لا م
ضر عت ب
ج ي علا
ب هاو خاا
Meaning: “Terms that used when one of the two dalils shows the intended matter while the two (dalils) are opposing each other urging to oblige with one (dalil) and to leave the other (dalil).”
According to Hanafi scholars, it can be defined as:
ر ظا ةل يز
حّا ن ث ت لا
ى خاا ب ا قتسي
Meaning: “Elucidate the addition in one of the dalil which is the same level, in which the dalil is not standalone.”
From these definitions, we can understand that the conflicting dalil must be in the same level, power and quality. For that reason, Al-Qur’an is not said to be rājih than hadith Aḥād nor hadith Aḥād is said to be rājih than qiyās. It is because, Al-Qur’an is not the same quality either towards hadith Aḥād or qiyās. Furthermore, the dalil that oppose to the other dalil is not a standalone or separated.
According to Syafi’ite scholars, they presented another definition as follows:
ي قت نتر مّا حإ ىأ (
ن يدا ني لا
ى ) عي ى خّا ب
Meaning: “Empowering one indicator of the two (which is speculative dalil) to be practiced.”
This definition signals that tarjīh can only occur when two zhanni dalils conflicting with each other, and no tarjīh will ever occur between conflicting qat’ie and zhanni
dalil. By this definition, it can be summarised that the conditions of tarjīh are as follows:
(a) Two dalils is conflicting and it is impossible to practice both in any way.
(b) Both conflicting dalil must have the same quality to indicate the meaning (of the hukm).
(c) There are indicator that dictates to practice one of the two conflicting dalils and to abandon the other one.
The usul scholars have concluded that there are two ways to carry out tarjīh; firstly, known as tarjīh bayn al- nuṣūṣ. This tarjīh that empower one of the conflicting naṣ by looking into the condition of sanad, matan, hukm that it bears, and utilization of other external naṣ. Secondly, known as tarjīh bayn al-‘aqyisah which is tarjīh from the perspective of original hukm (al-aṣl), hukm furu’ (branch), ‘illat (cause) and other external factors.
3. Al-Jam’u wal al-Tawfiq
Al-jam’u wa al-tawfiq is to connect two dalil which is seemingly contradicting until both of them can be applied and practiced with compatible meaning achieved.
4. Tasaqut al-dalalayn
Tasaqut al-dalalayn is to postpone the solution or result from the two conflicting dalil after the utilization of any method available, naskh, tarjīh or al-jam’u wa al- tawfiq.This, however, is not a solution, but rather a temporary delay prior to achieve any other explanation or other reason to empower one of the dalil.
REFERENCES
Beik, Muhammad Khudari. Ushul Fiqh, Beirut : Dar al-Fikr, 1988.
Al-Bukhari, Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail. Shahih al-Bukhari, Riyadh: Dar al-Salam, 1997.
Al-Qur`an al-Karim. al-Madinah al-Munawwarah : Khadim al-Haramain, 2010.
Al-Qusyairi, Abu al-Husain Muslim bin Hajjaj. Shahih al-Muslim, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1993.
Al-Sun`i, Muhammad bin Ismail al-Amiri. Ushul al-Fiqh al-Musamma Ijabah al-Sa`il bi Ghayati al-Amil, Beirut : Muassasah al-Risalah, tt.
Al-Zuhaili, Wahbah. Ushul al-Fiqh al-Islami, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 2001.
Hasbalah, Ali. Ushul al-Tasyri` al-Islami, Kairo : Dar al-Maarif, 1997.
An-Nasa`i, Ahmad bin Syuaib, Sunan an-Nasa`i : Riyadh: Maktabah al-Muayyid, 1992.
Zaidan, Abd al-Karim. al-Wajiz fi Ushul al-Fiqh, Beirut : Muassasah al-Risalah, 1987.