Some linguistic causes of scholars’ differences of opinions’

A common question people tend to ask is that, since the Scholars have established everything from the Quran and the practices and sayings of the Prophet, then why is there differences of opinion among them? Why is there so much differences between the Imams? This article seeks to list some points on the Linguistic causes for their differences of opinions. There are numerous works which deal with the topic far more eloquently, so I shall not go into much of a lengthy discussion.

Two categories in law: authenticity and meaning

Any piece of evidence from the Quran or the Sunnah are weighed according to their:
1. Authenticity
2. Meaning

If the evidence is definitive in its authenticity, then it is known as qati thubut. If the evidence is speculative in its authenticity, then is it known as zanni thubut. If the evidence is definitive in its meaning, then it is known as qati dalala. If the evidence is speculative in meaning, then it is known as zanni dalala.

An evidence from the Quran can only be one of the following:
1. Qati thubut and qati dalala
2. Qati thubut and zanni dalala

The Quran is established in its authenticity and so any evidence from it cannot be zanni thubut.

An evidence from the Hadith of the prophet can be one of the following:
1. Qati thubut and qati dalala
2. Qati thubut and zanni dalala
3. Zanni thubut and zanni dalala
4. Zanni thubut and qati dalala

The purpose of interpretation is to understand the intention of Allah in regards to such texts which are not self-evident and unclear. Normally, the Mujtahid will not resort to interpretation of a text when it is clear in meaning and authentic (qati thubut/dalala). When the Quran is commanding you to establish salah, there is only one thing you can do and there is no room for interpretation. It is when scholars come across evidences which appear to be zanni dalala (unclear in meaning) that the differences of opinion really occur.

Some linguistic causes

It is important to understand that for a person who wishes to interpret a text from the Quran or Hadith must first acquire detailed knowledge of the Arabic language. The Quran is an Arabic Quran and the Prophet was an Arab prophet. In other words, the sources of the deen are Arabic. One would be gravely mistaken to think that he can deduce law from the translated sources.

1. Ta’wil & Tafsir

Definitions
- Ta’wil — based on speculative reasoning. It is a type of interpretation which goes beyond the literal meaning of the text to highlight hidden meanings.
- Tafsir — explaining the meanings of a particular text and bringing out a ruling from it.

The distinction between the tafsir and ta’wil are not always clear. The usuli scholars have defined ta’wil as a departure from a manifest meaning of a text to another meaning if there is evidence to justify the departure.

Scholars of the past have disagreed on whether ta’wil is allowed or not. Such as the Zahiris who chose not do to ta’wil and advocated a literal meaning of the Quran and Sunnah at all times. Whereas Hanafi scholars of usul support the use of ta’wil but with conditions.

2. Amm & Khass

Definitions
- Amm — a word has a single meaning and applies to many things.
- Khass — specific, not general, limited to someone or something.

Generally there is agreement that Khass is qati (definitive). However regarding Amm, scholars have differed whether it is qati (definitive) or zanni (speculative). The majority say it is qati while a minority believe it is zanni. This disagreement has resulted in many differences amongst the scholars. So in the case of rulings which are brought forth on the same point, one being amm and the other being zanni, the scholars of usul state that the khass will override the amm. Though a minority say the khass specifies the amm.

3. Mutlaq & Muqayyad

Definitions
- Mutlaq — a word which is neither qualified nor limited in its application.
- Muqayyad — when a mutlaq word is qualified by another word or words.

For example: a ‘book’ is mutlaq, ‘a green book’ is muqayyad. Although amm & khass and mutlaq and muqayyad seem like similar mechanisms of linguistics, they do have functional differences.
While Amm and khass deal with words and their scopes, Mutlaq and muqayyad deal with the qualification of words

Regarding how scholars differed on this. Shah Abdul Hannan writes:

Mutlaq remains absolute in application unless there is a limitation to qualify it. When Mutlaq is qualified into Muqayyad, the latter will get priority. If there are two texts on the issue, one Mutlaq and the other Muqayyad, if they differ in their ruling and cause, both will operate, neither will be qualified. This is the majority view. Imam Shafii differs somewhat. He says that if the two texts vary in ruling but has the same cause, the Mutlaq will be qualified by the Muqayyad. Early Hanafi scholars think that if Mutlaq and Muqayyad differ in their causes, one does not qualify the other.

Allah knows best.