Jump to content

Draft:Aṣālat al-Iṭlāq

Add links
From wikishia

Aṣālat al-Iṭlāq (Arabic: أصالة الإطلاق, lit. 'the principle of absolute application') means preferring the probability of the comprehensiveness of a religious ruling to all individuals over the probability of that ruling being limited. The principle of absolute application is among the most important verbal principles (al-usul al-lafziyya) discussed in the science of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence). It is invoked when there is no specific condition (qayd) to limit the ruling, while simultaneously there exists a possibility of it being restricted. In such a case, the principle is that the ruling is comprehensive and inclusive of all individuals and all times.

The primary function of asalat al-itlaq and other verbal principles is to determine the actual intent of the Lawgiver in the Book of God and the Sunna of the Infallibles (a) for the purpose of deducing shari'a rulings. The proof for the authority (hujjiyya) of asalat al-itlaq is stated to be the practice of the wise (sirat al-'uqala) and the practice of the religiously observant (sirat al-mutasharri'a). Regarding its execution, it is held that before applying it, a thorough search must be conducted concerning the existence or non-existence of a restriction, and it must be clear that the speaker was not in a state of negligence (ihmal) or ambiguity (ijmal).

Asalat al-itlaq is considered an authority for both the speaker and the listener. If this rule is acted upon, the speaker cannot hold the listener accountable for following it, nor can the listener claim that they did not act upon the absolute due to specific reasons. Some jurists believe that asalat al-itlaq, like other verbal principles, is an instance and sub-category of the principle of apparent meaning (asalat al-zuhur) and ultimately reverts to this principle.

Status and Importance

Asalat al-itlaq is a term in the science of principles expressed in the section of verbal discussions and Verbal Principles.[1] This principle is regarded as one of the most important verbal principles.[2] Asalat al-itlaq and other verbal principles, as forms of conjecture (zann), are considered equivalent to certainty in terms of value and reliability; hence, they are known as "scientific proof" or special conjectures (al-zunun al-khassa).[3] The main function of these principles is to distinguish the primary intent of the Lawgiver in the Book of God and the Sunna of the Infallibles (a) to deduce rulings.[4]

The evidence and proof for the authority of all verbal principles, such as asalat al-itlaq, is considered to be the practice of the wise[5] and the practice of the religiously observant.[6]

Functional Analysis

Asalat al-itlaq is utilized when a word is used by a speaker or writer in an absolute manner without restriction, while it possesses the capacity for restriction, yet doubt arises in determining the speaker's intent—whether they used the word absolutely or intended it to be accompanied by restrictions that did not reach us. In this case, relying on the rule of asalat al-itlaq, the word is interpreted as absolute and lacking restriction. It is argued that if the speaker intended certain restrictions, they were obliged to state them; since they did not, the potential restriction is ignored;[7] because the speaker was in the "position of expression" (maqam al-bayan), and if their intent was coupled with a specific restriction, they would have mentioned it.[8]

Some jurists, such as Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar, after stating the definition, refer to the verse: "God has permitted trade"[9] and state that if there is doubt in transactions whether their validity is conditional upon being conducted in Arabic words or if they can be concluded with non-Arabic words as well, one may resort to this rule. By invoking it, the lack of validity of the condition and restriction is argued, and the permissibility of sale with non-Arabic words is ruled upon;[10] because there is no restricting condition or description in the speech of God, and the listener has no right to limit this ruling to specific cases or exclude certain instances of sale from the scope of the ruling.[11]

According to Shia principles of jurisprudence, asalat al-itlaq is an authority for both the speaker and the listener; meaning the speaker cannot punish the listener for acting according to this rule;[12] just as the listener cannot claim that for certain reasons they did not act upon the absolute.[13]

Conditions for Using the Rule

Jurists have stated several conditions for using the rule of asalat al-itlaq, including:

  • The use of this rule is permissible only if no restriction is found after a thorough search.[14]
  • The speaker must be in the "position of full explanation" (maqam al-bayan). If they are in a state of negligence, ambiguity, or merely stating a law for future legislation and not currently for immediate action and compliance, the absolute application of their speech cannot be used; for delaying explanation in such cases is not considered inappropriate.[15][16]
  • The doubt must be a legal doubt (shubha hukmiyya), not a subject-based doubt (shubha mawdu'iyya) or an instance-based doubt. In subject-based doubts, since the instance is not verified and known, using asalat al-itlaq is not permitted.[17][18]

Similarity and Distinction between Absolute and General

An absolute (mutlaq) term resembles a general (amm) term in certain respects; in both, there is a type of inclusiveness and breadth of the word referring to multiple individuals and instances. However, the difference between the general and the absolute is that the inclusiveness of the general over its individuals is a type of verbal indication (dalala lafziyya); for example, the word "all" (kull) and its likes are coined for generality. In contrast, the inclusiveness of the absolute is a type of rational indication (dalala 'aqliyya), and the mere absence of a restriction in the speech results in absolute application.[19]

Doubt in the Speaker's Intent

The occasion for applying asalat al-itlaq, as a verbal principle, is when there is doubt in the speaker's intent. It is not applicable when there is doubt in the coinage (wad') or meaning of the word.[20][21] Doubt in the speaker's intent is defined as when the meanings of the word are clear, but doubt arises regarding what the speaker meant. In this case, to determine the intended meaning, the principles and rules established for distinguishing the speaker's intent—known as Verbal Principles—are invoked.[22] Some of these are positive verbal principles, such as: asalat al-itlaq, asalat al-zuhur, asalat al-haqiqa, and asalat al-umum. Others, like the principle of the non-existence of context, the principle of the non-existence of restriction, and the principle of the non-existence of specification, are negative verbal principles.[23]

Reversion to Asalat al-Zuhur

According to Muhammad Rida al-Muzaffar, all Verbal Principles, including asalat al-itlaq, revert to asalat al-zuhur.[24] In other words, asalat al-haqiqa is among the instances[25] and sub-categories of asalat al-zuhur[26] and has no independence of its own;[27] therefore, its validity remains as long as it is consistent with asalat al-zuhur.[28] This is because in all verbal principles, the probability of a meaning contrary to the apparent meaning is considered, but by executing those principles, the apparent meaning is followed. For instance, in the principle of absolute application, the probability of a meaning contrary to the apparent meaning is considered, but by executing the said principles, the apparent meaning—which was absolute—is ruled upon.[29]

One researcher of the science of principles believes that asalat al-itlaq reverts to asalat 'adam al-qarina (the principle of the non-existence of context). If the audience considers the probability of a restriction, they resort to it, and each restriction is a context; if its existence is known, the speech must be interpreted according to it. Thus, in the case of doubt, it can be said the principle is the non-existence of context.[30]

Notes

  1. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 75; Subḥānī, al-Mūjaz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1387 Sh, p. 18; Farhang-i Tashrīḥī-yi Iṣṭilāḥāt-i Uṣūl, p. 75.
  2. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 74; Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, Farhang-nāma-yi Uṣūl-i Fiqh, 1389 Sh, p. 197.
  3. ↑ Gurjī, Tārīkh-i Fiqh wa Fuqahā, 1421 AH, pp. 251-252.
  4. ↑ Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, Farhang-nāma-yi Uṣūl-i Fiqh, 1389 Sh, p. 680.
  5. ↑ Ākhūnd Khurāsānī, Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, 1409 AH, p. 222; Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1430 AH, vol. 1, pp. 76-77.
  6. ↑ Rifāʿī, Muḥāḍarāt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1421 AH, vol. 1, pp. 410-413; Ṣadr, Durūs fī ʿIlm al-Uṣūl, 1418 AH, vol. 1, p. 102.
  7. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 75; Subḥānī, al-Mūjaz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1387 Sh, p. 19.
  8. ↑ Samīʿī, Matn, Tarjuma wa Sharḥ-i Kāmil-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, 1386 Sh, vol. 2, p. 261.
  9. ↑ Qur'an 2:275.
  10. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 75.
  11. ↑ Muḥaqqiq Dāmād, Mabāḥithī az Uṣūl-i Fiqh, 1362 Sh, vol. 1, p. 44; for more information, see: Rashtī, Badāʾiʿ al-Afkār, p. 105; Sanqūr, al-Muʿjam al-Uṣūlī, 1385 Sh, vol. 1, p. 248.
  12. ↑ Muḥammadī, Sharḥ-i Uṣūl-i Fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 1, p. 63.
  13. ↑ Walāʾī, Farhang-i Tashrīḥī-yi Iṣṭilāḥāt-i Uṣūl, 1387 Sh, p. 76.
  14. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Istisḥāb Sharḥ-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, 1387 Sh, p. 69.
  15. ↑ Samīʿī, Matn, Tarjuma wa Sharḥ-i Kāmil-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, 1386 Sh, vol. 9, pp. 338-339.
  16. ↑ Some researchers have provided an example: if a person encounters their local doctor on the way to work, and the doctor tells them they must take medicine, the person cannot go to the pharmacy and take any medicine, because the doctor was in a state of casual passing. In other words, the doctor's word was to establish the principle of prescription, not the details. (Samīʿī, 1386 Sh, vol. 9, pp. 338-339.)
  17. ↑ Ṣāliḥī Māzandarānī, Sharḥ-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, 1382 Sh, vol. 1, p. 143.
  18. ↑ When a master says absolutely "Honor a scholar," if there is doubt about "Zayd the scholar" whether the ruling of honoring includes him or a specific restriction has removed him from the generality or absolute of the ruling, the ruling is proven for him through aṣālat al-iṭlāq because it is a legal doubt and the subject is verified. However, if there is doubt about "Zayd" whether he is considered a scholar to come under the ruling or not, one cannot resort to aṣālat al-iṭlāq, because in this case, it is an instance-based doubt and the subject is not verified. (Ṣāliḥī Māzandarānī, 1382 Sh, vol. 1, p. 143.)
  19. ↑ Imām Khumaynī, Muʿtamad al-Uṣūl, 1420 AH, vol. 2, pp. 348-350; ʿAdālat, Tarjuma wa Sharḥ-i Fārsī-yi al-Mūjaz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1385 Sh, pp. 65-66.
  20. ↑ Asgharī, Uṣūl al-Fiqh bā Sharḥ-i Fārsī, 1386 Sh, vol. 1, pp. 50-52.
  21. ↑ Such as the word "ṣaʿīd" (high ground/soil), where there is doubt in its literal meaning; in this case, the actual meaning is ruled upon through "spontaneous conceptualization" (tabādur), the correctness of affirmation and negation, or the explicit statement of lexicographers. (Muẓaffar, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 76; Walāʾī, 1387 Sh, p. 106; Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, 1389 Sh, pp. 216-217.)
  22. ↑ Muẓaffar, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 76; Subḥānī, 1387 Sh, p. 18; Walāʾī, 1387 Sh, p. 106; Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, 1389 Sh, pp. 216-217.
  23. ↑ Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, 1389 Sh, pp. 216-217.
  24. ↑ Muẓaffar, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 76; Walāʾī, 1387 Sh, p. 88.
  25. ↑ Subḥānī, 1387 Sh, p. 20; Gurjī, 1421 AH, pp. 251-252.
  26. ↑ ʿAdālat, 1385 Sh, p. 69.
  27. ↑ Sīd Ashrafī, Nihāyat al-Īṣāl, 1385 Sh, vol. 1, p. 254.
  28. ↑ Shīrwānī, Taḥrīr-i Uṣūl-i Fiqh, 1385 Sh, p. 36.
  29. ↑ Muẓaffar, 1430 AH, vol. 1, p. 76.
  30. ↑ Dhihnī Ṭihrānī, Tashrīḥ al-Maqāṣid, 1405 AH, vol. 2, p. 164.

References

  • ʿAdālat, ʿAlī, Tarjuma wa Sharḥ-i Fārsī-yi al-Mūjaz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Qom, Nashr-i Naṣāyiḥ, 1385 Sh.
  • Ākhūnd Khurāsānī, Muḥammad Kāẓim, Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, Qom, Muʾassasa-yi Āl al-Bayt (a), 1409 AH.
  • Asgharī, ʿAbd Allāh, Uṣūl al-Fiqh: bā Sharḥ-i Fārsī, Qom, 2nd ed., 1386 Sh.
  • Dhihnī Ṭihrānī, Muḥammad Jawād, Tashrīḥ al-Maqāṣid fī Sharḥ al-Farāʾid, Qom, Ḥādhiq, 1405 AH.
  • Gurjī, Abū l-Qāsim, Tārīkh-i Fiqh wa Fuqahā, Tehran, SAMT, 3rd ed., 1421 AH.
  • Imām Khumaynī, Sayyid Rūḥ Allāh, Muʿtamad al-Uṣūl, Tehran, Muʾassasa-yi Tanẓīm wa Nashr-i Āthār-i Imām Khumaynī, 1420 AH.
  • Markaz-i Iṭṭilāʿāt wa Madārik-i Islāmī, Farhang-nāma-yi Uṣūl-i Fiqh, Qom, Pazhūheshgāh-i ʿUlūm wa Farhang-i Islāmī, 1389 Sh.
  • Muḥaqqiq Dāmād, Muṣṭafā, Mabāḥithī az Uṣūl-i Fiqh, Tehran, Markaz-i Nashr-i ʿUlūm-i Islāmī, 1362 Sh.
  • Muḥammadī, ʿAlī, Sharḥ-i Uṣūl-i Fiqh, Qom, Dār al-Fikr, 10th ed., 1387 Sh.
  • Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Muḥammad, Istisḥāb Sharḥ-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, Tehran, Majd, 1387 Sh.
  • Muẓaffar, Muḥammad Riḍā, Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Qom, Intishārāt-i Islāmī, 5th ed., 1430 AH.
  • Rashtī, Ḥabīb Allāh b. Muḥammad ʿAlī, Badāʾiʿ al-Afkār, Qom, Muʾassasa-yi Āl al-Bayt (a), n.d.
  • Rifāʿī, ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Muḥāḍarāt fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh Sharḥ al-Ḥalqa al-Thāniya, Qom, Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 1421 AH.
  • Ṣadr, Muḥammad Bāqir, Durūs fī ʿIlm al-Uṣūl, Qom, Intishārāt-i Islāmī, 5th ed., 1418 AH.
  • Ṣāliḥī Māzandarānī, Ismāʿīl, Sharḥ-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, Qom, Ṣāliḥān, 1382 Sh.
  • Samīʿī, Jamshīd, Matn, Tarjuma wa Sharḥ-i Kāmil-i Kifāyat al-Uṣūl, Isfahan, Khātam al-Anbiyāʾ, 1386 Sh.
  • Sanqūr, Muḥammad, al-Muʿjam al-Uṣūlī, Qom, Manshūrāt al-Ṭayyār, 2nd ed., 1428 AH.
  • Sīd Ashrafī, Ḥasan, Nihāyat al-Īṣāl: Sharḥ-i Fārsī-yi Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Qom, Nashr-i Quds, 1385 Sh.
  • Shīrwānī, ʿAlī, Taḥrīr-i Uṣūl-i Fiqh, Qom, Dār al-ʿIlm, 2nd ed., 1385 Sh.
  • Subḥānī Tabrīzī, Jaʿfar, al-Mūjaz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, Qom, Muʾassasa-yi Imām al-Ṣādiq (a), 14th ed., 1387 Sh.
  • Walāʾī, ʿĪsā, Farhang-i Tashrīḥī-yi Iṣṭilāḥāt-i Uṣūl, Tehran, Nashr-i Ney, 6th ed., 1387 Sh.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikishia.net/w/index.php?title=Draft:Aṣālat_al-Iṭlāq&oldid=204750"