Jump to content

Qa'ida al-Tajawuz

Add links
From wikishia

Qāʿida al-Tajāwuz (Arabic: قاعدة التجاوز, Rule of Passing By) is a jurisprudential rule which means that if a person, while performing an act consisting of several parts, doubts the performance of a previous part after having passed it and started the next part, they must assume the previous part has been performed. For example, if a person praying doubts while in Ruku' whether they recited the Sura during the standing position or not, they must assume it was recited.

A group of jurists believe that the Rule of Tajawuz only applies to prayer, but others have considered it applicable in all jurisprudential sections. Some jurists also identify the Rule of Tajawuz with the Rule of Completion (Qa'ida al-Faragh) and consider them related, while others believe these two rules are distinct and have differences in their subject matter. For instance, the Rule of Tajawuz covers doubts about the actual performance of a part, whereas the Rule of Completion addresses doubts about the correctness of a past action.

Scholars of principles of jurisprudence have also regarded the Rule of Tajawuz as an indicative evidence for discovering reality, rather than merely a practical principle (asl amali) used by a Mujtahid to determine a religious duty and resolve uncertainty.

To prove the Rule of Tajawuz, references have been made to the traditions of the Infallibles (a), the conduct of the rational (sira al-uqala), and consensus (ijma). Although some have dismissed the consensus as being derived from the hadiths, the Rule of Tajawuz is accepted as a rational principle. This rule is discussed in various jurisprudential and legal books, and independent works have been dedicated to it. One such work is the book Qa'idat al-faragh wa al-tajawuz by Sayyid Mahmud Hashimi Shahrudi.

Concept and Status

The Rule of Tajawuz is among the famous jurisprudential rules.[1] The concept of this rule is stated as follows: if a rational and aware person doubts the performance of an act while having passed the place or time of that act and entered the next act, according to this rule, they judge that the act was performed at it's specified place and time.[2] For example, if a person praying doubts while in Ruku whether they recited the Surah during the standing position or not, they should assume it was recited. Or if after Sunrise, one doubts whether they performed the morning prayer, they should assume it was performed.[3]

According to jurists such as Sayyid Husayn Tabataba'i Burujirdi[4] (d. 1380-1/1961) and Ali Meshkini[5] (d. 1428-9/2007), this rule applies only to the section of prayer and does not apply to the sections of purifiers (Wudu, Ghusl, and Tayammum) which are preliminaries to prayer.[6] However, some such as Imam Khomeini[7] and Nasir Makarem Shirazi[8] believe that this rule applies in all jurisprudential sections.

Relationship with the Rule of Completion and the Principle of Correctness

A group of scholars, such as al-Shaykh al-Ansari[9] and Imam Khomeini,[10] argued for the unity of the Rule of Tajawuz and the Rule of Completion (Faragh). In contrast, others, including Muhammad Husayn Gharawi Naini[11] and Sayyid Husayn Tabataba'i Burujirdi,[12] believe in the independence of these two rules and have stated differences between them as follows:[13]

  • In the Rule of Tajawuz, the doubt is regarding the actual performance of a part,[14] whereas in the Rule of Completion, the doubt is regarding the correctness of what has been performed, knowing that it was done.[15]
  • In the Rule of Tajawuz, the doubt regarding a part occurs after entering another part, but in the Rule of Completion, the doubt regarding the correctness of the entire action arises after its completion.[16] For instance, if a doubt about the correctness of prayer occurs after finishing it, according to the Rule of Completion, the prayer is judged correct; but if, during the prayer, a doubt occurs regarding the performance of a part after entering the next part, according to the Rule of Tajawuz, that previous part is considered performed and the prayer is correct.[17]

Regarding the Principle of Correctness (Asl al-Sihha), it is said that its application is regarding the doubtful action of another person,[18] whereas the Rule of Completion applies to the doubtful action of the duty-bound person themselves.[19]

Indicative Evidence or Practical Principle?

Whether the Rule of Tajawuz is an indicative evidence or a practical principle (asl amali) is one of the discussed and debated issues regarding this rule.[20]A group of scholars of principles of jurisprudence have regarded the Rule of Tajawuz as an indicative evidence.[21] An "amara" refers to evidence that leads to a strong probability (zann) and is granted validity by the Lawgiver, representing reality.[22] However, a practical principle is used when a mujtahid, after searching and failing to find valid evidence, uses it to remove uncertainty and determine a duty.[23]

The status of the Rule of Tajawuz as an amara and it's discovery of reality is framed as follows: when a person intends to perform a task and has knowledge of it, they perform it correctly; and if after passing the action, they doubt whether they performed it, the rational ones assume performance and correctness. This is because it is human nature to pay attention during the performance of an action and to perform it with all its parts and conditions.[24]

Basis of the Rule of Tajawuz

To prove the Rule of Completion, references have been made to the traditions of the Infallibles (a), the conduct of the rational, and consensus.[25]

Traditions

The Rule of Tajawuz is considered one of the "mansus" (textually explicit) rules;[26] meaning that the hadiths of the Infallibles (a), in addition to the content, have expressed the exact terms of this rule.[27] According to Nasir Makarem Shirazi, although the content of some of these traditions was issued in a specific case like the issues of the chapter on purification or prayer, a general rule is derived from them.[28]

For example, Shaykh al-Tusi in the book Tahdhib narrated that Ismail b. Jabir asked Imam al-Sadiq (a) about forgetting some parts of prayer. After answering, the Imam proposed a general rule and said: "Anything you doubted, while having passed it and entered the next act, pass it by [and assume you have performed it]."[29] Also, Zurara b. Ayan asked Imam al-Sadiq (a) about doubting some parts of prayer after passing their place. The Imam (a), after stating the ruling for each issue, said: "If you exited a part and entered another part, your doubt is nothing and has no validity."[30]

Conduct of the Rational and Consensus

Jurists believe that the conduct and basis of the rational is that when doubting the correctness of a past action, they do not pay attention to their doubt and assume that the action was correct.[31] Some also introduce the Rule of Tajawuz as a rational principle and believe that if the Lawgiver has validated this rule, it is by way of endorsing a rational rule.[32] In some traditions, such as the narration of Bukayr b. Ayan,[33] this principle is mentioned, and the reason for the correctness of the past action is stated as the greater attention and precision of the person while performing their work.[34]

Consensus (ijma) has been mentioned as another basis for the Rule of Tajawuz.[35] Some jurists, considering the numerous traditions in this field, regard the consensus as a "documented consensus" (ijma mudraki) and believe that this consensus is not sufficient to prove the Rule of Tajawuz.[36]

Notes

  1. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 283; Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 6, p. 141.
  2. ↑ Jaʿfarī, Manābiʿ-i fiqh, 1417 AH, p. 110; Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 182; Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 284.
  3. ↑ Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 182.
  4. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 186.
  5. ↑ Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 183.
  6. ↑ Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 183; Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 210; Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 6, p. 142.
  7. ↑ Imām Khumaynī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, vol. 1, pp. 292-293.
  8. ↑ Makārim Shīrāzī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1411 AH, vol. 1, p. 253.
  9. ↑ Makārim Shīrāzī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1411 AH, vol. 1, p. 224; Subḥānī, al-Mabsūṭ fī uṣūl al-fiqh, 1432 AH, vol. 4, p. 360.
  10. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, "Qāʿidih-yi farāgh wa tajāwuz az manẓar-i Imām Khumaynī", p. 19.
  11. ↑ Nāʾīnī, Fawāʾid al-uṣūl, 1376 Sh, vol. 4, p. 620; Subḥānī, al-Mabsūṭ fī uṣūl al-fiqh, 1432 AH, vol. 4, p. 360.
  12. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 208.
  13. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 202.
  14. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", pp. 201-202.
  15. ↑ ʿIrāqī, Nihāyat al-afkār, 1417 AH, vol. 5, p. 38; Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 6, p. 307.
  16. ↑ Īrawānī, Durūs tamhīdiyya fī l-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 38.
  17. ↑ Īrawānī, Durūs tamhīdiyya fī l-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1426 AH, vol. 1, p. 38.
  18. ↑ Ḥāʾirī Yazdī, Durar al-fawāʾid, vol. 2, p. 237.
  19. ↑ Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, Farhang-i fiqh, 1387 Sh, vol. 6, p. 307.
  20. ↑ Imām Khumaynī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, vol. 1, p. 305.
  21. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, pp. 284-285; ʿIrāqī, Nihāyat al-afkār, 1417 AH, vol. 5, p. 36.
  22. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 283.
  23. ↑ Muẓaffar, Uṣūl al-fiqh, 1370 Sh, vol. 2, pp. 267-269; Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 283.
  24. ↑ Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 284.
  25. ↑ Makārim Shīrāzī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1411 AH, vol. 1, pp. 213, 220; Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, pp. 285-288; Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", pp. 186-200.
  26. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 186.
  27. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 186.
  28. ↑ Makārim Shīrāzī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1411 AH, vol. 1, p. 213.
  29. ↑ Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, 1407 AH, vol. 2, p. 153; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, 1409 AH, vol. 6, p. 318; Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 182.
  30. ↑ Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, 1407 AH, vol. 2, p. 352; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, 1409 AH, vol. 8, p. 237; Mishkīnī, Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl, 1416 AH, p. 182.
  31. ↑ Makārim Shīrāzī, al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya, 1411 AH, vol. 1, pp. 213, 220; Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya, 1401 AH, vol. 2, p. 284.
  32. ↑ "Qāʿidih-yi farāgh, jalsih-yi siwwum", Qaeini Najafi Website.
  33. ↑ Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, 1407 AH, vol. 1, p. 101; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, 1409 AH, vol. 1, p. 471.
  34. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 187.
  35. ↑ Hāshimī Shāhrūdī, al-Qāʿida al-farāgh wa al-tajāwuz, 1408 AH, p. 29.
  36. ↑ Raḥmānī, "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī", p. 187.

References

  • ʿIrāqī, Āqā Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-. Nihāyat al-afkār. Edited by Muhammad Taqi Borujerdi. Qom, Daftari Intishārāt-i Islāmī, 1417 AH.
  • Fāḍil Lankarānī, Muḥammad Jawād. Qāʿidih-yi farāgh wa tajāwuz. Edited by Javad Hoseini-khwah. Qom, Markaz-i Fiqhī-yi Aʾimmih-yi Aṭhār (a), 1388 Sh.
  • Ḥāʾirī Yazdī, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-. Durar al-fawāʾid. Qom, Intishārāt-i Mihr, n.d.
  • Hāshimī Shāhrūdī, Sayyid Maḥmūd. al-Qāʿida al-farāgh wa al-tajāwuz. Qom, Intishārāt-i Daftar-i Tablīghāt-i Islāmī, 1408 AH.
  • Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-. Tafṣīl wasāʾil al-Shīʿa ilā taḥṣīl masāʾil al-sharīʿa. Qom, Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt (a), 1409 AH.
  • Imām Khumaynī, Sayyid Rūḥ Allāh. al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya wa al-ijtihād wa al-taqlīd (al-Rasāʾil). Qom, Muʾassasiy-i Maṭbūʿātī-yi Ismāʿīliyān, n.d.
  • Īrawānī, Bāqir. Durūs tamhīdiyya fī l-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya. Qom, Dār al-Fiqh li-l-Ṭibāʿa wa al-Nashr, 1426 AH.
  • Jaʿfarī, Muḥammad Taqī. Manābiʿ-i fiqh. Qom, Nashr-i Nūr, 1417 AH.
  • Makārim Shīrāzī, Nāṣir. al-Qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya. Qom, Madrasih-yi Imām Amīr al-Muʾminīn (a), 1411 AH.
  • Mishkīnī, ʿAlī. Iṣṭilāḥāt al-uṣūl wa muʿẓam abḥāthihā. Qom, Nashr al-Hādī, 1416 AH.
  • Mishkīnī, ʿAlī. Muṣṭalaḥāt al-fiqh. Qom, Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1392 Sh.
  • Mīrdāmādī, Sayyid Mujtabā. "Barrisī-yi waḥdat wa yā istiqlāl-i qāʿidih-yi farāgh wa tajāwuz". Pizhūhish-nāmih-yi Fiqhī, no. 1, 1389 Sh.
  • Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī. Farhang-i fiqh muṭābiq-i madhhab-i Ahl al-Bayt (a). Under supervision of Sayyid Mahmud Hashimi Shahrudi. Qom, Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, 1387 Sh.
  • Muẓaffar, Muḥammad Riḍā. Uṣūl al-fiqh. Qom, Muʾassasiy-i Maṭbūʿātī-yi Ismāʿīliyān, 1370 Sh.
  • Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Sayyid Muḥammad. "Qāʿidih-yi farāgh wa tajāwuz az manẓar-i Imām Khumaynī". Pizhūhish-nāmih-yi Matīn, no. 27, 1384 Sh.
  • Mūsawī Bujnūrdī, Sayyid Muḥammad. Qawāʿid-i fiqhiyya. Tehran, Muʾassasiy-i ʿUrūj, 1401 AH.
  • Nāʾīnī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Fawāʾid al-uṣūl. Qom, Jāmiʿiy-i Mudarrisīn, 1376 Sh.
  • "Qāʿidih-yi farāgh, jalsih-yi siwwum". Qaeini Najafi Website. Visited on July 24, 2024.
  • Raḥmānī, Muḥammad. "Qāʿidih-yi tajāwuz wa farāgh az nigāh-i Āyatullāh Burūjirdī". Fiqh-i Ahl-i Bayt (a), no. 23, Qom, Muʾassas-yi Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Fiqh-i Islāmī, n.d.
  • Ṭabāṭāʾī, Muḥammad Husayn. al-Mīzān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Beirut, Muʾassasat al-Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt, 1350-1353 AH.
  • Ṭabrisī, Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan al-. Majmaʿ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qurʾān. Beirut, Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1408 AH.
  • Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-. Tahdhīb al-aḥkām. Edited by Hasan Kharsan. Tehran, Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya, 1407 AH.
  • Zāriʿ, Riḍā. "Barrisī-yi sharāyiṭ-i qāʿidih-yi farāgh wa tajāwuz bā takyih bar naẓar-i Shaykh Anṣārī". Pizhūhish-hā-yi Muṭālaʿāt-i Islāmī-yi Muʿāṣir, no. 3, 1402 Sh.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikishia.net/w/index.php?title=Qa%27ida_al-Tajawuz&oldid=203032"