The Takhṣīṣ Of ‘Umūm al-Qur’an With Khabar al-Wāhid According To Imāmīs-A Particular Focus On Usūlī School

Abstract

The authority of khabar al-wāhid in specifying (takhṣīṣ) the general meaning (‘umūm) of Qur’anic verses has been a common subject addressed in almost every uṣūl book and a controversial issue among Islamic schools. While some madhabs/schools do not accept the authority of such reports due to their probable character, most of the scholars, who regard acting in accordance with them as obligatory, approve of their authority. Even though various views on takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Qur’an have been included in the uṣūl books of Sunnī scholars as well as in the contemporary works, the views of Imāmī scholars have been ignored with a few exceptions. This creates an obstacle to a comprehensive analysis of the issue. As an attempt to overcome that obstacle, the present study examines the Shi‘i Imāmī approach to the issue with a particular focus on the views of the uṣūlī school. On the other side, the uṣūls written by Imāmī scholars refer both to Shi‘ī and Sunnī views in analyzing the issue, yet they provide neither a detailed analysis of the different opinions among uṣūlī tradition nor the factors as the causes of these differences. So the present study gives a thorough analysis of the views of Shi‘ī uṣūlī scholars on takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Qur’an through khabar al-wāhid as well as investigates when, where, and under which circumstances these views were formed. After its emergence in the 4th hijrī century, there have occasionally been paradigm shifts concerning the Uṣūlīyya’s approach to the uṣūl subjects. In this article, it is claimed that three different views emerged in the uṣūlī thought concerning takhṣīṣ with khabar al-wāhid as a result of these paradigm shifts. There are three main uṣūlī views on the issue, namely, rejecting specification through khabar al-wāhid altogether, approving it in the context of jawāz or approving it in the context of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and wujūb. The first view belongs to Baghdad uṣūlī scholars who lived under the Shi‘ī Buwayhī Dynasty and whose views bear considerable similarities to those of ahl al-ra’y. The second view is endorsed by uṣūlī scholars centered around Hilla, who became active during the Ilkhanid period after two hundred years of stagnation. The third view belongs to late period uṣūlī scholars who became dominant again in Shi‘a tradition after approximately two centuries of akhbārī predominance in Imāmī thought. This study addresses the views in question by a reference to the works of the prominent scholars of the respective formation periods. The representative of the first view, whose views are analyzed in detail in this article, is Abû Ja‘far al-Tūsī (d. 460/1067). The article also refers to the views of two other prominent scholars of Baghdad uṣūlī school, namely, Abû ‘Abdallah al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) ve Abu al-Qāsım el-Murtadha (d. 436/1044). The uṣūlī scholar who approved the use of khabar al-wāhid in takhṣīṣ by being the first scholar in his tradition to elaborate on the issue in his works under an independent title was Ibn al-Mutahhar el-Hillī (d. 726/1325). So, the second view is discussed mainly considering his works as well as in relation to the impact of ahl al-hadith school as a factor in the formation of this view, and Ibn al-Mutahhar’s approach along with that of a prominent Sunnī scholar of that period, viz., al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233), are comparatively presented. The third view emerged in parallel with the emergence of a general conviction on the reliability of most of the hadith reports. Accordingly, the approach of the uṣūlī scholar Murtadha al-Ansārī (d. 1281/1864) in virtue of being the most influential uṣūlī scholar in raising the epistemic value of the hadith reports from zannī to the degree of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and the implications of the endorsement of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī regarding takhṣīṣ are investigated. The views of the Baghdad school on takhṣīṣ appear to overlap with those of the scholars who are mentioned in classical uṣūl al-fıqh works as strictly rejecting takhṣīṣ. However, the identity of these scholars is not clearly stated in these works. In this article, it is argued that the reason for the lack of any explicit reference to the Baghdad uṣūlī scholars might be due to the political and denominational rivalry. I also argue that Baghdad uṣūlī scholars are rejecting this kind of takhṣīṣ because of their approach to khabar in which acting with khabar al-wāhid is considered in the category of jawāz not wujūb. The emergence of the second view (approving takhṣīṣ in the context of jawāz) is considered in the present study as a result of a paradigm shift in Imāmī tradition from ahl al-ra’y thought to ahl al-hadith thought. Along with that paradigm shift as of Hilla school, uṣūlī scholars accept acting with khabar al-wāhid in the category of wujūb, and eventually, it opens the way for takhṣīṣ with khabar al-wāhid. Finally, the significance of the akhbārī approach, which disrupted uṣūlī thought for two hundred years, is highlighted in terms of being the main factor in the formation of the third view. In this respect, I assume that after the decline of Akhbarism, the conciliatory attitude of the uṣūlī scholars to the akhbārī approach might have caused them to approve takhṣīṣ of ‘umūm al-Quran with khabar al-wāhid in the context of al-‘ilm al-ijmālī and wujūb.