In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger ﷺ.
Further examples of the abrogating and the abrogated:
In this section Imam al-Shafi’i deals with further examples of abrogation in the Shariah, explaining how legal texts are to be understood and reconciled, or how abrogation is affirmed when reconciliation is impossible. He focuses on two main examples: the fear prayer and the penalty for fornication.
The main points Imam al-Shafi’i addressed in this section:
- The example of the fear prayer: Imam al-Shafi’i explains that the Prophet ﷺ delayed the prayer at the Battle of the Trench (al-Khandaq) until its time had passed, and that this was before the verses on the fear prayer were revealed. Then the verses on the fear prayer were revealed, explaining how to pray in a state of fear, whether on foot or riding. Thus the permissibility of delaying the prayer beyond its time in fear was abrogated, and it became obligatory to perform it in its time in whatever way is possible, even if only one unit (rak’ah), or facing other than the qiblah when facing it is impossible. He affirms that the fear prayer is never delayed beyond its time, neither when resident nor when travelling, except that when travelling it is permissible to combine two prayers. He mentions the manner of the fear prayer as reported in the hadith of Dhat al-Riqa’: one group prays one unit with the imam and then leaves, and the other group comes and prays the second unit with him. He explains that this form is the closest to the outward sense of the Qur’an, and that there are other valid forms of the fear prayer. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir holds that the delaying of the prayer at the Trench was because the fear prayer had not yet been legislated; then the fear prayer was legislated, and the permissibility of delaying was abrogated.
- The example of the penalty for fornication: Imam al-Shafi’i explains that the penalty for fornication at the beginning of Islam was confinement and harm, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Those who commit immorality [i.e., unlawful sexual intercourse] of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine them [i.e., the guilty women] to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way. And the two who commit it among you - punish [i.e., dishonor] them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone” (al-Nisa’ 4:15-16). This was then abrogated by the penalties of flogging and stoning, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: “The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes” (al-Nur 24:2), and the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “Take from me! Allah has ordained a way for them: for the unmarried with the unmarried, a hundred lashes and banishment for a year; and for the married with the married, a hundred lashes and stoning.” He explains that the penalty for slave women is half the punishment of free women, and that this can only apply to flogging, because stoning cannot be halved. He clarifies the scholars’ disagreement over combining flogging and stoning for the married person: the majority hold that stoning abrogates flogging, while ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, held that both must be combined. He explains that the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and Zayd ibn Khalid about the hired worker (al-‘asif) confirms that there is no monetary settlement in fornication, and that stoning is the penalty for one who is married (muhsan), and flogging and banishment for one who is not. He mentions the account of the Prophet ﷺ stoning the two Jews who committed fornication. He takes the fact that flogging is not mentioned in the cases of Ma’iz and the Ghamidi woman as evidence that flogging was abrogated for the married, while those who require combining both hold that not mentioning something does not show that it was not done. Imam al-Shafi’i prefers the view that flogging was abrogated for the married person, and that stoning is the penalty due upon him.
- The obligation of acting on a hadith until an abrogating or specifying text reaches one: Imam al-Shafi’i affirms the obligation of acting on an authentic hadith until an abrogating or specifying text reaches one, and that it is not permissible to stop acting on it on the pretext of searching for an abrogating or specifying text one may never find.
Additional clarifications:
- The importance of the Sunnah in legislation (reaffirmed): Imam al-Shafi’i explains the importance of the Prophetic Sunnah in Islamic legislation: it is the second source after the Noble Qur’an, and it clarifies, details, qualifies, and specifies the Qur’an.
- Kinds of clarification (reaffirmed): Imam al-Shafi’i points out that clarification comes in multiple ways, such as qualification, specification, detailing, and explanation.
- The difference between transmission by chain, by mass transmission, by widespread report, and by consensus (reaffirmed): Imam al-Shafi’i explains that the religion is transmitted from the Messenger ﷺ in multiple ways, such as transmission by chain of narration, mass transmission, widespread report, and consensus.
- Analogy in the Shariah (reaffirmed): Imam al-Shafi’i points to analogy as one of the sources of legislation, explaining that it is used to derive rulings from the legal texts.
Summary:
In this section Imam al-Shafi’i sets out further examples of abrogation in the Shariah, and explains how legal texts are to be understood and reconciled, or how abrogation is affirmed when reconciliation is impossible. He focuses on two main examples: the fear prayer and the penalty for fornication. He affirms the obligation of acting on an authentic hadith until an abrogating or specifying text reaches one.
All parts of Summary of the Explanation of al-Shafi'i's al-Risala by Dr. Yasir Burhami