In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Blessings and peace be upon the noblest of the Prophets and Messengers, our Prophet Muhammad, and upon all his family and Companions.
This is a summary of what was covered in this part of the explanation of Imam al-Shafi’i’s al-Risalah, focusing on the important points and clarifications, and supplemented with some additions and explanations that help in understanding the issue more deeply.
Paragraph 1187 onward: continuing the discussion of the authority of the solitary report and al-Shafi’i’s arguments:
Imam al-Shafi’i continues to set out the authority of the solitary report, citing the statements and actions of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), and showing that his request for confirmation does not count as an attack on the solitary report but is a matter of caution and verification.
- Imam al-Shafi’i’s style: He points out that Imam al-Shafi’i’s style is marked by precision, mastery, eloquence, and clarity of expression, and that his language was itself a linguistic authority.
- Explaining the phrase “If someone says: ‘Umar sought, along with a man who informed him of a report, another report’”: He explains that what is meant is that ‘Umar asked for another witness alongside the person who informed him of the report; that is, he asked for another informant to testify to the report’s truth. He points to the story of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari with ‘Umar about seeking permission to enter as an example of this.
- The story of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari with ‘Umar about seeking permission: He summarizes the story: Abu Musa asked ‘Umar’s permission three times and was not given it, so he went back. ‘Umar asked him why he had gone back, and he mentioned a hadith from the Prophet ﷺ about seeking permission, and ‘Umar asked him for a witness to it.
- The possible meanings of ‘Umar’s request for another witness: He shows that ‘Umar’s request for another witness can only have one of three meanings:
- Caution and verification: That this was more reliable in his view and more fitting to accept; it was not doubt about the truthfulness of the first informant but additional verification because of the gravity of the matter. He likens this to someone for whom a report is established through five routes and who then seeks a sixth. He also likens it to a judge before whom the testimony of two or three witnesses has been established and who then asks for more witnesses to put his heart at rest.
- The informant being unknown: That is, ‘Umar did not know the informant, so he withheld acceptance of his report until an informant he knew came to him, or until it was established that the informant was qualified to carry the report, meaning that he was upright (‘adl) and accurate (dabit).
- The informant’s word not being acceptable to him: That is, the informant might be trustworthy in people’s view yet not acceptable to ‘Umar for some reason, so he would reject his report until he found someone else whose word he accepted. He points out that detailed criticism (jarh mufassar) takes precedence over general accreditation (tawthiq mujmal).
- The option ‘Umar took in the story of Abu Musa: He shows that in the story of Abu Musa, ‘Umar took the path of caution, because Abu Musa was trustworthy in his eyes.
- Responding to those who say the hadith of Abu Musa is disconnected in Malik’s narration: He shows that although the hadith is disconnected (munqati’) in Malik’s narration, it is established and connected through other routes in the two Sahih collections and elsewhere. He stresses that Imam al-Shafi’i did not cite a disconnected report unless it had been established for him through another authentic route.
- It is not permissible to accept the solitary report at one time and reject it at another: He stresses that it is not permissible for an imam, scholar, or judge to accept a solitary report, or the testimony of two witnesses, at one time and reject it at another, except because of a criticism of, or the unknown status of, the informant or witness. He explains that this falls under the principle of not distinguishing between things that are alike and not combining things that differ, a Shari’ah principle of inference used in the books of usul.
- Al-Shafi’i’s argument from the Qur’an for the authority of the solitary report: Al-Shafi’i argues from the Qur’an that proof is established by one person or by more, and that sending more than one messenger does not undermine the establishment of proof by one. He mentions examples from the Qur’an of Allah the Exalted sending messengers: sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes three, and sometimes a group.
- Explaining the meaning of “We strengthened [them] with a third”: In the verse “When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened [them] with a third” (Ya-Sin 36:14), he explains that the strengthening here is not of the truth itself but of those who carry the truth, and that da’wah needs mutual reinforcement among those who call to Allah.
- Proofs becoming manifest through two and then a third does not negate the establishment of proof by one: He stresses that proofs becoming manifest through two and then through a third does not negate that proof is established by one person, when Allah has given him that by which he is distinguished from other people, apart from the Prophets.
Some additional benefits:
- Explaining the importance of verification and caution in accepting reports.
- Clarifying the meaning of uprightness (‘adalah) and accuracy (dabt) in hadith narrators.
- Refuting some misconceptions relating to the authority of the solitary report.
- Explaining the importance of cooperation and mutual reinforcement among those who call to Allah.
We ask Allah the Exalted to grant us success in understanding His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ, and to make us among those who follow them.
All parts of Summary of the Explanation of al-Risala by Shaykh Dr. Ahmad al-Naqeeb