Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

11. Modification in the Creation

Synopsis: Eternal divine knowledge does not contradict divine omnipotence; the Jewish position about God's omnipotence; the place of modification (bada') in the Shi’ite doctrine; the determination of God's decree (qada); the benefit in the belief in modification; the real meaning of bada' in the Shi’ite doctrine; Sunni traditions that corroborate bada'; disclosures by the infallible Imams of future events.

In chapter 10 we discussed the question of abrogation (naskh) of ordinances, and this was in the realm of matters related to the Shari'a. We should now tum our attention to the question of bada', which is a sort of naskh, but in the realm of the matters connected with creation (takwin). This subject is important because the actual meaning of bada' is unknown to many Muslim scholars, and hence, they have attributed to the Shi’ites that of which they are innocent. Moreover, they have not been able to comprehend the subject well and have not been fair in their critique. If only they had proceeded with caution or had suspended judgment when they did not know the subject.1

To preserve complete integrity in citations and to apply caution in passing a judgment on a subject under investigation is a normal expectation in a work of scholarship. Moreover, in the matter of religion, one needs to observe the requirements of piety. In view of all this, it is necessary to make a few remarks to clarify the meaning of bada', even though it is not directly relevant to an introduction to the exegesis of the Qur'an.

To begin our discussion, it is appropriate to state that there is no doubt that the universe in its entirety is under God's sovereignty and His omnipotence. Moreover, the existence of any of the possible things is dependent upon the will of God, the Exalted. Thus, if God wills, He brings that thing into existence, and if He does not will, He does not create it.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that God's knowledge encompasses everything since eternity, and that all things in their entirety possess a cognizant apportionment in the eternal knowledge of God. This apportionment is sometimes designated as God's predetermination (taqdfr), and at other times as God's decree (qada'). However, God's predetermination and His knowledge about things since time eternal neither interferes with nor contradicts His omnipotence over them upon their creation. The reason is that the possible continues to be dependent for its existence upon its attachment to the will of God, and this is designated as free will or volition. Consequently, if God's will attaches to it, it comes into existence; otherwise, not. Divine knowledge is related to things as they are, as a result of being conditional on divine will, for the uncovering of a thing does not add anything to its existence. Thus, if existence is conditional upon the will of God, the Exalted, the knowledge related to that thing is in accordance with this state, or else the knowledge would not be in any respect a knowledge about that thing revealing for Him its reality. Accordingly, the meaning of God's predetermination of things and of His decree regarding them is as follows: All [possible] things are apportioned in divine knowledge from eternity according to what they would be from the point of view that their existence is conditional upon divine will being attached to them, depending upon what is beneficial and what is the cause of corruption for them, which vary in accordance with varying conditions [in which things would come into being], but which are encompassed by divine knowledge.

The Jewish Position Regarding God's Omnipotence

The Jews maintain that since things have been recorded by the pen of destiny and decrees since eternity, it would be impossible for divine will to encompass anything else. It is for this reason that they say that God's hands are shackled in seizing, unfolding, taking, and giving, because the pen of destiny has fixed these already and there is no possibility of changing them.2 It is astonishing that they have persisted in dispossessing God of omnipotence, but have not maintained such a view of human beings, in spite of the fact that the essential prerequisite in maintaining such a belief is one and the same, since eternal knowledge is related to the divine sanctions as well as to human actions.

The Place of Modification (bada) in the Sh 'ite Doctrine

The bada' (modification) that the Imamite Shi’ites speak about occurs only in the alterable decree (al-qada 'ghayr al-mahtum). As for the unalterable decree, there does not occur in it any alteration, but divine will shall inevitably be attached to the things that are related to divine decrees. To explain this, we shall examine the three kinds of divine decree.

First, we have the divine decree about which God informed none of His creatures, and the guarded knowledge He has kept exclusively to Himself. Certainly, bada' does not occur in this kind of decree. Rather, according to the traditions related on the authority of the Imams, badii' originates from this knowledge.

Inhis book al-'Uyun, al-Shaykh al-Saduq relates a tradition he traces back to al­Hasan b. Muhammad al-Nawfali, who heard the Imam al-Rida say to Sulayman al­ Marzawi:

It has been related by my father that he heard the Imam al-Sadiq say: "God possesses two kinds of knowledge: one is the guarded, hidden knowledge which no one knows except Him. From that knowledge comes al-bada'. The other is the kind which He has taught His angels and His prophets. The learned ones among the Family of your Prophet [i.e., the Imams] know it . ."3

In Basa'ir al-Darajat, al-Shaykh Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Saffar relates a tradition he traces back to Abu Basir, who heard the Imam al-Sadiq say:

God possesses two kinds of knowledge. [First], knowledge that is guarded, hidden, about which no one except Him knows. From this knowledge originates al-bada and [second], from knowledge that He has taught to His angels, messengers, and prophets, and which we know.4

Second, we have the divine decree regarding which God informed His Prophet and His angels that it would definitely come to pass. Undoubtedly, al-bada' does not occur in this kind, either. The difference between this and the first kind is that al­bada' does not originate in this knowledge.

The Imam al-Rida told Sulayman al-Marwazi, in the abovementioned tradition related by al-Sadiq:

'Ali (peace be upon him) used to say: "Knowledge is of two kinds. [First], knowledge that God taught His angels and His prophets, and what He taught His angels and His prophets will occur. He shall not belie Himself or His angels or His prophets. And [second], knowledge that [is] hidden with Him, of which He informed none of His creatures. He shall cause to pass that of it which He will, and hold back that which He will, and effaces of it what He will, and confirm what He will."5

Al-'Ayyashi relates from al-Fudayl, who heard the Imam al-Baqir say:

Some occurrences are inevitable, bound to happen definitely, and others are held back with God, of which He shall send forward what He will, and efface what He will, and confirm what He will. No one knows about them-that is, the occurrences held back by God. As for those [the knowledge of which] comes with the prophets, they are bound to happen, for God does not give lie to Himself, nor to His prophet or His angels.6

Third, there is the divine decree (which, God has informed His Prophet and His angels, shall come to pass) that occurs in the external. This is conditional on God's will not becoming attached to a different thing. This is the type in which al-badli' occurs:

God effaces whatever He will, and establishes whatever He will; and with Him is the Essence of the Book (Qur’an 13:39). To God belongs the Command before and after [the event] (Qur’an 30:4).

A number of traditions support this interpretation about the bada', of which the following are examples.

1. In the Tafsir of 'Ali b. Ibrahim, a tradition is related on the authority of 'Abd Allah b. Muskan, who reports from the Imam al-Sadiq:

He [Ibn Muskan] said: "On the Night of Determination (laylat al-qadar) the angels, the Spirit, and the angels who record [human deeds] descend to the heaven of the earth. Then they will write what will occur through the divine decree during that year. Thus, if God wills to hasten or delay something, or decrease something, He commands the angel to efface whatever He will, and, then, establish [in its place] what He will." I asked him, "Is everything recorded with God in a book?" He said, "Yes." Then I asked, "What thing will be there to occur after it?" He replied, "Glory be to God! Then God, the Blessed and Exalted, will create whatever He will."7

2. In the same Tafsir, a tradition is quoted on the authority of 'Abd Allah b. Muskan, who heard it from the Imams al-Baqir, al-Sadiq, and al-Kazim, in connection with the explanation of God's saying, "Therein every wise bidding is determined as a bidding from Us" (Qur’an 44:4):

This means that God predetermines everything whether truthful or false, and all that will happen that year, and it is for Him to will it or change it. He hastens what He will and delays what He will in matters connected with preordained time of death, sustenance, calamities, accidents, and illnesses, increasing them or decreasing them as He will….8

3. Al-Tabarsi, in his Kitab al-Ihitijaj, relates a tradition on the authority of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali, who said:

But for one verse in the Qur'an, I would have related to you all that has occurred, is occurring, and is bound to occur until the Day of Judgment. And that verse is this: "God effaces . ." [Qur’an 13:39].9

A similar tradition has been related by al-Saduq in his Amali and al-Tawhid, with a chain of transmission going back to al-Abagh b. Nubata, who reported from 'Ali b. Abi Talib.

4. The Tafsir of al-'Ayyashi cites a tradition reported by Zurara, who reported on the authority of the Imam al-Baqir:

He [Zurara] said, '"Ali b. al-Husayn [the fourth Imam] used to say, 'But for one verse in the Book of God, I would have informed you about what was going to happen until the Day of Judgment.' I asked him, "Which verse is that?" He replied, "God's saying, 'God effaces . ."10

5. [In] Qurb al-Isnad [al-Hiyari] relates a tradition from al-Bizanti on the authority of the Imam al-Rida, who, tracing the tradition through all the Imams to the Imam 'Ali, said, "By God! But for a verse in the Book of God, we would have informed you about all that was going to happen until the coming of the Hour. This verse is, 'God effaces . ."11

There are numerous other traditions that prove the occurrence of al-bada' in the conditional decree (al-qada' al-mawquf). To summarize what we have said: It is impossible for al-bada 'to occur in the unalterable decree, which is referred to as the Preserved Tablet, or the Essence of the Book, or the Guarded Knowledge with God. How can one even imagine modification taking place in it? Indeed, God, the Exalted, is knowledgeable about things from eternity; nothing escapes from His knowledge, even an atom's weight, in the earth or in the heaven.

Al-Saduq, in his book Ikmal al-Din, relates a tradition he traces back to Abu Basir and Sama'a, who heard it from the Imam al-Sadiq. He [al-Sadiq] said, "Anyone who asserts that for God, the Almighty, the Glorified, something appeared which He did not know yesterday, then, keep away from him."12

Al-'Ayyasi relates from Ibn Sinan, who heard al-Sadiq say:

Certainly, God hastens what He will and delays what He will. He effaces whatever He will and establishes whatever He will. With Him is the Essence of the Book. [And he added]: Any thing He desires, that thing is in His knowledge before He designs it. There is not a thing that appears for Him [i.e., in which bada' occurs] except that it was in His knowledge. Nothing appears for Him [i.e., in which bada 'occurs] about which He was ignorant.13

The same source reports from 'Amma b. Musa, who reported from al-Sadiq: He [al-Sadiq] was asked about God's saying, "God effaces what He will" [Qur’an13:39].

He said: "That Book [i.e., the Essence of the Book mentioned in the verse] is the one

God effaces and establishes as He will. It is from this that He turns down the supplication regarding the decree. The supplication which can stay the decree is predetermined, but when it reaches the Essence of the Book, the supplication has no effect upon anything in it."14

In his book al-Ghayba, al-Shaykh al-TiisI relates a tradition from al-Bizanti on the authority of the Imam al-Riqa, who traces it back to 'AlI b. AbI Talib, through all the other Imams. He [al-Riqa] said:

How can we discuss [future events] in spite of what the verse "God effaces what He will" says? As for the one who says that God does not know a thing until after it comes into existence, then such a person has certainly adopted disbelief and has departed from the belief in divine oneness (tawhid).15

The traditions narrated on the authority of the Imams regarding the subject that God possessed knowledge before He created the creation are far more numerous to be recounted here. All the Imamite Shi’ites are in agreement on this, in accordance with the Book of God and the Sunna of His Prophet, and in accordance with what is required in a judgment based on sound innate reasoning.

The Benefit of Belief in al-Bada'

Al-Bada' could obtain only in the conditional decree, designated as the Tablet of Effacement and Confirmation (lawla al-mahw wa al-ithbat). Adopting the view that bada' is possible in it does not necessitate ascribing ignorance to God, nor is there anything in this view that is incompatible with God's greatness and His glory.

The reason is that belief in bada 'is a clear acknowledgment that the creation and survival of the universe are under the sovereignty of God and His omnipotence, and that the will of God is effective over things from eternity to infinity. In fact, belief in bada' emphasizes the distinction between divine knowledge and the knowledge of the creatures. The latter, even if it is the knowledge possessed by the prophets and apostles, does not encompass what is covered by divine knowledge. Although some of them have knowledge--by means of God's endowing them with it--about all aspects of possible things, their knowledge does not encompass the knowledge that God kept exclusively to Himself. Thus, they do not know whether God wills a thing to exist, or does not will it, except when He informs them about it in a definite way.

Furthermore, belief in badii 'causes a human being to concentrate on God and ask Him to listen to his prayer and fulfill his needs, and to aid him in obedience to Him and keep him away from disobedience. This is because rejection of bada' in the divine decree and upholding the view that what the Pen of Destiny has already written is unalterable, without exception, would cause a person who holds this belief to lose hope in the acceptance of his prayer. For, if what a person is asking from God has already been decreed by the Pen of Destiny, then, indeed, it is bound to happen, and there is no need for prayer and supplication; and if the Pen has decreed something else, then it would never happen and it would be useless for him to supplicate and to implore God for it to happen. When a person loses the hope of being granted his request, he would give up supplicating his Creator since there is no use in doing so. The same applies to all the devotions and charitable works that are reported, on the authority of the Imams, to be effective in increasing the lifetime, the sustenance, and other things that a person might desire.

This, then, is why numerous traditions narrated on the authority of the Imams lay great stress on the significance of bada' in the divine decree.

Al-Saduq relates a tradition in his al-Tawhid that he traces back to Zurara, who received it from one of the two Imams, al-Baqir or al-Sadiq: "God has not been worshiped with a thing [more fervently than with] bada'."16 In another tradition he relates that Hisham b. Salim heard the Imam al-Sadiq say: "Nothing has caused God to be seen as powerful more clearly than a thing like al-bada'."17

In still another tradition, al-Kulayni relates, from Muhammad b. Muslim, that the Imam al-Sadiq said:

God did not send a prophet until He required three characteristics in him: the affirmation of servanthood [in relation to God], the rejection of partners [for God], and the acknowledgment that God hastens what He will and delays what He will.18

The reason behind attaching this significance to al-bada 'is that the rejection of it has the same effect as the view that maintains that God does not have the power to change what has been decreed by the Pen of Destiny-Exalted is God above that. This is because both views would cause a person to lose faith in his supplications being answered by God, and this would [in turn] lead him to refrain from addressing his requests to God.

The Real Meaning of al-Bada' in the Shi’ite Doctrine

To recapitulate, the meaning of al-bada', as maintained by the Imamite Shi’ites, is derived from ibda' (bringing about)-that is, izhar (disclosing, manifesting a reality). The term bada' is applied to the act of izhar on the basis of the revelation and the resemblance between the two acts. It has been used in this sense in some of the Sunni traditions.

Al-Bukhari, for example, relates a tradition, from Abu 'Amra, that Abu Hurayra told him that he heard the Prophet say: "There were three among the Children of Israel: a leper, a blind person, and a bald person. God resolved (bada lil-Lah) to test them. Thus, He sent them an angel who came to the leper. . ."19

A similar notion occurs in many Qur'anic passages:

Now God has lightened it for you, knowing that there is weakness in you (Qur’an 8:66).

Afterward, We raised them up again, that We might know which of the two parties would better calculate the time they tarried (Qur’an 18:12).

That He might try you [to see] which of you is fairest in works (Qur’an 77:2).

There are numerous traditions, recorded in Sunni sources, that maintain that charitable deeds and supplication can change the divine decree (qada').20

As for future events foretold in the traditions related on the authority of the infallible Imams, it is relevant to point out that whenever an Imam discloses something that is bound to happen, and that is not conditional upon anything, then, such infor­ mation falls under the category of an unalterable decree (which, as discussed previ­ ously in this chapter, is the second type of decree-namely, the unalterable one [al­qada' al-mahtum]. This is the type in which bada' does not occur because God does not give the lie to Himself or to His Prophet. However, when an Imam discloses something which is conditional on the divine will not attaching itself to something else, and when He corroborates it with an attached or unattached context, such a disclosure points to a conditional decree, which is subject to bada'. The information related by the infallible Imams is true even when the bada' occurs in it and the divine will becomes attached to another thing. The reason is that the disclosed event is conditional upon its not being contrary to the divine will.

Al-'Ayyashi has related a tradition on the authority of 'Amr b. al-Humq (Himq), who said:

I went to visit the Commander of the Faithful ['Ali] when he was struck [with a sword] on his head. At that time he told me, "O 'Amr, I will be leaving you all." Then he added, "In the year seventy (689 C.E.), there will descend a calamity . ." I said, "May my father and mother be sacrifice for you! Until the year seventy there will be a calamity. Would there be comfort after the year seventy" He replied, "Yes, O 'Amr! Indeed, after calamity there is comfort." And then he went on to mention the verse "God effaces . ."

Notes

1. This lack of knowledge about the meaning of the word bada' led scholars like Fakhr al-Razi to attribute to Shr'ites the false view ascribing ignorance to God. See his Tafsir on the verse "God blots out, and He establishes whatsoever He will" (13:39).

2. For some traditions pertaining to the will of God, see Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 4, pp. 92-134.

3. Al-Shaykh al-Saduq Muhammad b. 'Al Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi, 'Uyun Akhbar al­ Rida, 2 vols. (Najaf: Al-Matba'at al-Haydariyya, 1970), vol. 1, p. 145, sec. 13, which describes the meeting between the Imam al-Rida and Sulayman al-Marwazi; and Majlisi, Bihar, the section dealing with al-bada' wa al naskh, in vol. 4, pp. 92-134.

4. Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 4, pp. 92-134. It has also been related by al-Kulayni from Abu Basir; see Kashi, al-Wafi, vol. 1 , p. 113.

5. Ibn Babawayh, 'Uyun Akhbar al-Rida, sec. 13, vol. I , p. 146. Al-Kulayni cites the same tradition from al-Fudayl b. Yasar, on the authority of al-Baqir. See Kashi, al-Wafi, vol. 1, p. 113

6. Quoted in Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 4, p. 119.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid. p. 134

9. Ahmad b. 'Ali. Abu Talib al-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj (Najaf: al-Matba'at al-Murtaqawiyya), p. 137

10. Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 2, p. 139

11. Ibid

12. Ibid., p. 136

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid

15. Ibid., p. 136. Al-Kulayni has also related a tradition to the same effect but through a different chain of transmission, in which al-Sadiq says: "Modification (bada ') does not occur for God in anything except that He knew about it before it came into being." See Kashi, al­Wafi, vol. 1, p. 113.

16. A variant tradition reads, ". . more excellent (afdal) than bada'."

17. Al-Shaykh al-Saduq Muhammad b. 'Ali ibn Babawayh, al-Tawhid (Najaf: Al-Maba'at al-Haydariyya, 1966), p. 272; also narrated by Kulayni; see Kashi, al-Wafi, vol. 1, p. 113

18. Ibn Babawayh, al-Tawhid, p. 272; also narrated by al-Kulayni; see Kashi, al-Wafi, vol. l, p. 113.

19. Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, p. 443

20. There are numerous traditions, reported by Sunni sources, that suggest that supplication changes divine decree. See, for example, Tirmidhi, Sunan, vol. 8, p. 350; Ibn Maja, Sunan, vol. 1, p. 24; Hakim, Mustadrak, vol. 1, p. 493; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad , vol. 5, pp. 277, 280, and 282

12. The Principles of the Exegesis

Synopsis: The invalidity of depending upon conjecture and the views of commentators in the comprehension of the Qur'an; the sources of the exegesis; particularization of the Qur'anic ordinances through a single tradition; the error of those who deny it, and their views on the question.

Al-tafsir(the exegesis), is the clarification of God's purport in His Book, the Qur'an. It is therefore improper to rely in this clarification on conjectures and application of personal discretion. Nor is it proper to depend on a thing which is not established as being a proof derived from the intellect ('aql) or from revelation (shar'), for it is prohibited to follow conjecture and to ascribe a thing to God without His permission. God, the Exalted, says:

Say, Has God permitted you, or do you invent a lie concerning God? (Qur’an 10:59).

In another place God says:

Do not follow that whereof you have no knowledge (Qur’an 17:36).

There are other verses in the Qur'an, as well as the traditions, that forbid actions that are not based on knowledge. Moreover, the traditions that prohibit engaging in a conjectural exegesis are exhaustive and reported in the Sunni as well as Shi’ite sources.

Consequently, it is clear that it is not permissible to follow any exegete in his commentary, regardless of whether he is, or is not, of sound religion, for this would be a kind of reliance on conjecture, and that is of no avail in seeking the truth.

Sources of the Exegesis

Undoubtedly, the commentator has to follow the apparent sense of the text as understood by an Arab well versed in the Arabic language. (We already demonstrated the evidentiary nature of the apparent meanings of the text.) Or one should follow what sound innate reason determines, because it is internal evidence just as the Prophet is external evidence. Or else, one should follow what has been established by the infallible leaders-the Prophet and the Imams-since they are the authorities in matters of religion. They are also the ones about whom the Prophet has left his last will and testament, requiring the Muslims to adhere to them. Thus he declared, "I leave among you two things of high esteem: the Book of God and my family, my ahl al-bayt. As long as you adhere to them both, you will never go astray, ever."1

There is no doubt about the certainty of their opinion if it is established through a reliable source of transmission that is not open to doubt, just as there is no doubt about the absence of its certainty if it is proven that it was transmitted through a weak tradition that does not meet the conditions for its admission as evidence. Is it possible to establish an authentic proof by means of evidence derived through conjecture? There is a dispute in this matter among the scholars.

The problem can be stated as follows:

The question rests on the dispute about the evidential nature of a reliable single tradition (khabar al-wahid al-thiqa), related from the infallible Imams, explaining the Qur'an. The point of the dispute is that the evidentiary nature that is admitted for a single tradition, or for any other conjectural proof, requires that actions should be based on [these traditions or conjectures] when the true state of affairs is unknown, just as they would be based on the true state of affairs if it were known with certainty. This corollary is not realized except when the underlying idea of communication is a religious-legal ordinance, or a question on which the lawgiver has constructed such an ordinance. This condition may not be available in a single tradition that is related on the authority of the infallible Imams in regard to the exegesis of the Qur'an.

The response to the problem can be formulated as follows:

This objection is without substantiation. We explained, in our discussion of the science of legal theory, that the meaning of the evidentiary admission of a documentation, in matters that function as indicators of the true state of affairs, is their advancement to the level of ascertainment by means of an injunction from the lawgiver. Accordingly, the considered method would be one of the several ways to certainty. But it is the way that is based on obedience to the injunction of the lawgiver, rather than on reasoning. Hence, all that can be derived from the reliable documentation among the transmitted sources can also be derived from this conjectural source. The traditions are authenticated when they are in conformity with it, just as they become authenticated by means of mental knowledge. In any case, it is not an opinion formed without certainty.

This is corroborated by the practice that is common among rational persons. The reason [for this corroboration] is that they treat the reliable method as they do mental knowledge, without differentiating between their effects. Thus, the hand, for example, among rational persons, is a symbol of ownership for the person to whom the hand belongs when he has something in his hand. It is on the basis of this that they assign to him the effect of ownership and inform about his being an owner of a thing, with no one rejecting [the claim]. There is no evidence from the direction of the lawgiver that prohibits this continuous rational method.

Indeed, the crucial factor that is taken into consideration in a reliable tradition, and in other acceptable methods [of transmission], is that they should meet all the conditions of evidentiality. One of these is that a tradition should not be known to be false, for it makes no sense to give a false tradition the status of evidentiary proof. Accordingly, the traditions that are contrary to the consensus, or to the well-established sunna, or to the Qur'an, or to a sound rational conclusion, cannot qualify for admission as evidential documentation, even if they meet all the remaining conditions that are taken into consideration, in establishing sound evidence. In this regard, it makes no difference whether or not traditions explain a legal ordinance.

An underlying consideration in admitting a document as evidence is that the narrator, no matter how trustworthy, is not immune from reporting something different from the facts. As such, there is always, however minimal, a possibility of his having made an error, more so when the intermediaries are many in number. Therefore, one needs to cling to the criteria of evidentiary proof to eliminate this possibility, and to assume it to be almost nonexistent. As for the assumption that there is a discrepancy, and that the tradition does not accord with reality, it makes no sense to follow its non­conformity, because that which renders a thing absolute is its essence, and its evidentiary status is established in accordance with the necessary rational verdict.

It is therefore necessary that the criteria of evidentiary proof be restricted to traditions other than those whose falsehood is incontrovertible, and whose narrative departs from the real state of affairs. The same applies to the accepted methods, other than the traditions, that assist a researcher in discovering the truth of a matter. This discussion leads us to consider many other situations and to respond to a number of problems and objections that arise from the admission of a communication reported, in the form of a single narration, as proof.

Particularization of the Qu r'anic Ordinances through a Single Narration

If the evidentiary nature of a single narration is established by means of definitive proof, can one use it to particularize the general injunctions that have been stated in the Qur'an? The prevalent view is that this is permissible, but a group of Sunni scholars has differed with it. Some of them have rejected it in absolute terms. According to Isa b. 'Aban, if a general injunction of the Qur'an has already been particularized through an established proof, then it is permissible to particularize it by means of a single narration; otherwise, it is not. However, al-Karakhi maintains that if a general injunction of the Qur'an has been particularized by a proof outside it, then it is permissible to particularize it after that by means of documentation provided by a single narration; otherwise, not. On the other hand, al-Qadi Abu Bakr has maintained that a final decision should be withheld in the matter.2

We have followed the well-established opinion in this matter because the incontrovertible tradition, as we have assumed, necessitates that one would follow its terms, as long as there is no reason to reject them.

Nevertheless, we should consider the objections that some scholars put forward against relying on single narrations, although these objections are baseless. These objections, moreover, are prompted by their error in the following matters.

1. They maintain that the Book of God is the Speech of God the Almighty, which was revealed to His Prophet, and that this is an incontestable fact about which there is no room for doubt. A single narration, however, does not have the certainty of being in conformity with the reality or to be an authentic pronouncement of the infallible Prophet or the Imams, for there is a possibility, however small, of an error in the narrator's communication about it. In this situation, reason does not permit aban­ doning the incontestable proof for evidence in which there is a possibility of error. The response [to this is as follows]. Although the origin of the Book of God is incontrovertible, it is not certain that its actual injunction is in accordance with its general sense. This is because it is necessary to act in accordance with the general sense, since it constitutes the apparent sense of the text. To be sure, the practice of rational persons has been to accept the apparent sense of the speech as evidence, and the lawgiver has not prohibited this practice. It is evident that the practice of the rational persons regarding the evidentiary nature of the apparent sense applies only when there is no context to suggest the contrary, regardless of whether that context is attached or unattached. When the context points to something other than the apparent sense, then one ought to discard the latter and act in accordance with the contextual sense. Consequently, it is inevitable that one should particularize the general injunctions of the Qur'an by means of a single narration, following the establishment of the absolute proof of its evidentiary status. In other words, the subject of the single narration, related on the authority of the infallible Imams, should be followed [as coming from the lawgiver]. The argument can be rephrased by saying that the chain of transmission of the Qur'an, even when the Qur'an itself is incontestable, is based on a conjectural proof. According to rational judgment, there is no problem in disregarding one conjectural proof in favor of another whose evidentiary status has been established by means of an incontrovertible proof.

2. They [some scholars] maintain that sound traditions from the infallible Imams affirm that traditions should be correlated with the Qur'an, and they maintain that those of them which disagree with the Qur'an should be discarded and rejected outright, for they cannot be something the Imams had said. Moreover, a tradition dealing with a particular matter reported on the authority of the Imams, which runs contrary to the general sense of the Qur'an because of the evidence it includes, should be rejected and its validity be denied.

The response [to this is as follows]. The conventional factual evidence for the explanation of the purport of the Qur'an is not ordinarily regarded as something that is in contradiction to its intent. Moreover, a specific verification in a single narration is evidence of the elaboration of the intended meaning of the Qur'anic statement that expresses the intent in general terms. However, the inconsistency between the two forms of evidence comes into effect when one of them contradicts the other in such a way that, when both originate from the same speaker or from someone who acts on his behalf, then the people who follow an accepted practice will withhold judgment concerning the intent of these statements. Thus, in this sense a specific single narration does not contradict the general sense of the Qur'an; rather, it functions as an expounder of its implications.

This is further supported by our knowledge of numerous traditions, related on the authority of the Imams, that particularize the general meanings of the Qur'an and restrict its absolute injunctions. If particularization or restriction by a single narration were in contradiction of the Qur'an, then the Imams would not have spoken correctly when they said, "That which contradicts our Lord's statement would not have been said by us. It is either vain or erroneous." In the light of this statement it is evident that particularizing or restricting a general sense does not involve a contradiction of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, the Imams established that if one of two contradictory traditions were in harmony with the Qur'an, that would weigh in favor of it against the other. In other words, the one contradicting it-that is, the one that does not agree with the general sense of the Qur'an-would have been evidence in itself had it not been contradicted by the other tradition. Therefore, it is evident that such a tradition, if its disagreement with the Qur'an were so great that it would be impossible to attain harmony between the two, then it would no longer be proof in itself, nor would there be any point in countering it with the other tradition and establishing the latter's preponder­ ance. Consequently, it is inevitable that the purport of its disagreement with the Qur'an is that it is possible to harmonize the two conventionally on the basis of particularizing or restricting the general meaning of the Qur'anic revelation.

To conclude, the tradition that functions as a particularizer for the Qur'an, or a restricter for it, is evidentiary in itself and hence must be abided by except if it is tested by a contradicting tradition.

1. They maintain that if it is permissible to particularize the Qur'an through a single narration, then it would also be permissible to abrogate it by the same means. Since abrogation by means of such a tradition is definitely not permissible, it follows that particularization by means of it is also not permissible. The evidence in support of this correlation is that abrogation, as discussed in chapter 10, is a form of particularization of the period [of applicability], and the evidence of the abrogator is provided by the clarification that the earlier ordinance was specifically limited to a period terminated by the appearance of the evidence provided by the abrogator. Abrogation therefore does not abolish the substance of an ordinance but simply sets it up formally and outwardly. Particularization with respect to persons is similar to time specification-in both cases it is particularization, and, accordingly, if the first is permissible, so is the second.

The response [to this is as follows]. That which distinguishes the two kinds of particularization is the incontestable consensus regarding the prohibition of admitting a single narration as evidence of abrogation. Had it not been for this consensus, then it would have been permissible to admit abrogation by means of an evidentiary single narration, just as the particularization by it is permissible. We explained earlier that the Qur'an, although incontrovertible in the matter of its transmission, is not decisively clear in its meaning. There is no objection to resolving this latter aspect by means of a single narration whose evidentiary nature is established by means of absolute proof.

To be sure, the stated consensus is not a type that must be merely followed. Rather, it arises because certain things are of such a nature that if they occur externally, they would be transmitted without interruption. If it is transmitted by a few, to the exclusion of others, this, then, would be the proof of the falsehood of its narrator or his error. Consequently, it does not meet all the criteria that establish the evidentiary nature of a single tradition. It is for this reason that we maintain that the Qur'an does not become established by means of a single tradition. Itmust be transmitted successively. Among the things which cannot be doubted is the fact that an abrogation is not applicable to some Muslims, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the reasons for reporting it are strong. Hence, if an abrogation became conclusively established, then information about it would have been transmitted without interruption. If, however, it were reported by a single narration, this would serve as proof of its falsehood and error. In this way, the distinction between particularization and abrogation becomes clear, and the correlation between the permissibility of the former and that of the latter ceases to hold true.

Notes

1. See Ibn 'Abd al-Muttaqi, Kanz al- 'Ummal, including the section dealing with I'tisam, vol. 1, pp. 153-54, 332, where many sources of this tradition are listed

2. 'Ali b. Abi 'Ali al-Amidi, al-lkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, 3 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat wa Matba'at Muhammad 'Ali Sabib, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 150-51.