CHAPTER 18: THE CELEBRITY (AL-SHUHRA)
Literally,al-shuhrameansobviousnessandclarityofsomething.Terminologically, however, it is of two applications: one is in the science of ĥadīth where any ĥadīth whose transmitters are less than the level of massive report (mutawātir) is called mashhūr (i.e., celebrated) or sometimes mustafīđ, and the other is in the jurisprudence where any opinion of jurists on a juristic problem which is abundant but not at the level of consensus is called mashhūr (and sometimes the very jurists are called the same, as in “mashhūr says so,” or “mashhūr holds that….”).
Thus, shuhra is of two varieties:
1. Shuhra in the ĥadīth. In this kind, it is not necessary that jurists should have taken that ĥadīth into consideration in a celebrated way as well; they may or may not do so. However, we will mention in chapter 21 that such celebrity provokes preference of the celebrated ĥadīth over others, and that is why the celebrated ĥadīth is an authoritative proof from this aspect.
2. Shuhra in the verdict, meaning celebrity of a verdict of jurists which provokes the belief in its conformity to the factuality - though not at the level of certitude. This is, in turn, of two varieties:
2.1. It is known that such shuhra is dependent upon a specific ĥadīth available to us. This kind is called “practical celebrity (al-shuhra al‘amaliyya)” and we will discuss in chapter 21 whether it compensates for the weakness in the chain of transmission and/or for the weakness in the denotation.
2.2. It is not known on what that celebrity is dependent, whether there exists a ĥadīth in conformity with the celebrity but the celebrity did not consider it or it is not known whether the celebrity has considered it, or there is no ĥadīth at all. This kind is called “celebrity of verdict (al-shuhra al-fatwā’iyya).”
It is this celebrity of verdict that is the matter of dispute here, for some jurists have allegedly held that this kind of celebrity, as it is celebrity, is an authoritative proof over juristic precepts and, like single report, should be included in particular conjectures, while others hold that there is nothing that can confirm its authority. The latter is the justifiable opinion, and all proofs claimed for its authority, as listed below, are null and void:
1. Proofs arguing authority of single report denote that of celebrity as well through accordant implicature; for the conjecture actualized by celebrity is stronger than the one actualized by single report. Thus, celebrity takes priority over single report with regard to authority.
This argument is not sound, for it depends upon the criterion of authority of single report being its causing conjecture so that what provokes stronger conjecture should be given priority in authority, while that is a mere probability and has no supporting proof - if what is proved not being nonconsideration of actual conjecture.
2. Generality of argumentation in the verse 6 of sūra 49, “lest you afflict a people unwittingly” (see chapter 14, proofs of authority of single report from the Book) proves authority of celebrity; for the argumentation reveals that what prohibits from accepting report of an evil-doer without investigation is unwittingly afflicting denoting thereby that whatsoever does not lead to unwittingly afflicting is an authoritative proof. Since this is the case with celebrity, one should take it into consideration.
Should it be accepted that this part of the verse is argumentation, however, it should be noted that this reasoning is consideration of “generality of opposite of argumentation” and not “generality of argumentation,” and there is no indication of opposite of argumentation in the verse in a necessary manner. Let us take an example. Should doctor prohibit patient from some food because it is sour, it would not mean that the patient is allowed to, or must, eat whatsoever is not sour. The case is the same here, for unlawfulness of consideration of report of an evil-doer without investigation because one is not safe from unwittingly afflicting does not denote obligation of consideration of whatsoever is safeguarded from that. In other words, such argumentation in the verse denotes that unwittingly afflicting is an obstacle to effectiveness of origin of authority of a report, but does not denote that origin of authority exists in whatsoever in which no obstacle lies. Lack of obstacle in celebrity does not necessitate existence of origin of authority in it.
As for authority of single report of a righteous-trustworthy person, it was not inferred from generality of argumentation, but rather from implicature of condition whose authority is a matter of certainty.
*****
It is quite well-known that great scholars do not dear oppose celebrity unless with a strong, clear proof which makes them confident in their diverging from celebrity. They usually insist on following the celebrity and finding a proof in favor of it, even though the contrary proof may be stronger. This is not because of imitation or belief in the authority of celebrity, but rather due to honoring opinions of great scholars.
This is a common point in all kinds of science and art, for to oppose majority of men of research in any branch of knowledge is not that easy, except when there exists a strong proof and motivation. A fair-minded scholar always treats himself as being wrong in comparison with the celebrity and is afraid of being in double ignorance, especially when the opinion of celebrity is in accordance with the precaution in religious affairs.