Comments On A Hadith
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “Surely, your soul has a right against you; your Lord has a right against you; your guest has a right against you, and your wife has a right against you. So, give to each one who possesses a right against you.”
-------------
The character of any given Hadith might be approached
in terms of rule-governed counsel or guidance which is in
the form of a principle-governed precept. There are differences
which emerge through each of these approaches.
If one engages the foregoing Hadith
as a rule, one might suppose the only ones
to whom one is bound by the duties which arise
out of the rights others have over us is that
of one's soul, one's Lord, one's guest, and one's
wife - that is, the only specific categories which are
mentioned in the Hadith. Moreover, if one treats
the Hadith as a rule, rather than a principle, then,
one might suppose that the added sentence in
which one is counseled to: "give to each one who
possesses a right against you" merely serves as a
reaffirmation of what already has been stated.
A rule is a linear prescription which states the
categories of revelance and the conditions of
relevance which govern the application of a
rule. If certain categories and conditions fall
beyond the stated context of a rule, then,
generally, speaking, the rule in question is
not considered applicable to such categories
and conditions.
Rules are resistant to the use of either
interpolation or extrapolation. In other words,
for the most, rules follow a what you see
is what you get.
For example, when a person uses the English
spelling rule of 'i' before 'e' except after 'c', then, one has a
way to proceed to spell such words as: niece, piece, and
pierce, but not seize. The latter word falls beyond the capacity
of the rule to guide one and constitutes either an exception to
the rule or something which operates in accordance with
either some other rule, principle, or way of doing things.
Principles, on the other hand, tend to be much
more subtle and nuanced than are rules. One has
to try to penetrate to the form of logic which is
being given expression through a principle, and,
as such, principles, tend to be non-linear in
character - that is, they do not follow any
simple set of conditions and properties of
relevance.
Rules, sometimes, are complex, (such as, say, the
scoring rules in gymnastics and diving) while, on the other
hand, sometimes, principles can be stated very simply
and, yet, give expression to an idea which is not easily,
if at all, reduced down to a set of rules. For example,
when Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have
said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," there is a complex
dynamic which ties together love, neighbor, and self,
and no set of rules can exhaust the ways in which
this dynamic may be understood or satisfied.
The difference between a rule and a principle tends to
reside in the structural character of the logic which is at
the heart of a given idea, precept, counsel. Love, kindness,
compassion, integrity, and courage - all of which are
rooted in principle-governed understanding - have a logic
which is quite different than do the rules which govern, say,
baking a cake or spelling certain words or overtime pay
within a union.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not
specifiy whether the words he spoke were
rules or principles. Furthermore, he did
not, for the most part, indicate whether
what he said was context bound - that is,
directed only to the ones who were
present at the time he spoke, or, whether,
the context was intended to be broader and
more universal.
For example, there is a Hadith in which the
Prophet interacted with a man who had
broken the fast of Ramadan. The man wanted
to know what he had to do to make amends
for his mistake.
The Prophet went through a number of
possibilities. Included among these were the
following: fast for two months; feed
the poor; distribute what I (the Prophet) give you
to the poor, and, finally, take what I give you and
feed your family because you are among the
poorest people within the valley of Mecca, and
this will be your amends for having broken the
fast.
One question to ask in conjunction with the
foregoing is this: Was the counsel of the
Prophet to this man meant only for this
man, or was it meant as a general principle?
If the latter is the case, what is the nature of
the principle entailed by what the Prophet
said to the man?
Let us return to the Hadith concerning those
who have rights over us. If one treats the Hadith
as a rule, then, since husbands are not mentioned, then,
presumably, the Hadith does not apply to them, and, as
a result, husbands have no rights over their
wives. Or, to use the example which Nausheen
uses, if one treats the Hadith as a rule, then,
since children are not mentioned, then,
on this reading, children have no rights over
their parents.
If, on the other hand, we treat the Hadith in
question as a principle rather than a rule,
then, the four categories of those who
have rights over us which are mentioned in
the Hadith serve as exemplars of possible
categories which are encompassed by the
Hadith and do not serve as limits on the
categories of relevance. Furthermore, the
concluding sentence of the Hadith we are
considering - namely, “give to each one who
possesses a right against you” gives expression
to the governing principle ... that is, to whomever
and whatever has a right over you, then, one must
give what is appropriate to satisfy that right - as
such, this sentence is not a re-affirmation of giving
to the four categories of relevance which preceded
it (i.e., your soul, your Lord, your guest, and your
wife), but, rather it says that one must consider the
issue of rights and duties more broadly than what
the four specific categories which are mentioned.
Notice that the Hadith in question does not mention
anything about what the nature of the rights in
question are, nor is anything said about how to
give what is due in order to satisfy such rights.
The Hadith says only that such rights exist and
that one must strive to not only discover who and what
enjoys such rights over one - above and beyond the
four categories of relevance - but one must strive to
determine how to satisfy those rights.
Whether one considers the Hadith being discussed to
be a rule or a principle, there are definite limits to
what the Hadith is counseling us to do. Whether one
considers the Hadith to be a rule which is applicable
only to four categories of relevance (i.e., your soul,
your Lord, your guest, and your wife) or one treats the
Hadith which is alerting human beings to the fact
that many things may have rights over us and that
we have an obligation to honor or fulfill those rights,
nothing is being said about what the nature of those rights
are or how they are to be fulfilled.
What often happens is that when people talk about such
Hadiths, they take the ambiguity which is inherent in
the Hadith - that is, the conditions and properties which
are not explicitly explored within the Hadith but are,
instead, merely alluded to (and in the present Hadith
what is being alluded to - without specification - is
the existence of rights and duties that are inherent in
our relationship with not only God but different
aspects of Creation) - and they interject whatever
their theological stance demands in the way of ( in
the present case ... rights and duties) and try to claim
that the Hadith constitutes support for what they are
saying or that the Hadith actually is referring to
their theological approach to things, rather than
some other possibility understanding.
When many individuals do tafsir, they often approach
it as a rule-governed process. In other words, they
take a look at the historical circumstances surrounding
a given piece of Quranic revelation or the saying
and reporting of a Hadith, and, on the basis of such
historical circumstances seek to establish the rule which
links, say, a Quranic ayat or Hadith to the historical
circumstances.
However, historical circumstances are merely the
locus of manifestation which serves as the occasion
for a given aspect of the Qur’an to be revealed or
for something to be said by the Prophet. More work
is needed to try to determine what, if any, relevance
historical circumstances have to the guidance which
is being given, and, it is very risky to suppose that
the relationship between what is being revealed or
what is being said by the Prophet is necessarily rule-
bound, as opposed to principle-bound, and even once
one establishes which is the case, one still is faced
with the problem of trying to determine what the structural character of
the rule or principle in question is.
Ta’wil, which some people believe to be a process of
interpretation, is actually a process of being led by
Allah back to the original spiritual principles which
are operative in this or that aspect of Quranic revelation
or this or that saying of the Prophet Muhammad. More
often than not, such operative principles are non-linear
and dynamic, rather than rule-based and static.
Unfortunately, all too many people suppose that the
Qu’ran and Hadith are rule-based, linear, narrow,
rigid, and static, rather than principle-based,
non-linear, broad-based, with degrees of freedom
and dynamic. Insight - which comes only by Divine
assistance - is necessary for understanding spiritual
principles, and one cannot plummet the depths of
spirituality through a rule-based concept-laden
approach - no matter how appropriate such rules
may be within certain limits and a certain context.
| Return to Menu |
|
