Ratiocination (ta'lil) in the Qur’an
IV. Ratiocination (ta'lil) in the Qur’an
Literally ta’lil means 'causation', or 'search for the causes', and refers to the logical relationship between the cause and effect. But the ulema of jurisprudence tend to use ta’lil and its derivative 'illah, for different purposes. In its juridical usage, 'illah (i.e. effective cause) does not exactly refer to a causal relationship between two phenomena; it rather means the ratio of the law, its value and its purpose. Broadly speaking, 'illah refers to the rationale of an injunction, and in this sense, it is synonymous with hikmah, that is, the purpose and the objective of the law. But there is a difference between 'illah and hikmah which I shall discuss in a subsequent chapter on analogical deduction (qiyas). There is another Arabic word, namely sabab, which is synonymous with 'illah, and the two are often used interchangeably. Yet the ulema of usul tend to use sabab in reference to devotional matters (ibadat) but
The authority of the Qur’an as the principal source of the Shari’ah is basically independent of ratiocination. The believers are supposed to accept its rulings regardless of whether they can be rationally explained. Having said this, however, there are instances where the Qur’an justifies its rulings with a reference to the benefits that accrue from them, or the objectives which they may serve. Such explanations are often designed to make the Qur’an easier to understand. To give an example in the context of encounters between members of the opposite sex, the believers are enjoined in sura al-Nur (24:30) 'to avert their glances and to guard their private parts'. The text then goes on to provide that in doing so they will attain greater chastity of character and conduct. To give another example, in sura al- Hashr (59:7) the Qur'an regulates the distribution of booty among the needy, the orphans and the wayfarers 'so that wealth does not merely circulate among the wealthy'. In the first ayah, averting the glance is justified as it obstructs the means to promiscuity and zina. The ruling in the second ayah is justified as it prevents the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. Whereas the foregoing are instances in which the text explicitly states the 'illah of the injunctions concerned, on numerous other occasions the jurists have identified the 'illah through reasoning and ijtihad. The identification of 'illah in many of the following for example, is based on speculative reasoning on which the ulema are not unanimous: that arrival of the specified time is the cause (sabab or 'illah) of the prayer, that the month of Ramadan is the cause fasting, that the existence of the Ka'bah is the cause of hajj; that owning property is the cause of zakat, that theft is the cause of amputation of the hand, that traveling is the cause of shortening the prayer and that intentional killing is the cause of retaliation. These and other similar conclusions with regard to the assignment of 'illah have been drawn in the light of supportive evidence in the Qur’an and Sunnah, but even so many of them are disputed by the ulema. These examples will in the meantime serve to show the difference between the literal/logical meaning of "illah' and its juridical
usage among the ulema of jurisprudence. [Cf. Ahmad Hasan, 'Rationality', p. 104.]
The question arises as to whether the incidence of ta’lil in the Qur’an gives the mujtahid the green light to enquire into the causes and reasons behind its injunctions, or whether it exists simply to facilitate a better understanding of the text. The ulema have held different views on this issue. The opponents of ta’lil maintain that divine injunctions embodied in the clear text have no causes unless the Lawgiver provides us with clear indications to the contrary. Thus it would not only be presumptuous on the part of the mujtahid to adopt an inquisitive approach to divine injunctions, but searching for the cause ('illah) or the objective hikmah of the Qur’anic rules amounts to no more than an exercise in speculation. Besides, the opponents of ta’lil have argued that the believer should surrender himself to the will of God, which can best be done by unquestioning acceptance of God's injunctions. To look into the motive, purpose and rationale of such injunctions, and worse still, to accept them on their rational merit, is repugnant to sincerity in submission to God. Furthermore, in his attempt to identify the rationale of an injunction, the mujtahid can only make a reasonable guess which cannot eliminate the
[Ibn Hazm, Ihkam, VIII, 76ff; Sabuni, Madkhal, P. 75. For further discussion on ta’lil in the Qur’an see the section on qiyas below where ta’lil is discussed in
connection with the ‘illah of qiyas.] Thus it is the duty of the mujtahid to identify the proper causes of divine injunctions, especially in the event where more than one 'illah can be attributed to a particular
injunction. The majority view on ta'lil takes into account the analysis that the rules of Shari’ah have been introduced in order to realise certain objectives and that the Lawgiver has enacted the detailed rules of Shari’ah, not as an end in themselves, but as a means to realising those objectives. In this way, any attempt to implement the law should take into account not only the externalities of the law but also the rationale and the intent behind it. Thus when a man utters the credo of Islam to achieve worldly gain or to attain social prestige, his confession is not valid. The reason is that the true purpose of confession to the faith is the exaltation and worship of God, and if this is violated, a formal confession is of no value. Similarly, if a man says a prayer for the sake of display and self-commendation, it is not valid. The real purpose and value of the law is therefore of primary importance, and indeed it is necessary that the mujtahid identifies it so as to be able to implement the law in accordance with its purpose. The Qur’an admittedly requires unquestioning obedience to God and to His Messenger, but at the same time, it exhorts men to understand the spirit and purpose of God's injunctions. Time and time again, the Qur’an invites the believers to rational enquiry, as opposed to blind imitation, in the acceptance of its
messages. [Cf. Ahmad Hasan, 'Rationality', 102.]
Ta’lil acquires a special significance in the context of analogical deduction. ‘Illah is an essential requirement, indeed the sine qua non of analogy. To enable the extension of an existing rule of the Shari’ah to similar cases, the mujtahid must establish a common ‘illah between the original and the new case. Without the identification of a common 'illah between two parallel cases, no analogy can be constructed. To this it may be added that there is a variety of qiyas, known as qiyas mansus al-‘illah, or qiyas whose 'illah is indicated in the nass, in which the 'illah of the law is already identified in the text. When the ‘illah is so identified, there remains no need for the mujtahid to establish the effective cause of the injunction by recourse to reasoning or ijtihad. However, this variety of qiyas is limited in scope when it is compared to qiyas whose 'illah is not so indicated on the nusus. It thus remains true to say that ta'lil, that is, the search to identify the 'effective cause of the shari’ah rules, is of central importance to qiyas. Further discussion on the ‘illah of analogy, the manner of its identification, and rules which govern the propriety of ta'lil in qiyas can be found in our discussion of qiyas in a separate chapter below.
There seems to be a confusion on the part of the opponents of ta’lil as to the purpose and nature of ta’lil. The opponents of ta’lil seem to have perceived this phenomenon as a sign of impudence and impropriety in belief. In reality, however, this need not be the case. One may attempt ta’lil while remaining totally faithful to the divine origin and essence of the Qur’an. To exercise ta’lil does not lessen either the binding power or the holiness of the divine injunctions. We may, for example, offer various interpretations of the cause of performing the salah or of giving zakah; but whether we can understand the reason or not, salah and zakah are still obligatory upon Muslims.