The Superiority of Fiqh Over Hadith

The article linked to below discusses and demonstrates an important point that seems lost on quite a number of Muslims today. Indeed, we live in an age where the hadith sciences, for all of their importance, are seen as a be-all and end-all in some quarters. Unfortunately, much less attention is paid to the requisite knowledge required to interpret both the Qur'an and the source materials of the Prophetic Sunnah and then derive sound rulings from them. As anyone who has studied textual interpretation and heresiology should know, most errors come from weak, forced and otherwise invalid interpretations, not from differences over the validity of the sources themselves. Thus proper interpretation is quite often the key, not just textual veracity.

I recall that I once heard a scholar say that: "All heresies are based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, but by overemphasizing certain verses and narrations at the expense of others". This is very true, since every innovated group and astray sect has their set of so-called textual proofs, thus the problem doesn't lie within the texts themselves, but rather in flawed understandings of them. A pick-and-choose approach, where one downplays any ayah or hadith which foils one's preconceived notions, coupled with the very shallow and presumptuous readings of the Qur'an that we often hear today, are ultimately interpretive (a.k.a. hermeneutical) errors—thus even when only dealing with authentic source materials, the danger of falling into erroneous understandings still looms large.

Once one realizes that the hadith sciences are only concerned with authenticating and verifying the textual sources of Islam, then it logically follows that the next step is determining how to interpret and understand these sources. Traditionally, as the following article makes clear, only a scholar who is a faqih (i.e. one with a deep understanding of the source methodologies of Islamic jurisprudence) was considered qualified for such a task. In this regard, our four Imams and a few other towering scholars of Sunni Islam were uniquely qualified in their expertise since they were both hadith masters and faqihs (and they were the former before they became the latter), which is one of the reasons why their legacies are still alive and preserved for us today.

Unfortunately, this error of exalting the merits of hadith scholars over the fuqaha has lead to some of our greatest scholars and Imams not only being ignored today, but being maligned as well (and in the not-too-distant future, I plan to post some observations about nascent "Salafi" disparagements of such illustrious scholars as Imam an-Nawawi and and Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, insha'llah). For example, our great Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, may Allah be pleased with him, who is known as the "Proof of Islam" (Arabic: Hujjat al-Islam) amongst the overwheming majority of Sunni Muslims due to his profound insights and deep understanding of Islam, is considered by some Muslims today to be, at a minimum, "controversial"—if not an outright reprehensible innovator (and may Allah save us all from both slander and reprehensible innovation in the Deen). One reason for this is because Imam al-Ghazali's skills in the hadith sciences were, as most scholars readily admit, somewhat less than stellar. The error behind the attempts to devalue Imam al-Ghazali seems to be allowing an overemphasis and emotional attachment to one particular Islamic science lead one into discounting valuable scholarly achievements in other equally important areas. This is important to comprehend, since such facile and shallow approaches to Islam are not only damaging our Ummah, but tainting the reputation of our great scholars as well.

I hope that the article linked to below will serve as a useful antidote to the narrow literalism and lack of respect for fiqh that seems to be on the rampage today. I often wonder how many Muslims don't pray in the masjid regularly because they're tired of being harrassed by self-appointed muftis who know a few hadiths but are completely devoid of fiqh and usul al-fiqh (not to mention adab and hikmah). Many of us have probably heard some of these delusional "Insta-Scholars" say, "But there's a hadith that says such-and-such" whenever a derived ruling from one of the four accepted madhahib is mentioned which contradicts their own abject opinion. One should realize that in order for these types of quibbles to have any value, the zealous faqih wannabe would need to demonstrate that not only are there no other hadiths that relate to the topic in question, but which of these hadiths should take precedence and whether the Arabic language of the hadith is as clear and unambiguous as seemingly claimed (and that's just the beginning). This being understood, one should be able to readily see that Muslims who offer such unqualified opinions in order to contradict the rulings of highly developed schools of jurisprudence, whose positions have been refined by generations of eminently qualified scholars, are diving into an ocean without even knowing how to swim. May Allah Most High save us all from such a disaster!

The Superiority of Fiqh Over Hadith
by G. F. Haddad

Ibn Abî Zayd al-Mâlikî reports Sufyân ibn `Uyayna as saying: "Hadîth is a pitfall (madilla) except for the fuqahâ'", and Mâlik's companion `Abd Allâh ibn Wahb said: "Hadîth is a pitfall except for the Ulema. Every memorizer of hadîth that does not have an Imâm in fiqh is misguided (dâll), and if Allâh had not rescued us with Mâlik and al-Layth [ibn Sa`d], we would have been misguided."

Al-Shâfi`î narrated that Mâlik ibn Anas was told: "Ibn `Uyayna narrates from al-Zuhrî things you do not have!" He replied: "Why, should I narrate every single hadîth I heard? Only if I wanted to misguide people!"