The answer to the fourth question is that the issue of abrogation or limiting of the Quran by the Hadith has arisen out of a lack of proper understanding and enough deliberation. In reality, no Hadith has abrogated a Quranic verse or limited its scope of application and thus there arises no doubt from this angle on the status of the Quran as the furqan and the mizan. When people were not able to understand certain stylistic features of the Quran and the background and perspective of certain verses, they were also not able to understand the words of the Prophet (sws) regarding these areas. All examples which are presented in this regard are of this type. The chain of narrations of some of these narratives have flaws. However, since they are often presented, in the following pages, we shall take up each of these examples disregarding these flaws and present our view on them.

1. Of the animals which God has created on this earth, some are meant to be eaten and others are not. Since these latter type of animals if eaten effect the tazkiyah (spiritual purification) of a person, an aversion to them is found in his nature. Generally, human nature provides a person with ample guidance in this matter and, without any hesitation, he is able to decide the right course. He very well knows that lions, tigers, elephants, eagles, crows, vultures, kites, snakes, scorpions and human flesh itself are not meant to be eaten. He is also well aware of the fact that horses and mules are a means of transportation and have no role in satisfying one’s hunger. That faeces and urine of animals are impure things is known to him very well also. No doubt, at times, human nature becomes perverted but a study of human behaviour shows that a great majority of people does not generally falter in this matter. It is for this reason that the shari‘ah has not given any original guidance on this matter and after stressing that everything appropriate for eating (tayyibat) is allowed and everything inappropriate for eating (khabaith) is prohibited, it has left the matter to human nature to decide. Consequently, the shariah has provided guidance on animals and on things related to animals in which it was difficult for man purely on the basis of his intellect and nature to decide the right course. The pig is a quadruped beast of the same genre as the goat, sheep, cow and cattle; however, it consumes meat like other carnivores. Should it then be considered forbidden or not? Should animals which are slaughtered in a way that all their blood is not drained out be eaten or not? Is the blood of such animals impure as indeed are their faeces and urine? If animals are slaughtered by taking the name of someone other than the Almighty, can they still be eaten? Since man is unable to come up with a decisive answer in these issues, therefore the Almighty guided mankind in this affair through His prophets and informed them that the flesh of the pig, blood, meat of dead animals and animals which are slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah [16] are also impure and unclean and therefore people should abstain from them. In this regard, these aforementioned four things have been primarily discussed by the shariah. The Quran at some places by using the linguistic expressions قُلْ لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ (say: I do not find anything [forbidden] in what [God] has revealed to me), and at some places the word اِنَّمَا (only and only), has unequivocally stated that only and only these four things are prohibited by the Almighty.

It is stated in Surah Baqarah:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُلُواْ مِن طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَاشْكُرُواْ لِلّهِ إِن كُنتُمْإِيَّاهُ تَعْبُدُونَ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ (2: 172-173)

Believers! Eat of the wholesome things with which We have provided you and be grateful to God alone if it is Him you worship. He has forbidden you only carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine, also any flesh that is slaughtered in the name of someone other than God. (2:172-173)

It is stated in Surah Anam:

قُلْ لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ (145:6)

Say: “I find not in what has been revealed to me through inspiration forbidden to a person who eats things which are edible, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine because all these are unclean or in, disobedience to Allah, animals slaughtered in someone else’s name.” (6:145)

It is reported in certain narratives that the Prophet (sws) has prohibited the meat of beasts having sharp canine teeth, birds having claws and tentacles in their feet, and tamed donkeys. [17] It is evident from the above discussion that this is merely a delineation of the innate guidance found within human nature. People have erroneously regarded this delineation of divine guidance as shariah, even though it has no link with the prohibition of the shariah stated in the Quran. Thus the issue of Hadith abrogating the Quran does not even arise here.

2. One salient feature of the language of the Quran is that the meanings which are understood of their own accord because of the presence of other words and indicators or because of some logical obviousness are not expressed in words. Compliments of oaths, answer to conditional statements, parallel clauses of a sentence and the copulative sentence of a conditional sentence are often suppressed. In 4:11, for example, there is an ellipsis of the word اِثْنَتَيْن (two) before فَوْقِ اِثْنَتَيْن (more than two) and that of وَلِأَبِيْهِ الثُلُثَان (and for the father, two-thirds) after فَلِاُمِهِ الثُلُث (and for the mother, one-third) and وَلِأَبِيْهِ (and for the father) after فَلِأُمِهِ السُدُس (and for the mother one-sixth) or words of similar meaning. Similarly, an ellipsis of the copulative sentence of وَ أَنْ تَقُوْمُوْا لِلْيَتَامَى بِالقِسْط (and that you deal with the orphans with justice) has occurred in 4:127. As another example, consider the following verse:

وَمَا مِن دَآبَّةٍ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلاَ طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلاَّ أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُم (38:6)

And all the beasts that roam in the earth on their feet and all the birds that fly on their wings in the sky with both their wings are but communities like your own. (6:38)

A little deliberation shows that in the above verse an ellipsis of parallel phrases has occurred. Because of the presence of the expression فِي الأَرْضِ (in the earth) in the first part of the sentence, there is an ellipsis of its parallel expression فِي الّسَمَاءِ (in the sky) in the second part. Similarly, because of the presence of the expression يَطِيْـرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ (fly on their wings) in the second part of the sentence, an ellipsis of its parallel expression تَدُبُّ عَلَى أَرْجُلِهَا (roam on their legs) has occurred in the first part of the sentence. Though this style is not present in the English language, it exists abundantly in classical Arabic. In Surah Nisa, where the Quran has mentioned women with whom marriage is prohibited, two instances of this style can be seen. The Quran says:

وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمْ اللَّاتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ مِنْ الرَّضَاعَةِ (4:23)

And [marry not] your mothers who have suckled you and your sisters through fosterage. (4:23)

وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ (4:23)

And also two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already happened. (4:23)

In the first directive, together with foster mothers, foster sisters are also regarded as relations prohibited for marriage. Had the directive ended with foster mothers, nothing further could have been understood from it; however, if the relationship of fosterage with a mother makes her daughter a foster sister, then it is but logical to regard other relations of the foster mother to be also included in this directive. If being suckled through the same mother can make someone a foster sister, why can’t the sister of the foster mother be regarded as the maternal aunt, her husband as the father, the sister of her husband as the paternal aunt, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter as nieces. Hence, it is obvious that all these relations are also prohibited in marriage. This indeed is the purport of the Book of God and the words وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ مِنْ الرَّضَاعَةِ testify to it. This is evident to any knowledgeable person who deliberates on these words.

Same is the case with the second directive. If combining two sisters in wedlock is a lewd thing as far as the relationship of marriage is concerned, then combining a lady with her brother’s daughter in wedlock or with her sister’s daughter in wedlock is like combining a mother and a daughter in wedlock. Hence, though the words used are: وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ, the purport of the Quran no doubt actually is: وَ خَالَتِهَا اْلمَرْاةِبَيْنَاْلمَرْاةِ وَ عَمَّتِهَا وَبَيْنَوَوَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ (and two sisters in wedlock at the same time and a lady with her brother’s daughter at the same time and a lady with her sister’s daughter at the same time). However, all these words are suppressed after بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ because what is mentioned points towards this suppression as obviously understood. So obvious are the words of this suppression that no student of the Quran can err in understanding them.

The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:

يَحْرُمُ مِنْ الرَّضَاعَةِ مَا يَحْرُمُ مِنْ الْوِلَادَةِ

Every relationship which is prohibited [for marriage] owing to lineage is also prohibited owing to fosterage. [18]

لَا يُجْمَعُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْأَةِ وَعَمَّتِهَا وَلَا بَيْنَ الْمَرْأَةِ وَخَالَتِهَا

Neither can a lady and her paternal aunt nor can a lady and her maternal aunt be combined in wedlock. [19]

These narratives of the Prophet (sws) only explain the Quranic verses referred to above and in no way alter or add to them.

3. Verses eleven and twelve of Surah Nisa mention the distribution of inheritance of a deceased. While mentioning the shares of various heirs, the Almighty has subtly alluded to the fact that the basis on which a person has the right to inherit from a deceased is his own benefit to him:

آبَاؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَاؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا فَرِيضَةً مِنْ اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (11:4)

You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and All-Knowing. (4:11)

This benefit is by nature present in parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and other close relations. Hence, in normal circumstances, they will be considered the heirs to the legacy of a deceased. However, in certain unusual circumstances, if an absence of benefit in any of these relationships is diagnosed by sense and reason, then the style and pattern of the verse demands that such a relative should not become an heir to the legacy. This exception, a little deliberation would show, has not been created from some external source; on the contrary, it was present in the directive at its very inception. Hence, if a scholar of the Quran refers to it, he would not be changing or altering the meaning of the Divine book; it would be perfectly in accordance with the purport of the verse, to which its words so clearly testify. In view of this, the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said about the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia:

لَا يَرِثُ الْمُسْلِمُ الْكَافِرَ وَلَا الْكَافِرُ الْمُسْلِمَ

A Muslim cannot be an heir to akafir nor can a kafir be a Muslim’s. [20]

In other words, after the Quraysh and the People of the Book were left with no excuse to deny the truth which had been conclusively communicated to them in its ultimate form, their enmity and hostility became very clear. Consequently, the benefit of kinship between them and the Muslims stood completely severed. Hence, they could not inherit from one another.

4. In Surah Maidah (5:33-34), the four punishments prescribed for criminals who spread nuisance and anarchy in the society are taqtil (killing someone in an exemplary manner), taslib (crucifixion), amputating limbs from opposite sides and exile. Consequently, the Prophet (sws) in his times included prostitutes in the application of this directive and is reported to have said:

خُذُوا عَنِّي خُذُوا عَنِّي خُذُوا عَنِّي قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ وَالثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَالرَّجْمُ

Acquire it from me, acquire it from me, acquire it from me. The Almighty has revealed a way for these women. In such criminals, the unmarried men will be treated [in the same way] as the unmarried women and their punishment is a hundred stripes and exile and, similarly, married men and married women shall be treated [in the same way] and their punishment is a hundred stripes and death by stoning. [21]

His view was that since such women were not merely guilty of fornication but were also guilty of spreading anarchy and nuisance in the society as they had adopted profligacy as a way of life, those among them who deserved any mitigation should be administered the punishments of a hundred stripes according to verse two of Surah Nur because of committing fornication and exiled according to verse thirty three of Surah Maidah to protect the society from their dissolute practices, and those among them who did not deserve any leniency, should be stoned to death according to the directive of taqtil [22] of the same verse of Surah Maidah.

This directive of the Prophet (sws), it is evident, does not in any way change the purport of the Quran.

5. Maytah (meat of dead animals) is one of the things which the Almighty has regarded as forbidden. A person who is conversant with the linguistic features of Arabic knows that this word has a literal meaning and it also has a meaning which emanates from its linguistic usage. In the first case, it means everything which is dead; however, in the second case, one who is aware of the intricacies of the Arabic language will, for example, never include dead fish or dead locust in its connotation. The Prophet (sws), on these very grounds, is reported to have said:

أحلت لنا ميتتان ودمان الجراد والحيتان والكبد والطحال

“Two [types of] dead and two [forms of] blood are not forbidden for us: The former being fish and locust, and the latter being liver and spleen.” [23]

Al-Zamakhshari, an authority in linguistics, writes:

فإن قلت في الميتات ما يحل وهو السمك والجراد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلمأحلت لنا ميتتان ودمان قلتقصد ما يتفاهمه الناس و يتعارفونه في العادة ‘ ألا تري أن القائل إذا قال : أكل فلان ميتة لم يسبق الوهم إلى السمك والجراد كما لو قال : أكل دماً لم يسبق إلى الكبد والطحال ‘ ولاعتبار العادة والتعارف قالوا : من حلف لا يأكل لحماً فأكل سمكا لم يحنث وان أكل لحماً في الحقيقة

Then if you ask the question: “Among the dead, there are some things which are allowed to us like the fish and locust and the Prophet (sws) has said: ‘two [types of] dead and two [forms of] blood are allowed to us,’” I will say in response: “The word مَيْتَه (maytah) mentioned in the Quran must be understood according to its linguistic usage. Is not the case that when someone says that he has eaten maytah, we never include a fish or a locust in its connotation. This is similar to the fact that if a person says that he has drunk blood we never include liver or spleen in its connotation. Precisely because of such usage, jurists say that if a person swears that he will never eat meat and then he consumes fish, this will not break his oath although in reality he has eaten meat.” [24]

6. The punishment for theft is mentioned in the Quran in the following words:

وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (5 :38)

And as to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands as a reward of their own deeds, and as an exemplary punishment from God. For God is Mighty and Wise. (5:38)

It is evident from this verse that the punishment of amputating the hands is prescribed for a thief, both male (sariq) or female (sariqah). Every scholar of the Arabic language knows that the words sariq and sariqah are adjectives and denote thoroughness and completeness in the characteristics of the verb they qualify. Consequently, they can only be used for the type of sarqah which can be called a theft and the one who commits it can be called a thief. In other words, if a child steals a few rupees from his father’s pocket, or a wife pinches some money from her husband, or if a person steals something very ordinary, or plucks some fruit from his neighbour’s orchard, or carries away something valuable which has been left unprotected, or drives away an unattended grazing animal, or commits this ignoble offence owing to some need or compulsion, then, no doubt all these are unworthy acts and should be punished, but, certainly, they cannot be classified as acts of theft which the above given verse qualifies.

The narrative of the Prophet (sws) which is generally presented in this regard is only an explanation of this purport of the Quran and does not modify it in the slightest way:

لَا قَطْعَ فِي ثَمَرٍ مُعَلَّقٍ وَلَا فِي حَرِيسَةِ جَبَلٍ فَإِذَا آوَاهُ الْمُرَاحُ أَوْ الْجَرِينُ فَالْقَطْعُ فِيمَا يَبْلُغُ ثَمَنَ الْمِجَنِّ

If a fruit is hanging from a tree or a goat is grazing on a mountain side and someone steals them, then hands should not be amputated for this. But if the goat comes in a pen-fold and the fruit is stacked in a field, then hands should be amputated on the condition that the fruit or the goat are at least the price of a shield. [25]

(Meezan: Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)

(Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

___________________________________

[16]. In the terminology of the Quran, since the reason for prohibition of animals which are slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah is not the رِجْس (impurity) of the animal itself but the فِسْق (defiance) of the person who slaughters the animal, so if this very فِسْق (defiance) is found in some other form, then it is but logical to regard that form under this category as well. Consequently, the Qur’an has informed us that slaughtering an animal without invoking the name of Allah or slaughteringit at some shrine as well as meat won in gambling come under it.

[17]. Abual-Husayn Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Nisaburi, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 2nd ed. (Riyad: Dar al-salam, 2000), 591, 864, (nos. 3433, 4994); Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 716, (no. 4216).

[18]. Malik, Al-Mu’atta’, 395-396, (no. 1887).

[19]. Malik, Al-Mu’atta’, 341, (no. 1600).

[20]. Al-Bukhari, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 1167, (no. 6764).

[21]. Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 749, (no. 4414).

[22]. A hundred stripes are mentioned in Ahadith with rajm (stoning to death) merely to explain the law. If a person who has been awarded the death penalty is also guilty on other counts, then these punishments are though mentioned in the verdict, are never meted out to him.

[23]. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 1 (Makkah: Maktabah dar al-Baz, 1994), 254, (no. 1128). In the opinion of the scholars of Hadith, the chain of narration of this narrative is mawquf. Similarly, the narrative regarding theft cited in point no. 6 is mursal. However, one narrative which discusses this topic is hasan. See: Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad ibn Shu‘aybal-Nasa’i, Sunan, 1st ed. (Riyad: Dar al-salam, 1999), 680,(no. 4960).

[24]. Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari,Al-Kashshaf ‘an haqa’iq al-tanzil wa ‘uyun al-aqawil fi wujuh al-ta’wil,vol. 1 (Beirut: Dar al-kitab al-‘arabi, n.d.), 215.

[25]. Malik, Al-Mu’atta, 545, (no. 2594).