|How to Obtain Benefit From Inductive Evidence|
The well-known, great Islamic thinker, Martyr Mohammad Baqir-al-Sadr had defined induction in his book "The Logical Principles of Induction", thus: "It is a deducing of the general law by pursuing a great deal of the partial states, further."
Martyr Al-Sadr has mentioned some applications of the induction method in the field of legal verdicts, quoting, in this regard, Al-Shaikh Yousef al-Bahrani - one of the late jurists (Allah may bless him) - who discovered a general juristic rule through justifiying many partial states that declared, "The person who is unaware of the legal verdict is in no way to be blamed by Allah (glory be to Him)"; i.e., "In all cases, the one who is unaware of the legal verdicts is in no way to blame for having carried out an action".
Moreover, Al-Shaikh al-Bahrani has found some partial verdicts about pilgrimage (Hajj), fasting, marriage, wine-drinking and curtailing the obligatory prayer. The following exemptions have been provided by legitimate evidence:
First: Due to the legitimate evidence that deals with the Hajj (pilgrimage) verdicts; the unaware one will be excused for having on a unallowable dress during his presence in Mecca (when one is in a state of ritual consecration).
Second: Due to the legitimate evidence that regards the verdicts on fasting, the person who is unaware of the verdict, that fasting while traveling is unallowable, will be excused and is in no way to blame if he has fasted while traveling.
Third: Due to the legitimate evidence that deals with marriage verdicts: if a man is unaware that marrying a woman during her `iddat' (a waiting period during which a widow or a divorcee may not remarry) is forbidden; he will be excused and there is no marriage taboo that he remarry her soon after her waiting period is over. Fourth: Due to the legitimate evidence that deals with prohibition of wine-drinking, the unaware person will be excused for having drank it, if he was unaware that drinking wine is forbidden.
Fifth: Due to the legitimate evidence that deals with verdicts regarding prayer; the unaware person will be excused for having performed the four raka'at compulsory prayer in place of praying the usual two raka'at prayer, that is to be performed in place of the four raka'at prayer, when traveling. So, his prayer will be accepted and it is not necessary for him to compensate for that prayer at another time.
Therefore, every condition, in the above mentioned, has an `evidence of factual lack' with regard to the general rule that says that the unaware person is legitimately in no way to blame in all cases. So, the gathering of all these indications in the justist's mind will make the general rule more trusted by him, which declares this: `No penalty is inflicted on the unaware person'.
Consequently, the jurist has deduced a common rule, which is thus: `Every person unaware of the verdicts is in no way to blame'.(7)
In this way, the martyr Al-Sadr has pursued the inductive evidence to elicit a contemplative rule in Islamic economy that reads: `Working with natural wealth is a base for obtaining ownership'. This deduction has arisen due to many particular states that he has dealt with in Islamic jurisprudence, i.e.:
- Working on reviving the land resulted in ownership of it.
- Working in mining the earth for minerals resulted in ownership of it.
- Working on possessing the water resulted in ownership of it.
- Working on hunting birds resulted in ownership of them.
The induction of those states has instigated him to deduce a general rule in the Islamic economy which reads: `Working with natural wealth is the base for ownership'.( ) In this manner, the induction method has taken part in discovering some of the verdicts, laws, concepts, and other theories in various aspects of Islamic thought, such as; economy, psychology, ethics, policy, sociology, commerce, etc.
While discussing analogy and its employment, it is necessary to explain a serious matter in this regard, that is; the use of analogy as a foundation to be depended upon in juristic deduction.
The jurists who follow the doctrine of the family of the Prophet (s.a.w.), do not rely on the partial analogy that is followed by the Al-Hanafi sect (i.e., followers of Abu-Hanifa's doctrine), and other jurists of some Islamic doctrines, as that kind of analogy does not depend on the scientific analogy formula, for scientific analogy is defined, thus: An application of public rule with regard to its credibilities. It is also stipulated in juristic analogy that the cause of legislation should be laid down in advance and not deduced by the jurist himself.
An example follows on what is mentioned in the Islamic law: The drunkenness caused by wine is the reason behind forbidding it. So, the analogy, due to this case, is based on this cause which leads to the taboo of every thing which causes drunkenness.
Making Use of Analogy in Applications of Jurisprudence Principles
It is obvious that the first stage of inductive reasoning entails the application of the original principles on the facts which they fall under. This is, of course, an analogy process which is founded on the scientific analogy rules; and are too considerable, in number, for the scholars to take time with. After the jusrist becomes quite sure that the prohibition gives the meaning of taboo and at the same time when the jurist or the Islamic political researcher faces any text which falls under the prohibition found in the Qur'an, such as; "And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you"( ), he would apply some of the factual rules as follows:
A. Appearance of the evidence rule, that is to say, the useful, common meaning; is a kind of obligatory evidence for both sides (the speaker and listener).
B. Appearance of the rule of prohibition formula that deals with taboo: i.e., the prohibition formula has the meaning of obligatory stoppage (unless there is a related
sign used for giving permission to something being prohibited; in that case, the prohibition assumes the meaning of abhorrence (it is better not to do an act).
Therefore, when the deductive equation is in order with regard to the analogy principles, the deducer and researcher would be able to obtain a legitimate verdict with a moral, political status.
So, the operation is functioning due to the said holy verse that warns us against being inclined to those who are unjust. Here, the prohibition gives the meaning of taboo, so, as a result of this, the `inclining to the unjust' is a sort of taboo, because it is something prohibited in the text of the said verse. In this way, applying the factual methods, with regard to its themes, is due to the scientific analogy method. So, some of the fundamental, great scholars, such as; Al-Na'ini, the book investigator, has determined the following: `The factual rule should be the greatest when dealt with in the analogy of deduction for the diligent task should naturally depend on that kind of analogy'.
The logical analogy has been employed as a practical method in applying the jurisprudence principles, on the one hand, and as a deducing process of the Islamic thought and verdicts, on the other.
Some Prinicipal Supports in the Jursitic Deducing Method????????????
In order to study the method of deducing the laws and verdicts, besides using the Islamic laws from their original sources (the Holy Book and Traditions), as well as, to specify the duties of Islamic law, the well-known, contemporary clergy ('Ulama) have designed a method and a science for researching and deducing, in order to discover the laws and systems, called `the science of jurisprudence principles'. It is considered the method that organizes the process of performing the deductive thinking and to find out the Islamic laws according to their sources, so, it is one of the most serious and complex of Islamic sciences.
Of course, this science is a method that relies on legal postulates and common, mental principles, as well as, on the linguistic philosophy, then, is formed in an integral theory along with the applied principles and laws which are intensely followed by the jurist in the deducing process.
If we want to know, for example, if a verdict of a certain subject applies to worship, family affairs, ownership and properties or political relations, etc., the jurist will consult the Holy Qur'an and, also, the sunnah found in the legal verdict. If he locates it easily without much deductive or scientific effort, he will consider it to be quite enough and will rely on it only as a restricted, ready verdict; as the Qur'an states: "...Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury..."( ) and the Prophet's (s.a.w.) tradition that follows, thus: "The loan has been repaid and the guarantor should be the debtor". Otherwise, the jurist, then, turns to the deductive process and concentrates on : A. How to understand the evidence and take benefit from it by making use of the text, as a whole, and, then, to generalize or employ the textual analogy (i.e., the cause), etc.
B. Going back to the practical roots, if an evidence of legal verdict cannot be elicited, to specify the practical status of the Islamic law, by fulfilling procedures for considering a person quilty at times and innocent at other times.
With respect to the steps involved in the deduction and research method, they are, in general, functioning due to the following stages:
1. It is necessary to prove the possibility of the deduction and diligence process due to the Islamic mission, and to know whether all the conclusions, which result, owing to the deduction process that the jurists have depended on, are good enough to win the satisfaction of Allah (glory be to Him) or not. Moreover, have they the power of legal verdict that makes a person aquitted of responsibility with respect to either accomplishing the task or being excused from it? Therefore, the jurists have spared no efforts to dicuss that case and research it carefully until they have formulated a possibility for the deduction process of the legal verdicts, as well as, usually attributing all the deductions to Islam.
2. Specifying the juristic deducing sources which is a must to be accomplished by the deviser and discoverer of the laws along with the Islamic verdicts and ideas. Are they based on the Holy Qur'an and Traditions (sunnah), only, or on other sources? Which are more helpful to be used in the deduction process; the mind, consensus, nonattributed interests, analogy, acting on a personal opinion application of discretion in legal matters, etc? What is the extent of those sources which are admittedly reliable and have factual evidence or those possible ones where the discussion revolves around the rightness of their origins and are to be used as an offer of a plea or excuse?
3. Concerning the juristic deduction method, the well-known contemporary clergy have distinguished between the approach of dealing with the Holy Qur'an, and that which refers to Traditions, due to the fact that the Holy Book surely is from Allah (be He exalted) with no doubt or suspicion of this fact, and has reached us as a complete, preserved book.
Therefore, the validity of the Qur'an being from Allah (glory be to Him) is something which needs no proof on the part of the jurists. As for Traditions, they have been subjected, over many years, to interpolation and fabrication, so, they are still subject to speculation that should be proved by evidence.
Owing to this fact, the jurist may begin to feel uncertain about the truthfulness of a narration, first by asking himself this question: "Are the traditions and narrations, in hand, attributed to the infallible Imams?" They should be considered as a Tradition and a reliable source for performing the task of approval and to make sure that the source has reached us by the infallible Imams and with no room for doubt.
4. The jurist will, then, organize the deduction method on the basis of `no application ahead of the text' . If he finds a textual legal verdict; as is in the Qur'an: "...and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury...", there is no application, at all, to stand against that text where it may prohibit the selling and allow the usury.
5. The jurist commences his deducing task about a matter that is in need of a legal verdict, in any field of life and he will consult his own proven sources, such as: the Qur'an, Traditions, logical reasoning and, so on.
If he succeeds in getting the legal verdict from those said sources, he will fulfill his scientific mission. Otherwise, he will shift his attention in the direction of a legislator and restrict his search in the field of practical principles by answering this question: `What can the legislator do in such a case, where the jurist does not arrrive at a legal verdict after he has examined the text, as well as, the concepts that the legal verdict is based on?'
Suppose that the subject we are going to search is this: `Is smoking permissible or is it a taboo?' The jurisprudent will initiate his search, into this matter, along with the texts and evidence. If he does not discover the evidence that such an act is taboo, then, he considers the act, with regard to the origin, as a `non-prohibited'
verdict ( i.e., a quittance of the legislation), for there is no evidence of a taboo being mentioned in this regard. So, he makes a decision about the non-prohibition verdict, regarding smoking, depending on the origin of the legal or mental allowance.
6. The deduction process concentrates, basically, on the understanding of the evidence and how to get benefit from it, (after approving the validity of the evidence which the infallible Imams (al-Ma`sum) have given, if it was in the form of a narration).
In both actions: (a) the validity of the evidence which is given by the infallible Imam (Ma`sum), and (b) the understanding of the legislative evidence (the Qur'an and sunnah) due to its methodology and principles, for the text to be completely understood, the jurist must analyze and grasp the meaning of the concepts according to the linguistic rules and in light of all the conditions that exist from the text (i.e., the connections and the social customs). This would occur when comprehending the text with regard to its requirements and indirect suggestions, in light of the mental rules and sound logic, by taking into account the Islamic law terminology and their legal considerations.
7. The jurisprudence principles science forms the scientific methods for juristic deduction; (it is an integral theory which is consulted by the jurist when searching into deducing a verdict of any matter. Therefore, the science of jurisprudence principles is defined as: `Having knowledge about the common elements used in legal verdict deduction').(8)
Among the elements used in the deducing process is the element of `proving the truth of the saying'. The order, here, has the meaning of compulsory unless there is a condition that may replace it with a more agreeable
order. In the same light, forbiddance has the sense of taboo unless there is a condition that changes it from the disagreeable order. Along with other proofs, like the linguistic, literal one (i.e., the meaning that has been understood by the literal expression), are the accompanying evidences, which are basically used in deduction.
In all the complete and partial matters that result and are faced by the Islamic jurist and scholar, with regard to the deducing process, a method is found for dealing with and being confident of the originality and purity, besides, discovering the legal verdict and Islamic thought which should conform to correct, scientific methods. The fear is that intensive contemplation might become abnormal or deviated from scientism and legitimacy in the process of research and discovery.