Previous · All chapters · Next

B10 · باب البيان · Explanation (bayān): five kinds; specification after the fact is abrogation, not explanation; exception and condition work only when connected (v2/26–53)

1. B10.01 · معنى البيان · Bayān is making the meaning plain, not the knowledge it produces; it can be by the Prophet's act as well as his word (v2/26–27)
2. B10.02 · بيان التقرير والتفسير · Confirming explanation and interpreting explanation are valid connected or separate; addressing with a mujmal before its explanation is not addressing the unintelligible (v2/27–29)
3. B10.03 · تأخير دليل الخصوص · A specification joined to the general explains it; a later one is abrogation, against al-Shāfiʿī (v2/29–35)
4. B10.04 · بيان التغيير والتبديل · Exception alters and condition replaces, both valid only when connected (unless from one who can abrogate); for us an exception makes the speech about what remains, not an opposing proof as al-Shāfiʿī holds (v2/35–42)
5. B10.05 · الاستثناء المنقطع · The disconnected exception means "but" or works as a conjunction; the literal exception is preferred where possible (v2/42–44)
6. B10.06 · الاستثناء عقيب الجمل · An exception after several joined sentences goes only to the last, unless the text indicates otherwise, against al-Shāfiʿī (v2/44–45)
7. B10.07 · لا يصح إلا موصولا · Altering and replacing explanations count only when connected (agreed by all); several ⚑ splits over what counts as alteration versus retraction (v2/45–49)
8. B10.08 · بيان الضرورة · Explanation by necessity comes without words made for it, in four ways (v2/50–53)

B10.01 · معنى البيان · Bayān is making the meaning plain, not the knowledge it produces; it can be by the Prophet's act as well as his word (v2/26–27)

• Who: ⚑ our colleagues differ: most say bayān is making the meaning plain to the addressee; some of our colleagues (the view al-Shāfiʿī's followers also chose) say it is the meaning's becoming plain, the knowledge produced, since "bāna" (it appeared; she was separated; the beloved went away) always means separation and appearance. «وَالأَصَح هُوَ الأول أَن المُرَاد هُوَ الْإِظْهَار» (v2/26) — "The sounder is the first: what is meant is making plain." No Arab takes "bayān" to mean the hearer's knowledge; the Prophet explained to all, and only some came to know. (v2/26–27)
• Some of our colleagues define it as "bringing out of the bounds of difficulty into clarity"; Sarakhsī: not strong, since the definition is harder than the thing, and it fits only the mujmal. (v2/27)
• Who: «ثمَّ الْمَذْهَب عِنْد الْفُقَهَاء وَأكْثر الْمُتَكَلِّمين أَن الْبَيَان يحصل بِالْفِعْلِ من رَسُول الله كَمَا يحصل بالْقَوْل» (v2/27) — "The doctrine of the jurists and most theologians: explanation comes about by the Messenger's act as it does by his word." Some theologians: only by word, since for them a mujmal's explanation must be connected. Proofs: Jibrīl led the Prophet at the prayer times; "pray with us"; "take your rites from me"; "pray as you have seen me pray"; at al-Ḥudaybiya the Companions shaved only when they saw him shave. (v2/27) → B2.01

Back to the list

B10.02 · بيان التقرير والتفسير · Confirming explanation and interpreting explanation are valid connected or separate; addressing with a mujmal before its explanation is not addressing the unintelligible (v2/27–29)

• Five kinds: «ثمَّ الْبَيَان على خَمْسَة أوجه بَيَان تَقْرِير وَبَيَان تَفْسِير وَبَيَان تَغْيِير وَبَيَان تَبْدِيل وَبَيَان ضَرُورَة» — "Explanation is of five kinds: confirming, interpreting, altering, replacing, and by necessity." (v2/27)
• Confirming (taqrīr): it cuts off a possible figure or specification ("the angels prostrated, all of them together"; "a bird that flies with its wings", Q 6:38). «وَهَذَا الْبَيَان صَحِيح مَوْصُولا كَانَ أَو مَفْصُولًا لِأَنَّهُ مُقَرر للْحكم الثَّابِت بِالظَّاهِرِ» — "This explanation is valid connected or separate, since it confirms the ruling the apparent sense establishes." "You are divorced… I meant from marriage" is accepted. (v2/28)
• Interpreting (tafsīr): of the mujmal and the shared word (prayer, zakat, the theft verse; "you are separated/forbidden… I meant divorce"; "1,000 dirhams" in a town of mixed coins). Valid connected or separate. After the interpretation, the original wording itself takes effect, which is why "separated" and "forbidden" give irrevocable separation. (v2/28)
• Who: some theologians: an explanation of a mujmal cannot be delayed, since that would impose the impossible, like addressing an Arab in Turkish. Reply: «وَلَكنَّا نقُول الْخطاب بالمجمل قبل الْبَيَان مُفِيد وَهُوَ الِابْتِلَاء باعتقاد الحقية فِيمَا هُوَ المُرَاد بِهِ مَعَ انْتِظَار الْبَيَان للْعَمَل بِهِ» (v2/29) — "We say: addressing with a mujmal before its explanation has a point: the test of believing that what is meant is true, while awaiting the explanation in order to act." Action is not required before it; the mutashābih is tested by belief with no explanation at all. Moses with his teacher (Q 18:82). (v2/28–29)

Back to the list

B10.03 · تأخير دليل الخصوص · A specification joined to the general explains it; a later one is abrogation, against al-Shāfiʿī (v2/29–35)

• Position: «فَقَالَ عُلَمَاؤُنَا دَلِيل الْخُصُوص إِذا اقْترن بِالْعُمُومِ يكون بَيَانا وَإِذا تَأَخّر لم يكن بَيَانا بل يكون نسخا» (v2/29) — "Our scholars said: a specifying proof joined to the general is explanation; if it comes later it is not explanation but abrogation." al-Shāfiʿī: explanation either way. The root: for us the unqualified general binds with certainty, so its specification alters (taghyīr), which must be connected; for him it binds with doubt, so specification only interprets. (v2/29–30) → B4.03
  • A specification is explanation from one angle only (the general could bear it) and an opposing proof from another (the general binds by itself), like exception and condition: connected, it counts as explanation; separate, it opposes and abrogates. Only the mujmal's explanation is pure explanation, valid connected or separate. (v2/30)
• Furūʿ test: a ring bequeathed to one and its stone to another: in one connected statement, the ring's band to the first and the stone to the second; in separate statements, the stone is shared. (v2/30)
• Their proofs: "then upon Us is its explanation" (Q 75:19): thumma marks delay, and the duty to follow comes with the general, not the mujmal; Noah's "your family" and his son; the angels and Lot; Ibn al-Zibaʿrā's objection to Q 21:98 and the later Q 21:101; the Israelites' cow; the inheritance verse limited later to same religion, and bequests to a third; "near kin" (Q 8:41) explained when ʿUthmān and Jubayr asked; and delay in times (abrogation) is allowed, so delay in persons too. (v2/30–31)
• Our proof: generality must be believed and may be stated; «وَالْقَوْل بِجَوَاز تَأْخِير دَلِيل الْخُصُوص يُؤَدِّي إِلَى أَن يُقَال يلْزمنَا اعْتِقَاد الشَّيْء على خلاف مَا هُوَ عَلَيْهِ وَهَذَا فِي غَايَة الْفساد» (v2/31) — "allowing a specification to be delayed means we are bound to believe a thing contrary to what it is, which is utterly corrupt", and it would make legal proofs false. Abrogation differs: during the Prophet's life no one was bound to believe a ruling permanent. (v2/31–32)
• Replies: Q 75:19 cannot mean all of the Qurʾān (the explanation is Qurʾān too), so it means the mujmal. Noah's case has two separate answers. First, the exclusion was connected: "except those against whom the word has gone forth" (the promised drowning of the unbelievers); Noah still asked about his son out of hope that he would believe, as Ibrāhīm asked forgiveness for his father. Second, "your family" never covered the unbelieving son, since a messenger's family is those who follow his religion; the word was shared between family by lineage and family by faith, and «وَتَأْخِير الْبَيَان فِي الْمُشْتَرك صَحِيح عندنَا» (v2/33) — "delaying the explanation of a shared word is valid for us." Lot's case is connected ("its people are wrongdoers"; "except the family of Lot"); Ibrāhīm asked to know whether the punishment would reach Lot, or for more reassurance. On Q 21:98 "it has been said" (qīla) that it addressed the Meccan idolaters only; "wa-l-awjah" (the more cogent): its wording (mā, for non-rational beings) already excluded ʿĪsā and the angels, and the opponents were being obstinate. The cow was an addition to the text, which is abrogation (Ibn ʿAbbās: "had they slaughtered any cow…"). "Near kin" was a shared word or an unworkable general, explained. Same religion in inheritance is an addition, so abrogation; the third may have preceded the verse. Delay in times is abrogation, which is all we claim. (v2/32–35)

Back to the list

B10.04 · بيان التغيير والتبديل · Exception alters and condition replaces, both valid only when connected (unless from one who can abrogate); for us an exception makes the speech about what remains, not an opposing proof as al-Shāfiʿī holds (v2/35–42)

• Definitions: «أما بَيَان التَّغْيِير هُوَ الِاسْتِثْنَاء» (v2/35) — "altering explanation is exception" ("a thousand years less fifty", Q 29:14). «وَبَيَان التبديل هُوَ التَّعْلِيق بِالشّرطِ» (v2/35) — "replacing explanation is hanging on a condition" ("if they nurse for you, give them their pay", Q 65:6). By agreement of all (lā khilāf), both are valid only connected, from one who cannot abrogate; the dispute is only over how exception and condition work. (v2/35–36)
• Position: «فَقَالَ عُلَمَاؤُنَا مُوجب الِاسْتِثْنَاء أَن الْكَلَام بِهِ يصير عبارَة عَمَّا وَرَاء الْمُسْتَثْنى» — "Our scholars said: an exception makes the speech an expression for what lies outside the excepted." No ruling arises for the excepted part for lack of a cause, like a limit. al-Shāfiʿī: the ruling fails there because of an opposing proof, like specification. Likewise with a condition: for us the ruling is absent for want of its cause; for him the condition blocks the ruling while its cause exists. (v2/36)
• His proofs: "exception from negation is affirmation and from affirmation negation"; "except the family of Lot… except his wife" (Q 15:59–60); "ten less three less two" gives nine; "they drank of it except a few" (Q 2:249); the testimony of faith; the qadhf verse; "do not sell food for food except like for like" (two rulings: all food, and permission where equality is possible); "half of what you assigned unless they forgo" (Q 2:237); "1,000 except a garment" gives 1,000 less the garment's value; and Abū Ḥanīfa and Abū Yūsuf's own ruling on "except a kurr of wheat" (1,000 less a kurr's value) could not stand if the exception made the speech about what remains. (v2/36–38) → B10.05
• Our proofs: exception works in reports ("a thousand years less fifty"), where an opposing proof would imply a lie; excepting everything fails even where retraction is allowed ("my slaves are free except my slaves" fails; "except these", being all he has, works; "a third of my estate except a third of my estate"); it cannot stand alone, unlike a specifying proof; and "1,000 less 100" can only be read as 900 said the long way. The linguists call it "extraction". By contrast, a general may be specified down to one (a singular form) or three (a plural); below that it is abrogation. (v2/38–40) → B4.04
• "Exception from negation is affirmation" is figurative: "no scholar but Zayd" negates knowledge of others by wording, and Zayd's knowledge follows by indication (ishāra). The testimony of faith likewise. (v2/41–42)
• Furūʿ test: Abū Ḥanīfa and Muḥammad (no dissent recorded): "if I go out, except that so-and-so permits me", and he dies first: the oath lapses (a limit tied to his life). "If you go out except with my permission" needs permission each time, since it excepts a kind of going out, not the ban itself. (v2/42)

Back to the list

B10.05 · الاستثناء المنقطع · The disconnected exception means "but" or works as a conjunction; the literal exception is preferred where possible (v2/42–44)

• Examples: "except wishful thinking" (Q 2:78), "except the Lord of the worlds" (Q 26:77), "except peace" (Q 19:62), "except those of them who do wrong" (Q 2:150). (v2/42)
• Who: ⚑ "except by mistake" (Q 4:92) means "but if he kills by mistake"; some of our shaykhs read it "nor by mistake". Sarakhsī: «وَهَذَا غلط عِنْدِي» — "this is an error in my view", since that would make it a prohibition, and mistake is neither forbidden nor commanded (Q 33:5). (v2/42)
• "Unless they forgo" (Q 2:237) is disconnected (a new ruling), since the literal reading fails. "Except those who repent" in the qadhf verse is read two ways. As disconnected, since the literal reading fails: repenting does not stop him having been a slanderer. Or, «وَإِن كَانَ مَحْمُولا على حَقِيقَة الِاسْتِثْنَاء هُوَ اسْتثِْنَاء بعض الْأَحْوَال» (v2/43) — "if it is taken as a true exception, it excepts some states": "they are the sinners in every state except when they repent", a time limit, so «فَلَا تبقى صفة الْفسق بعد التَّوْبَة» (v2/43) — "the quality of sinfulness does not remain after repentance", for want of the proof that would establish it, not because of a blocking opposer as the opponent imagines. Either way it is not al-Shāfiʿī's opposing proof. "Food for food except like for like" is an exception of a state, a limit to the ban: the prohibition of ribā is one bounded by a state (until equality in measure), which exists only where equality in measure is possible; an absolute prohibition in other cases would not be the ruling of this text, so ribā is not established by it in small quantities or in foods not measured by volume. (v2/43)
• Furūʿ test: "1,000 except a garment" owes the full 1,000 (disconnected). ⚑ "Except a kurr of wheat": Muḥammad, the full 1,000; Abū Ḥanīfa and Abū Yūsuf, by istiḥsān, 1,000 less a kurr's value, a real exception in meaning, since measured and weighed goods are owed in the person's charge like prices. (v2/43–44)

Back to the list

B10.06 · الاستثناء عقيب الجمل · An exception after several joined sentences goes only to the last, unless the text indicates otherwise, against al-Shāfiʿī (v2/44–45)

• Who: al-Shāfiʿī: it goes back to all of them, like a condition, since it is an opposing proof; his proof is the brigandage verse (Q 5:34). (v2/44)
• Position: «وَقَالَ عُلَمَاؤُنَا الِاسْتِثْنَاء تَغْيِير وَتصرف فِي الْكَلَام فَيقْتَصر على مَا يَلِيهِ خَاصَّة» — "Our scholars said: exception alters the speech and acts on it, so it is limited to what it immediately follows." (v2/44) Joined sentences are not one speech, and the effect is by necessity, measured by need. A condition differs, since it replaces and the conjunction shares it; though he notes there is a question about distinguishing a complete sentence joined to a complete one from an incomplete one joined to a complete one and then followed by a condition, and defers it: «وَلَكِن لَيْسَ هَذَا مَوضِع بَيَان ذَلِك» (v2/45) — "but this is not the place to explain it." In Q 5:34 we too return the exception to all the ḥadd clauses, but because of the qualifier "before you overpower them", not by default: repentance for the next life does not vary by that, so the ḥadd is meant. Order can be changed by an indication in the text (Q 18:1–2; 20:129). (v2/45)

Back to the list

B10.07 · لا يصح إلا موصولا · Altering and replacing explanations count only when connected (agreed by all); several ⚑ splits over what counts as alteration versus retraction (v2/45–49)

• Position: «الْبَيَان المغير والمبدل يَصح مَوْصُولا وَلَا يَصح مَفْصُولًا» (v2/45) — "Altering and replacing explanation is valid connected and not separate": once he falls silent, the speech is complete, and a later exception or condition would be abrogation, which he cannot do (the lamp hung before it lands, not after). (v2/45–46)
• Furūʿ test
  • "I owe him 1,000 as a deposit": believed connected, not separate. "You lent me / advanced me / gave me 10, but I did not receive it": believed connected, by istiḥsān (a figure for the contract). (v2/46)
  • ⚑ "You paid me / handed me… but I did not receive": Muḥammad, the same; Abū Yūsuf, not believed at all, since these name acts, not contracts, so the addition is retraction. (v2/46–47)
  • ⚑ "1,000, but it is debased coin": Abū Ḥanīfa, not believed at all (defectiveness is a retraction from sound payment); the Ṣāḥibān, believed connected (an alteration). "…of weight five" is believed if connected (an exception of amount); "a kurr, but of poor quality" is believed either way (quality, not a defect). (v2/47)
  • ⚑ "1,000 as the price of wine": the Ṣāḥibān, alteration (valid connected); Abū Ḥanīfa, retraction, since the price of wine is never owed by a Muslim through purchase. (v2/47–48)
  • ⚑ "1,000 as the price of a slave woman he sold me, whom I have not received": the Ṣāḥibān, alteration; if said separately, the creditor is asked the ground: if another ground, his word; if the sale but delivered, the acknowledger's word, since he then denies receipt rather than retracts; Abū Ḥanīfa, retraction, since an unidentified slave woman's price is owed only after receipt. (v2/48)
  • al-Sharika: "I sell you this slave for 1,000 except half of him" sells half for the whole 1,000; "on condition that half is mine" sells half for 500. (v2/48–49)
  • ⚑ Property deposited with a legally restricted child who then destroys it. Abū Yūsuf: the child is liable, since "keep it" specified the kind of empowerment, safekeeping fails for want of capacity, and so it is as if the child had destroyed the property while it was still in its owner's hands. Abū Ḥanīfa and Muḥammad: the child is not liable, since empowerment is an unqualified act and "keep it" is an opposing proof that is legally void here; destruction after the owner's unqualified empowerment makes neither child nor adult liable. (v2/49)

Back to the list

B10.08 · بيان الضرورة · Explanation by necessity comes without words made for it, in four ways (v2/50–53)

• Position: «وَأما بَيَان الضَّرُورَة فَهُوَ نوع من الْبَيَان يحصل بِغَيْر مَا وضع لَهُ فِي الأَصْل» — "Explanation by necessity is a kind of explanation that comes about by what was not made for it originally." (v2/50)

  1. As if stated: "his parents inherit him, and his mother has a third" (Q 4:11) gives the father the rest. Muḍāraba naming only the worker's share, or (by istiḥsān) only the owner's; muzāraʿa; bequests "to X and Y 1,000, X having 400". (v2/50)
  2. The speaker's state: the Lawgiver's silence on seeing something shows it is right; the Companions' silence on the value of service owed by the deceived buyer shows none is owed, since it was the first such case after the Prophet and a full answer was due: «وَالسُّكُوت بعد وجوب الْبَيَان دَلِيل النَّفْي» (v2/51) — "silence after explanation became due is proof of denial". So when a man's slave woman bears three children in separate pregnancies and he says "the eldest is my son", the other two are denied, since he was bound both to deny a child not his and to claim one that is; and a virgin who is told of her guardian's arranging her marriage and stays silent has consented, from shyness. (v2/50–51)
  3. Preventing deception: the master who sees his slave trading and stays silent has given permission; the pre-emptor's silence after learning of the sale waives pre-emption; refusing the oath counts as admission (or under kind 2, by the refuser's state). (v2/51)
  4. The speech's indication: "I owe him a hundred and a dirham" makes the hundred dirhams; al-Shāfiʿī: the dirham is owed and the hundred is explained by him, since a detailed item joined to a vague one does not explain it (if it were an explanation, nothing would be owed by it). «وَلَكنَّا نقُول قَوْله وَدِرْهَم بَيَان للمائة عَادَة وَدلَالَة» (v2/52) — "We say: 'and a dirham' explains the hundred, by custom and by indication": people drop the explanation from the first number for brevity, and conjunction makes the two one thing, for goods owed in the person's charge (measured and weighed), not garments or slaves. By agreement, "a hundred and three dirhams" is all dirhams, and so is "a hundred and three garments / three horses / three slaves" all garments, horses or slaves, since the explanation follows both joined numbers; "twenty-one dirhams" is all dirhams. "A hundred and two dirhams" is disputed like "a hundred and a dirham". ⚑ «وَقد رُوِيَ عَن أبي يُوسُف» (v2/53) — "it is reported from Abū Yūsuf" that "a hundred and a garment / a sheep" also explains the hundred, since they can be divided, but not "and a slave". (v2/52–53)

• [Editorial] Debate note (bāb): B10.03 and B10.04 carry the Ḥanafī answer to "specification may come later" and "exception is an opposing proof". B10.03 rests on B4.03 (the general is certain); B10.04 rests on exception as extraction, and B10.05–07 follow from it. When an interlocutor cites a later-revealed limitation as "specification", Sarakhsī's reply is that it is abrogation, with abrogation's conditions (B11).

Back to the list

Previous · All chapters · Next