The Specification with Independent Evidences (Takhsis)

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem

The Specification with Independent Evidences (Takhsis)

Specification with independent evidences can only be through aural evidences because the general text that may be specified is in fact a wording brought by the aural evidence; thus it can only be specified by aural evidence. The aural evidences are the Book, the Sunnah, the Ijma’a of the Sahaba and al-Qiyas whose Shari’ah reason is obtained from the Book and the Sunnah. Anything other than these four evidences cannot be deemed as part of the evidences of specification. It is forbidden to specify the generality with a rational proof. The evidence on this is as follows: 

1-   Specification is the process of excluding part of what the expression indicates. The denotation of the expression refers to what the speaker means by the expression from a linguistic or Shari’ah perspective; i.e. what the wording indicates from a linguistic or Shari’ah perspective. Reason has no bearing on this whatsoever. If reason were to exclude something from the meaning indicated by the expression, thus deducing another meaning, it would in this case take the meanings of that expression out of their context and their linguistic denotation through rationale, which is wrong, because the denotation of the expression should be down to the language and not to reason. Hence, it is wrong for reason to be a specifying agent.

2-    Specification is a type of explanation and it amounts to legislation; the Shari’ah text has been brought by revelation, thus it can only be explained through something that revelation has brought. If it were left to reason to explain what revelation has brought in a manner different to what the language has indicated, this means that reason has been allowed to legislate, which is not allowed, because the Legislator is Allah (swt). Hence, it is imperative for the expounder and the expounded matter to be from what revelation has brought; it is wrong for reason to expound what revelation has brought, thus it cannot be a specifying agent.

3-   Specification amounts to abrogating part of the general text, because it involves diverting the rule away from the general text and nullifying it in some parts, then substitute it by another rule, as is the case in the saying of Allah (swt):  “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes” [24-2], which is a rule for the adulterer and the fornicator, then came the specification and nullified the rule in respect of the adulterer and substituted it by another rule which is the stoning. Abrogation cannot be established through reason; otherwise it would be permitted for every reason to nullify any Shari’ah rule. Hence, specification cannot be through reason.

As for the ayah in which Allah (swt) says: “Pilgrimage thereto is a duty people owe to Allah; those who can afford the journey” [3-97] and as for the fact that the child and the insane are people, it is alleged that they are not included in the general address stipulated in the ayah and that reason has indicated the unfeasibility of their responsibility, thus acting as a specifying agent of the generality of the ayah. This suggestion is not in fact a valid argument to prove that reason may be a specifying evidence, because the child and the insane are included in the address of the Legislator, thus they cannot rationally excluded from the responsibility. The proof for this is reflected in the fact that the child and the insane are involved in the rules related to penal codes and damages, and their properties are subject to Zakat. The generality of the ayah has not been specified through reason but rather through the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Three have been absolved of blame: the child until he is mature, the insane until he regains sanity and the sleeping until he awakes.” Therefore, the specification did not occur through reason.

As for the claim made by some about Allah’s saying: “Allah the creator of all things” [13-16] and His saying “Allah has power over all things” [2-20], that the general expression includes linguistically everything, despite the fact that His essence and attributes are real things and not things He has created, nor things over which He (swt) has power, since it is rationally impossible for “The First” to create Himself and since it is rationally impossible for Him to be overpowered i.e. to have power over Himself; thus His essence and His attributes are excluded from the generality of the expression by way of a rational exigency and consequently, reason is a specifying agent to the generality of the ayat.  However, using such ayat as evidence is irrelevant because these ayat are related to the doctrines and not the Shari’ah rules. Evidence for Aqeedah matters can be established through reason and through Shari’ah texts. In fact, the belief in Shari’ah is based on rationale, i.e. reason; thus, reason can be a proof for Aqeedah matters, and consequently, it can act as evidence on the perceiving of the ayat and it can act as a specifying agent in Aqeedah matters.

As for the Shari’ah rules, they are the address of the Legislator pertaining to the actions of the servants; thus it is wrong for their evidence to be other than an aural one because they are the address of the Legislator. Hence, it is imperative for their evidence to be from the Legislator, i.e. from what the revelation has brought. The same applies for the specifying agent, because it is also a Shari’ah rule since it is part of the address of the Legislator; thus it must come from the Legislator, i.e. from what the revelation has brought. Therefore, it is wrong for reason to specify the Shari’ah rule because it does not come from the Legislator and it is not part of what the Shari’ah has brought; thus such ayat are irrelevant as far as the Shari’ah rules are concerned, because they are related to Aqeedah matters.

Source: Islamic Personality Volume III