Reviving the Balance

Abstract

Ibn Wahb (d. 197/813), a disciple of Malik (179/795), is reported to have said, “We were once with Malik and made mention of the Sunnah. [Upon hearing this] Malik proclaimed, The Sunnah is Noah’s Ark—whoever boards it will be saved, and whoever refuses will drown.’” Sentiment like Malik’s is not difficult to locate. Many of the early jurists rooted the legitimacy of their legal hermeneutic in a steadfast commitment to the traditions of the Prophet. Thus, the oft-quoted remark of al-Shafi‘i, “If a hadith is authentic, then it is my madhhab.” This rhetorical commitment, however, was a negotiated one. Prophetic traditions proliferated in the early period, and distinguishing sound narrations from weak ones was not a simple task. Further complicating matters, jurists were responsible for determining divine intent not only in light of evolving cultural, social, and political realities, but for matters that were not immediately resolved by recourse to the Qur’an and prophetic tradition. Moreover, how to interpret prophetic instruction required knowledge of the mitigating circumstances present at the time of utterance. Were the Prophet’s words conditional or general? Were his words abrogated by later command? Under what circumstances were they said? Did the underlying circumstances even matter? These questions and more occupied the early juristic community as they canonized a defensible legal heuristic that situated the Prophet’s words and actions within a normative framework ...