Why mastering classical Arabic and Usul al Fiqh Necessary to understand the Sharia rules

Source: https://www.facebook.com/theusuli/


I post about the importance of language and usūl a lot, and the dangers of accessing texts directly without knowledge, but never really mention examples. Mostly this is because it takes a lot of time and feels like something I would sit down and prepare to write for, not a Facebook post. Nevertheless, here is a quick example.

All the narrations from the Sahihayn regarding the beard use variations of wording similar to the following:
قصّوا الشارب وأعفوا اللحى
Which literally means, as is often translated:
"Trim your moustache and leave the beards."
Now, just looking at the literal meaning of this narration, it makes it seem that a Muslim man should not touch his beard at all, letting it grow without restriction, which is against what the scholars of the madhhabs of fiqh deduced from the same texts. Some contemporary figures even interpreted it to be such, and this position became famous among a few (and a point of constant obsession).
They based their views on the understanding that an unrestricted command from Allah or his Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم denotes obligation, and hence it is wājib or obligatory to leave the beard and not touch it at all.
But when we analyze this narration purely with the rules of language, the narration does not need to have this meaning.
Firstly, does every command in the texts necessitate obligation? A quick look at all the linguistic commands in the sacred texts indicates this is not the case. A linguistic command can indicate obligation, recommendation, permission, a threat, advice, giving permission, warning etc and many others. Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki listed 26 possible meanings to a linguistic command.
Also, the narration is linguistically mutlaq I.e. Unrestricted. If it was restricted, it would have come with a linguistic restriction that can take the form of a sifah (adjective) or a hāl (which is similar in meaning to an adjective but is for a noun with a definite article - similar to an adverb in English). What this shows us is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not indicate to what extent it is obligatory to leave the beard. Was is it a little? A half? A fist length? All of it? He صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't specify but left it open. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was the most concise in speech, so he left it open to interpretation on purpose.
From this analysis (and others not listed) we can determine how the four madhhabs determined their views on this issue. The Shafii's understood this command to be one of recommendation, not obligation, as it is missing some key linguistic components that would make it a 'strong' command. According to the other 3 madhhabs it is understood to mean that it is obligatory to not shave the beard.
As for the extent to which the beard should be left, the Imams of fiqh did ijtihad to determine what that extent should be. Some said it indicates freedom to conduct oneself according to custom or taste, as long as a beard is present. Some used the narration of Abdullah ibn Umar to suggest the extent of 'leaving' the beard. But others did not consider this admissible evidence, like the Shafiis for whom individual fatwas or actions of the Companions do not constitute prescriptive evidence. Some made reference to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's own long beard while the majority said that the authority of prescription belongs to his speech and commands.
This is just one of many examples that demonstrate the importance of learning the Arabic language well and how it intersects with usūl and fiqh before we embark on a decontextualized study of tafsir and Hadith. Many scholars of tafsir often assumed this background knowledge in the reader - they often wrote for other seekers and scholars, not for the average layman.
A common reply I hear when giving an example is: brother this is takalluf, the Hadith is clear! I have even heard more ignorant comments such as: brother leave this usūl stuff just follow the Sunnah.
This is serious compound ignorance, as the rules of the Arabic language and usūl are our only tools to understand textual evidence with pinpoint accuracy. And the only replacement for linguistic and scholarly context is context from culture, ideology and personal opinion. These people are actually the ones who are not following the Sunnah accurately by abandoning the study and application of language and usūl. May Allah protect us from mistaking our personal opinions for absolute truths.


Another example of the importance of the Arabic language and Usūl-ul-Fiqh in understanding sacred text:
The scholars of usūl differentiated between the mantūq (i.e. the spoken/mentioned) and the mafhūm (i.e. the understood) in the sacred texts.
What this means is that what is understood from a text is a distinct category from what is literally mentioned. Sometimes they can differ quite dramatically because the mafhūm is often the result of the conjugation of many different types of linguistic features, other evidences/narrations, general principles from the fuqahā, facts of reality and the intellect.
An obvious, basic example:
"ولا تقل لهما أفٍ"(17:23)
And do not say to them (i.e. your parents) a word of disrespect.
Does this part of the verse (and the rest of it) mean that specifically only saying bad things to one's parents is what is impermissible? Or does the Impermissibility include much worse things such as stealing their money, being harsh with them etc? The general wording of other evidences pertaining to good conduct to one's parents, as well as the intellect via certain types of qiyās include the impermissibility of those other acts as well. This shows the difference between the mantūq and the mafhūm of this verse.
Now let's move on to more controversial examples. Examine these narrations:
"لا يؤمن أحدكم حتى يحب لأخيه ما يحب لنفسه"
None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
"من حلف بغير الله فقد كفر أو أشرك"
Whosoever swears an oath by other than Allah has committed kufr or shirk
"من تعلق تميمة فقد أشرك"
Whoever wears an amulet has committed shirk.
Note how the first narration's apparent meaning clearly implies that anyone who does not love for his brother what he loves for himself is not a believer, i.e. as if they are not a Muslim. Yet the narration was never understood in this way due to the shared understanding among Muslims that it was impossible for someone to leave Islam just because he or she was lacking in his love and rights for their fellow believer. That would be absurd as we all fluctuate in our emotional states.
The second narration is not understood literally either. According to the scholars of the four madhhabs not everyone who swears by other than Allah has committed shirk or left Islam. For them it only applies to someone who consciously swore an oath on a pagan deity. Instead the four madhhabs differed on whether an oath by other than Allah (and not a pagan deity) was harām, makrūh, or even permissible. This is all due to bringing the related narrations together in different ways. The narrator of this particular hadith himself, Imam al-Tirmidhi, mentions how the early scholars did not understand its verbiage literally. Many of the Companions and even the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself once used the phrase 'By my life', a common expression in Arabic at the time.
The third narration, despite its wording, resulted in the the majority of scholars from all four madhhabs over the centuries excepting amulets containing Qur'an, Dhikr, or du'a to be permissible, with the Sahabi Ibn Mas'ūd and his companions disliking them, and not considering them impermissible.
From these examples we know not to jump to conclusions on the meanings of sacred texts and to be careful with the apparent and literal wording of the Qur'an and Hadith.
We also learn the importance of learning fiqh from books of fiqh of the madhhabs: as they are the source of learning the mafhūm. Someone who leaves them for the books of Hadith (i.e. the mantūq) will have to construct the mafhūm himself, ignoring the efforts of more than a millennium of scholarship to do so.