As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Llahi wa Barakatuhu,
I drafted the below discussion for a different purpose however I thought I would share.
Please let me know of any corrections that you recommend, In Sha Allah.
The following texts only list 3 Istimdad for Usul: Ilm al-Kalam, Lughat al-Arabiyyah, and al-Ahkam ash-Shari’ah. My argument is that ‘Ilm al-Kalam’ is only part of it since the later texts of Usul included Kalam and Kalami terminologies based on their introduction and predominant usage after the time of Imam ash-Shafi’ee.
Usul al-Fiqh Tarikhahu wa Rijalahu, p. 16 by Dr. Sha’ban Muhammad Isma’il
Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam p. 8 by Al-Amidee
Al-Ibhaj fi Sharh al-Minhaj, p. 8 by Taqi ad-Din as-Subki
Sharh al-Kawakab al-Munir, p. 50 by Ibn an-Najjar, in the Tahqiq by Muhammad az-Zuhayli and Nazih Hammad
Irshad al-Fuhul p. 24, by ash-Shawkani
Dr. Sha’ban Muhammad Isma’il mentioned 2 schools of Usul on p. 25 of his book (listed above): the Hijaziyyin and the Iraqiyyin, or Ahl ul-Hadith and Ahl ur-Ra’y.
He states that Ahl ur-Ra’y and Ahl ul-Hadith found faults with one another as a result of their differences and among the complaints lodged by Ahl ur-Ra’y against Ahl ul-Hadith is that they amassed transmissions while comprehending and reflecting very little upon them.
Ahl ul-Hadith lodged the complaint against Ahl ur-Ra’y that they took Aql or ‘Reason’ as a means for giving judgments and relied on speculation.
The first book written on Usul, ar-Risalah by Imam ash-Shafi’ee, was actually requested by and written for Abd ar-Rahman bin Mahdi, one of the A’immah of the school of Ahl ul-Hadith.
The original exposition of Usul by Imam ash-Shafi’ee was adopted by others and additional ‘Usul’ were added to it, such as ‘Istihsan’, Ijma’ of Ahl ul-Madinah, and Maslahah al-Mursalah.
[My points] This leads to the next point, and that is the Mutakallimeen are considered to be among those who took up the Usul as laid down by ash-Shafi’ee and added to it. Their Usul are distinguished from that of Imam ash-Shafi’ee precisely because of what they added to it. There is no attribution of Imam ash-Shafi’ee to their school rather they simply adopted his Usul, after the fact, and this differs from the example of Ahl ul-Hadith in that Imam ash-Shafi’ee was from among their school in Usul and merely expounded what the majority of them were upon.
Dr. Sha’ban goes on to make the distinction of the path of the Fuqaha and that of the Mutakallimeen in his explanation of the direction that people took the Usul of ash-Shafi’ee after the fact. The Tariqah of the Fuqaha is populated with Hanafi jurists who authored the first books of Usul and added to that of ash-Shafi’ee.
Among the scholars of the Tariqah of the Fuqahah are: al-Karkhi (Hanafi- 304H), his student-Abu Bakr ar-Razi al-Jassas (Hanafi- 270H), ad-Dabusi (Shafi’ee- 430H), al-Bazdawi (?- 482H), as-Sarkhasi (Hanafi- 490H).
It should be pointed out, that al-Karkhi was declared by adh-Dhahabi as the ‘chief of of I’tizal’, may Allah forgive him. Likewise his student al-Jassas is also said to have inclined towards I’tizal, specifically in regards to ar-Ru’yah of Allah, and again we ask Allah to forgive him.
The first 2 scholars to author texts on Usul after ash-Shafi’ee were scholars who inclined towards I’tizal, and they adopted and added to the work of ash-Shafi’ee- whatever they preserved from the Usul of ash-Shafi’ee is good and whatever they added to it of Kalam, Aql, and other Usul is not from ash-Shafi’ee, rather it is from the Mu’tazilah.
Among the scholars of the Tariqah of the Mutakallimeen are: Abd ul-Jabbar al-Mu’tazili (415H), at-Tayyib al-Mu’tazili (436H), al-Juwayni (Shafi’ee- 478H), al-Ghazzali (505H). Dr. Sha’ban states that these 4 scholars wrote the pivotal books in the path of the Mutakallimeen, and Fakhr ar-Razi (606H) and al-Amidee (631H) abridged those works.
Again, I must point out the basis for my assertion that the first 2 scholars in both schools were from the Mu’tazilah, and this in fact is the source and origin of the Usul of Kalam, Aql, and Mantiq added to the Usul of Imam ash-Shafi’ee and never added to the Usul of Ahl ul-Hadeeth.
In the beginning of the 7th century Hijree the two paths of the Hanafiyyah and the Mutakallimeen were reconciled and combined, and this was pointed out by Ibn as-Sa’ati (694H), Ubayd Allah bin Mas’ud (747H) and Taj ad-Din as-Subki (771H).
What can be deceptive is the complete and utter lack of mention of the Mu’tazilah on the part of the Asha’irah and Mutakallimeen in citing the origins of their paths (Tariqat) in Usul, and the lack of mention of the 2 original schools- Ahl ul-Hadith and Ahl ur-Ra’y. They like to give the impression that the roots of their paths are found in Companions like Umar RA and Ibn Mas’ud RA, Tabi’een, Atba’ at-Tabi’een, and Imam ash-Shafi’ee.
Rather the lack of mention of the Mu’tazilee origins and the dispraise of Kalam and the Mutakallimeen on the part of Ahl ul-Hadith and many scholars throughout time seems intentional much of the time. The Asha’irah and Maturidiyyah are the offspring of the marriage between the Mu’tazilah and Ahl ur-Ra’y, as history shows, and their mistakes are in applying Kalam, Mantiq, and Aql to the Attributes, the Qur’an and Sunnah. The contributions of the Mutakallimeen are in their application of the above ‘additional’ Istimdad al-Usul to the organization and categorization of Fiqh, and their largest mistakes are in applying it Aqidah.
Allahu A’lam
