The Importance of Rulings
Imam al-Juwayni said:
Whoever does not understand the rational rulings cannot be called intelligent.
The significance of understanding rulings is famously put by al-Juwayni.
The intellectual and practical importance of grasping these clear and definite affirmations and negations for rational rulings is critical. They form the foundation for sound reasoning and informed decision-making within both everyday life and religious practice.
Ruling (Hukm)
A ruling (hukm) refers to a statement that either affirms or negates something in relation to another entity. This process of affirmation or negation is characterized by clarity and definiteness. For instance, statements such as ‘coffee is enjoyable,’ ‘the weather is hot,’ ‘the midday prayer is obligatory,’ and the ‘ablution is mandatory for prayer’ are all examples of rulings. Each of these statements provides a clear and definite stance on the subject matter, whether it be a sensory observation or a religious obligation.
The word ‘judgment’ can be used as well for hukm.
Fuzzy Statement
A fuzzy statement refers to a statement that is, ‘subjectively stated and often represents an opinion rather than an objective truth.’
These statements lack the clarity and definitiveness of rulings (ahkam) and can lead to misunderstandings, as they are based more on personal perspective than factual accuracy. For example, declaring something like “this food is the best” is subjective and may not hold true for everyone. It is important for believers to recognize that such fuzzy statements are not ahkam, although uninformed individuals might mistakenly consider them so. Aspiring to higher truth (siddiq) in the ahkam means striving to understand and articulate matters with clarity and precision, rather than dwelling in the ambiguity and subjectivity of fuzzy statements.
Absurd Statement
An absurd statement or notion refers to, ‘something that is or cannot be.’
It is a statement that is inherently contradictory or logically impossible. It denotes an idea or assertion that does not or cannot exist within the realm of reality. Such statements defy logic and reason, making them disconnected from any factual or rational basis.
Three Types of Rulings (Ahkam)
Understanding the three types of rulings (ahkam) is foundational knowledge that underpins the studies of mantiq (logic), aqidah (creed), and kalam (theology).
Rulings and judgments can be used synomously for ahkam.
These rulings are categorized into three distinct types:
- Rational ruling (hukm ‘aqli).
- Normative/nomic ruling (hukm adi’).
- Legal/revelational ruling (hukm shar’i).
Rational rulings (hukm ‘aqli) pertains to logical and intellectual judgments. Normative ruling (hukm adi’) involves customary and habitual practices. Legal rulings (hukm shar’i), also called Revelatory rulings, encompasses the religious laws and obligations prescribed by Islamic jurisprudence. Each type of ruling plays a critical role in forming a comprehensive understanding of Islamic thought and practice, serving as the essential framework for further scholarly exploration and application in various fields of theology.
If a ruling cannot be reached except by appealing to revelation, then it is always a legal ruling (hukm shar’i). The validity of revelation as a standard of judgement relies on the truth of Islam and its proofs.
If a ruling can be reached by means other than revelationn, then either this judgement requires repeated experimentation or not. If yes, then it is said to be a normative ruling (hukm ‘adi).
If a judgment requires neither an appeal to revelation, nor normative observation, then it is said to be a rational ruling (hukm ‘aqli).
Rational Ruling (Hukm ‘Aqli)
A rational ruling (hukm ‘aqli) is a statement that is established purely through reason, without the need for empirical observation.
The proposition is judged according to the law of identity. To perform a rational judgement, one considers what it means for the subject of the proposition to be itself, with respect to what is being affirmed or negated from it. Judgement then depends on whether or not an absurdity entails from affirming the relation.
For example: an “even number” is an integer that is divisible by two. Being divisible by two is therefore true about an even number by virtue of what it is. Thus, the proposition “even numbers are divisible by two” is true by rational necessity. You do not need to check all even numbers to determine their divisibility by two, nor do you need to resort to probabilistic generalizations based on the repeated testing of some even numbers. Rather, you know that “even numbers are divisible by two” by merely understanding what it means for an even number to be what it is.
Such a ruling can take one of three forms:
- It must be.
- It is.
- It cannot be.
These options reflect the logical necessity, existence, or impossibility of the subject matter. Importantly, there is no moral responsibility attached to what is rationally true or not true; it is purely a matter of intellectual discernment. For example, the statement ‘a square has four sides’ is a rational ruling based on the inherent definition of a square, and ‘the Creator can only be One’ is a rational ruling derived from the principles of monotheism. These statements are accepted as intellectually necessary and resonate with logical consistency.
This ruling is covered more in: The Rational Rulings (Hukm Aqli).
Normative Ruling (Hukm ‘Adi)
A normative ruling (hukm ‘adi) is a statement that affirms or negates a relationship between two things based on repeated observation, without asserting causality and acknowledging the possibility of exceptions. This type of ruling is established through empirical observation and becomes accepted as normal due to its consistency in occurrence. For instance, the statements ‘fire burns,’ ‘food satiates,’ ‘medicine cures,’ and ‘knives cut’ exemplify normative rulings. These statements affirm that one phenomenon (A) is associated with another phenomenon (B), such as fire (A) causing burning (B).
However, all observed causes and effects are normative, meaning they are possible but not absolute. In Islamic thought, Muslims do not affirm inherent causality in these observations; they recognize that while fire is expected to burn, it is rationally possible that fire may not burn in certain instances. This understanding reflects the belief that all causes and effects ultimately come from God. Thus, Muslims affirm things rationally but remain mindful of God’s omnipotence and ability to will any outcome.
Legal Ruling (Hukm Shar’i)
The command of the Lawgiver to those morally responsible (mukallaf) to make an action required, interdicted, or allowed. For example, Zuhr prayer is obligatory, wine is prohibited, coffee is permitted.
Belief itself is an action of the heart.