They said: We were impressed by your article “Between Hadith and Philosophy”, benefitting from it, and thereafter, being able to distinguish between the nature of hadith and the nature of philosophy and their respective standards and measurements which are specific to each one of the sciences, thereby avoiding the conflation and confused mixing of the two. So, please expound for us the difference between hadith and fiqh in a way that eliminates any complications and obscurity.
I said: Read the article again and you will find therein a comprehensive explanation regarding that which you have asked me.
They said: Hadith and fiqh are the loftiest, most critically important of our subjects and we are in dire need of probing their depths and examining them thoroughly. Furthermore, we do not wish to misunderstand your words and thereby attribute to you that which you have not uttered.
I said: If you insist then listen.
Hadith is reporting and history, whilst fiqh is law and philosophy. Technically hadith is defined as ‘a report of the speech of the Prophet ﷺ, or his action, approval, his description or something regarding his affairs. Sometimes it is also used to refer to reports of the Companions and their Successors.’ Whilst fiqh technically is ‘knowledge of the practical sharia rulings derived from their detailed evidence from the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and the continuous practice (of the Sunnah), legal consensus, normative legal principals, and legal analogy.’
Hadith has its own methodology to confirm the reliability (of a report) whilst fiqh has its own methodology which resembles that of philosophy in determining and evidencing (the legal ruling). For example, if you wanted to know the details of the battle of Badr, or the description of the Prophet’s ﷺ prayer or his Hajj you would need to establish and authenticate (reports) in a similar fashion to the methodology of historians and chroniclers and that is precisely what the muhaddiths have done, except that they have indeed surpassed historians in general and have exceeded them in prudence, caution, attention to preservation and accuracy. This is further elaborated in books such as Imam Shafi’s ‘Risala’ and the introduction of ‘Sahih Muslim’ and in other books of usul al-hadith and its nomenclature.
When you want to know the integrals of Salah, its Sunnahs and its recommended acts, in order for you to establish them you need evidencing from the noble Quran and its various textual legal implications including its general, alluded and required implications, and from the inherited continuous practice of the Sunnah from the Prophet ﷺ to his Companions and their Successors, and the consensus of jurists, and legal maxims and principles that the righteous independent jurists relied upon, and legal analogy via identification of the legal cause or via legal comparison.
They said: Are we in need of hadith in fiqh?
I said: Yes you need it when you attribute speech or action to those of the past, because that is reporting and history, and the methodology of the muhaddiths is the finest in verifying a report or historical fact. Likewise, in fiqh you require the knowledge of the meanings of the Quran, Arabic language, medicine, and economics etc. It is incumbent for the jurist to resort to the Quran exegetists when the meaning of a verse is obscure, and to the muhaddiths when he wants to verify a report, to the linguists when the meaning of an expression in Arabic eludes him, to the medical doctors when a case is presented to him related to the medical knowledge of the body and to the economists in issues related to finance.
They said: Is it correct to oppose a fiqh ruling with hadith?
