Jurisprudential Choices in Some Matters of Worship According to Sheikh Ahmad Kaka Mahmud (may God have mercy on him) in his Tafsir (Rāman): An Analytical Study

Abstract

This research examines the choices made by Sheikh Ahmed Kaka Mahmoud (may God have mercy on him) in his interpretation (Raman La Mana wa Mabastakani Qur'an), written in Kurdish, regarding some matters of worship related to prayer, namely: the middle prayer, shortening the prayer, and touching that invalidates ablution. This research serves as an introduction to explaining the impact of interpretation on jurisprudence, and how some interpreters have jurisprudential choices based on their understanding of the Qur'anic text. We present these choices after highlighting the opinions of the four schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. This way, if the reader encounters the choice of the author (may God have mercy on him), he will be aware that the author agrees with the opinion of one of these schools, despite his being a Shafi'i. After presenting the author's opinion, we studied and analyzed the opinions we presented, and then presented the preferred opinion. For example, regarding the issue of the middle prayer, we find that commentators differed between those who consider it the afternoon prayer, which is the view of the majority of jurists, and those who consider it the dawn prayer or another prayer. Some commentators favored one of these opinions based on contextual or historical evidence, and the author chose a ruling for this issue based on an opinion he considered less valid.

Regarding shortening the prayer, the commentator addressed the question: Does the traveler have the choice to shorten his prayer and is he able to complete it, or is it obligatory for him to complete it? He concluded by favoring the view of the majority, which states that the traveler has the choice to shorten the prayer or complete it. That is, it is Sunnah to shorten the prayer while traveling.

Regarding touching that invalidates ablution, there is disagreement among the schools of thought: According to the Hanafis, touching is considered permissible sexual intercourse. According to the Malikis and Hanbalis, touching invalidates ablution if it is done with lust. The Shafi'is consider it an absolute invalidator of ablution. The commentator chose the view that ablution is not invalidated by a man touching his wife.

This research represents a model for demonstrating the importance of choice in interpretation of jurisprudential issues.