The Evolution of Fiqh (11 CONCLUSION)

From the preceding chapters we have seen that the Madhhab

has gone through four basic stages as a result of the effects of the

following factors: conditions of the Muslim state (unity, disunity),

status of religious leadership (unified and orthodox, or fragmented

and unorthodox) and communication among scholars. When the state

was a single body, the leadership was unified and orthodox, and

Muslim scholars were close to each other thereby facilitating

communication. At that time there was only one Madh-hab, whether

that of the Prophet (s.w.) or tha tof each of the Righteous Caliphs.

There followed a breakdown of political and religious
 leadership within the relatively unified state
 (under Umayyad and ‘Abbaasid rule),

 and the dispersion of the leading scholars throughout the

empire. Consequently, a large number of Madh-habs arose as

scholars in various parts of the state were obliged to make rulings

without benefit of that close consultation which had existed when

communication was not a problem. Characteristically, these scholars

managed to retain the flexibility of former times, readily discarding

their individual rulings in favor of the rulings of others which were

based on more authentic or comprehensive Hadeeths. Subsequently,

in the latter part of the ‘Abbaasid dynasty, scholars were caught up in

the political rivalry resulting from the splintering of state leadership.

The situation was futher aggravated by the official promotion of

court debates which brought special rayal favors to individual

winners and their Madh-habs. Thereafter, it was but a step to

fanatical sectarianism for which many of the followers of the four

surviving Madh-habs became noted.
 

The Situation today is a mixture of the preceding stages.

Mass communication has brought Muslim scholars into close contact

once again, but religious leadership at the state level disappeared

long ago when the Muslim world became divided into nationalist

evtities each with its own politico-economic governmental system.

The vastly increased Muslim population of today (variously

estimated between 800 million and a billion) has been held together

by their belief in Allaah and His Prophet (s.w.) and by their

commitment to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Religious leadership

such as there is tends to be exercised in separate stated through one

of the four Madh-habs, which though less fanatic than formerly,

unfortunately continue to be sectarian and hence divisive.

However, there have been encouraging signs, especially since the

middle of this century, that the drive towards unity divinely built into

Islaam is propelling Muslims the world over towards a revival of

their religion as the decisive factor in their lives at the personal,

communal and national levels. Given the multiplicity of cultures

represented in the Muslim population and the increasing diversity of

issues and problems arising from daily living in this rapidly changing

world, many Muslims scholars have long felt that the goal of reestablishing.
 

Islaam at the supreme guide in the daily lives of

Muslims, anywhere in the world, is-achievable only by a revival of a

dynamic Fiqh such as was practiced in what we previously described

as the “Stage of flowering”. 
This implies a reunification of the

Madh-habs with all traces of fanaticism and sectarianism removed,

and the revival of Ijtihaad to make Fiqh once more a dynamic,

objectively deduced body of laws so that individual Muslim scholars

and jurists may effectively and uniformly apply the Sharee’ah in all

parts of the Muslim world, no matter what the socio-politicaleconomic

conditions.

No less important is the possible impact of such a

reformation, not only on new converts to Islsaam, but also on the

new generation of Muslims born into the faith. In the case of the

former, they would be spared the perplexing effects of conflicting

rulings from Madh-hab to Madh-hab, while in the case of the latter,

they would be spared the frustration of the sectarianism generated by

Madh-hab contradictions and avoid the tendency towards total

rejection of the Madh-habs and the outstanding contributions of early

scholars.

 

Finally, a unified Madh-hab and a dynamic body of Fiqh

envisioned above are felt to be needed in order to evolve vibrant

Islamic communities and unite such communites throughout the

world in the types of co-operative endeavors that would protect the

common interest of mankind and project Islaam on a global scale.

Assuming the desirability and validity of the twin goals of unifying

the Madh-habs and re-establishing a dynamic Fiqh, what are the

steps that might be taken towards achieving these goals? In the first

place, concerted efforts will have to be made to resolve in a truly

objective way the differences between the existing Madh-habs and

their predecessors, using the methodology of the early scholars as

defined by their statements and practices quoted in the previous

chapters.

The mechanics of initiating appropriate action calls for

enlightened leadership springing from the ranks of progressive and

influential scholars of high calibre, that is, some person or persons

imbued with the zeal to effect changes along the lines proposed will

have to take the initiative to communicate with other interested

parties with a view to planning nad organizing the procedural details.

Drawing on modern day systems approaches to problem solving,

these steps would include: objective definition of the real obstacles

to solution; selection of the nost appropriate solution; determination

of possible methods of implementation; selection of the most

appropriate method; then putting the solution into effect. At each

stage in this type of planning, the steps chosen would have to be

continuously evalutad with regard to the problems and the goals.
 

Obviously, the task of unifying the Madh-habs, and restoring

dynamic Fiqh are not susceptible to simplistic solutions, but with

Allaah’s blessings they are within the realm of possibility.

On a theoretical level, it is comparatively easy to make

sugestions for the resolutions of interpretational and application

differences among Madh-habs. The following framework, based on

the methodology of the early Imaams, has been recommended at

various times by progressive-minded Islamic scholars.

Differenes among Madh-hab’s rulings fall into two main

cetegories; firstly, conradictory differences (Ikhtilaaf Tadaadd),

totally opposite rulings which can not logically be simultaneously

correct, for example rulings in which one Madh-hab defines

something as Halaal and another difines it as Haraam, and secondly,

variational differences (Ikhtilaaf Tanawwu’), conflicting rulings

which are logically acceptable variations which can co-exist, for

example, various sitting positions used by the Prophet (s.w.) in

Salaah some of which have been preferred over others by the

different Madh-habs.
 In many cases of differences arising from

meanings (literal and figurative) of words and grammatical

constructions, there are authentic Hadeeths which specify the

meanings intended and these specified meanings should be given

preference over all other interpretations. Similarly, legal rulings

which were made according to conditions which eliminated authentic

narrations, should be regarded as invalid and should be replaced by

the rulings of other jurists which were made on the basis 
of authentic Hadeeths. 

 
As for rulings based on controversial principles or

unrestricted Qiyaas, these should be objectively examined in the

lighte of the fundamental principles of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah 
and the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah; rulings agreeing with these 
fundamentals should then be accepted and those contradicting 
them  should then be rejected. 

Outside the scope of the foregoing suggested solutions,

there remain a number of issues on which there is more than one

ruling equally supported by the Qur’aan, the Hadeeth, the Ijmaa’ of

the Shaabah or Qiyaas. The different rulings in such cases should be

treated as viable options to be applied according to circumstances

and these are a part of the logically acceptable variations mentioned

as the second category of differences in Madh-hab rulings.

This framework for the resolution of differences among the

Madh-habs could best be effected within institutions devoted to the

objective study of Fiqh; that is, institutions devoted to the objective

study of Fiqh’ that is, institutions of learning in which no Madh-hab

is given preference over another. 
 
 Islamic law could then be studied

from its primary sources, and the positions of the various 
Madh-habs could then be analyzed rationally and objectively
 as outlined previously.

 If the standard of scholarship in such centers of learning

were high, the enormous task of re-unifying the madh-habs could

then be undertaken with excellent prospects for eventual success. 
A single Madh-hab completely free from sectarianism and 
firmly based on sound scholarship, could provide not only 
trustworthy and continuing leadership for the Muslim world
 in general, but also concrete guidence to various reformist
 movements aimed at reestablishment divine law as the only
 valid basis for geverning Muslim countries. 
With success in the area of the Madh-hab reunification and

the establishment of divine law, we could then look towards the

reunification to the Ummah, the Muslim nation, and the reestablishment

of the Khilaafah, the true caliphate. This would

provide the necessary foundation for the execution of Allaah’s law

throughout the earth, if Allaah so wills it.