The Evolution of Fiqh(10. DIFFERENCES AMONG THE UMMAH)

In the preceding chapters the writer has endeavored to trace and

account for the historical development of Madh-habs, schools of

Islamic legal thought, and to show their overall contributions to the

progressive enrichment and unifying character of Fiqh within the

Muslim world. It has been amply demonstrated that the liberal

thinking which characterized the early Imaams and their Madh-habs,

from the time of the Prophet (s.w.) down through the ages, has been

staidly replaced by a certain rigidity and dogmatism. Since the late

thirteenth century, not only have the madh-habs become spawning

grounds of sectarianism, but Fiqh has lost its original vitality which

was enshrined in the principle of Ijtihaad and thus it has not been

able to keep pace with changing circumstances. As a result of Madhhab

sectarianism and Fiqh inflexibility, the traditional purity, unity

and dynamism of Islaam have been threatened throughout the

Muslim world.

In this final chapter the writer will examine the phenomenon

of differences and disagreement (Ikhtilaaf) in the light of the

positions of early scholars and their students. He will also endeavor

to reinforce the fact that while differences of opinion are inevitable,

unreasoning disagreement and sectarianism have no place in the

religion of Islaam which Allaah in His wisdom revealed to His

Prophet (s.w.).
 

In treating the historical development (and evolution) of the

Madh-habs and the concurrent growth of Fiqh into a full-fledged

Islamic science, we have seen that the great Imaams and founders of

the Madh-habs generally adopted the stand that:

(a) Madh-habs singly or in their totality were not infallible and

(b) The following of any one Madh-hab was not obligatory for

Muslims.

Yet the pervasive influence of Taqleed has resulted, among other

things, in a complete turnabout, so much so, that for centuries now

the position taken by the generality of Muslims is that the four

Madh-habs are divinely ordained the therefore infallible; the legal

rulings of each of those Madh-habs are all sound and correct;

everyone must follow one of the four Madh-habs; a Muslim should

not change his or her Madh-hab; and it is wrong to pick and choose

rulings across Madh-habs. As a corollary to these beliefs, it has been

state that anyone who dares openly to deny the infallibility of all four

Madh-habs or the obligation to follow one to these Madh-habs is

considered an accursed innovator and apostate.
 

In the 20th century the most commonly used epithet for

describing such an apostate has been the label Wahhabi (pronounced

Wahhaabee). Another similarly abusive term, which is used mostly

in India and Pakistan, is Ahl-i-Hadeeth, Incidentally, both of these

terms are in reality misnomers, as the following explanatory

comments will reveal.

In the years 1924-25 the followers of Muhammad ibn

‘Abdul-Wahhab (1703-1787) zealously all structures built over

graves of the Sahaabah and other revered persons in the cemeteries

of the holy cities of Makkah and Madeenah. The so called Wahhabis

were also opposed to Tawassul (seeking intercession from the dead),

which had become a widespread practice among the masses of

Muslims as well as among many scholars. Since Tawassul and the

attachment to monuments and shrines had long been ingrained in the

Muslim world, the destructive act of the Wahhabis in 1924-25

appeared to be innovative and extremist; hence the application of the

epithet Wahhabi to “accursed innovators” and “apostate”. It should

be noted, however, that ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab, founder of the

Wahhabi movement, followed the Fiqh of the Hambalee Madh-hab

and that his present-day followers continue to do so
.

Furthermore, in opposing Tawassul and destroying

monuments and shrines to the dead, the twentieth-century

descendants and followers of Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab were attacking

anti-Islamic practices. The prophet (s.w.) had ordered the demolition

of all idols and statues, and the leveling of all tombs with the

surrounding earth, according to and authentic Hadeeth reported by

‘Alee ib Abee Taalib and collected by the great Hadeeth scholar

Muslim ibn Hajjaj. Sahih Muslim Sunan

Abu Dawud (English Trans.), vol.2, pp. 914-5, no. 3212. The next of the

Hadeeth is narrated by Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadee who reported that ‘Alee

ibn Abee Taalib said to him “Shall I send you as the Messenger of Allaah

sent me? To deface evry statue of picture in houses and level all 
 elevated graves.”

 From the above it should now be clear that the

word Wahhabi applied to mean “accursed innovator” and “apostate”

is in fact a mislabel.

Similarly, the term Ahl-i-Hadeeth (Ar. Ahl al-Hadeeth) was

a title of respect and praise given to scholars in the past who like

Imaam Maalik, devoted much time and effort to the specialized study

of Hadeeth. Towards the end of the nineteenth century this title was

adopted by a reform movement in India and Pakistan which called

for a return to the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth as the basis of Fiqh and

which opposed the dogmatic adherence to Madh-habs. 
However,present day Madh-hab fanaticism and sectarianism
 have distorted the meaning of the term Ahl-i-Hadeeth to 
apply to one who fanatically

opposes the following of any of the Madh-habs.

The irony is that, in light of our insight into the historical

evolution of the Madh-habs and concurrent development of Fiqh, the

true deviants from the teachings of Islaam are not the so-called

Wahhabi and Ahl-i-Hadeeth, but those people who would rigidly

insist on every Muslim following one or another of the four Madhhabs

and on their believing blindly in the infallibility of all four

Madh-habs, despite certain glaring contradictions in their rulings on

points of Islamic law. Yet it must be acknowledged that those who

advocate blind following (Taqleed), are often very sincere in their

belief in the infallibility of all four Madh-habs. Futhermore many

scholars are included in their ranks.

Under the heading Taqleed Restricted to the Four Matha-hib, the

author of Taqleed and Ijtihad writes: “It was realized from the exposition of

the Wujub of Taqleed that adoption of different verdicts leads to anarchy.

How then do those who insist on Taqleed reconcile the

known differnces and contradictions from Madh-hab to Madh-hab

with their belief in the infallibility of all four Madh-habs? Some of

them claim that the Madh-habs were divinely ordained and the

Prophet (s.w.) himself prophesied their coming. Most often,

however, they rest their case, mainly on the evidence of the

following Hadeeths:

(a) “Disagreement among my nation is mercy.”Al.baihaqqee

(b) “Differences among my Sahaabah are a mercy for you.”
 reported by Jaabir

(c) “My Sahaabah are like stars. You will be guided by whichever of

them you follow.”

 Allegedly reported by Ibn ‘Umar and collected by Ibn Battah in al-

Ibaanah, Ibn ‘Asaakir, and NidHaam al-Mulk in al-Amaalee, quoted in

Silsilah al- Ahaadeeth ad-Da’eefah wa al-Mawdoo’ah, (Beirut: al-Maktab

al-Islaamee, 3rd ed., 1972), vol. 1, p. 82

(d) “Verily my Sahaabah are like stars. You will be guided by any

statement of theirs you adopt.”

Allegedly reported by Ibn ‘Abbaas and collected by al-Khateeb al-

Baghdaadee in al-Kifaaayah fee ‘Ilm ar-Rawaayah, (Cairo: Daar al-Kutub

al-Hadeethah, 2nd . ed. , 1972)

(e) “I asked my Lord about the things in which my companions will

differ after my death and Allaah revealed to me: ‘Oh

Muhammad, verily to Me, your companions are like stars in the

sky, some brighter than others. Sohe who follwos anything over

is therefore, imperative to make Taqleed of Madh-hab which has been so

formulated and arranged in regard to principles (Usul) and details (Furu)

that answers to all questions could be obtained....thereby obviating the need

to refer to an to external source. This all-embracing quality, by an act of

Allaah Ta’ala, is found existing in only the four Matha-hib. It is therefore,

imerative to adopt one of four Matha-habs.” 
Maulana Muhammad Maseehullah Khan Sherwani’s Taqleed 
and Ijtihad (Port Elizabeth, SouthAfrica: The Majlis, 1980), published by Majlisul Ulama of South Africa.p. 13.

which they (the Sahaabah) have differed, as far as I am

concerned, he will be following guidance’.”

Allegedly reported by Ibn ‘Umar and collected by Ibn Battah in al-

Ibaanah, Ibn ‘Asaakir, and NidHaam al-Mulk in al-Amaalee and quoted in

Silsilah al-Ahaadeeth ad-Da’eefah, vol.1, pp. 80-81.

However, before these Hadeeths can be accepted as evidence for

sectarianism, they must be clearly shown to be authentic. An

examination of these Hadeeths has indeed been made by eminent

scholars and their conclusions are recorded hereafter.

As for the Hadeeths in which the Prophet (s.w.) was

supposed to have foretold the coming of the Imaams and their Madhhabs,

the authentic ones are all generally worded with no specific

mention of either the names of the Imaams or their Madh-habs, while

those Hadeeths that are specifically worded are all fabricated.

For example al-Khateeb collected a Hadeeth arrtibuted to the Prophet

(s.w.) through Abu Hurayrah in which he was supposed to have said,

“There will be among my Ummah a man called Abu Haneefah, he will be

the lamp of my Ummah.” 
Al-Khateebs himself and al-Haakim declared it

Mawdoo’ (forged), among the fabrications of Muhammad ibn Sa’eed al-

Marwazee (Muhammad ibn ‘Alee ash-Shawkaanee, al-Fawaa’id al-

Majmoo’ah, (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islaamee,2nd ed., 1972), p. 320, no.

1226). Al-Khateeb collected another report through Anas in which the

Prophet (s.w.) was quoted as saying, “There will come after me a man

called an-Nu’maan ibn Thaabit, pet-named Abu Haneefah. Allaah’s religion

and my Sunnah will be revived by him.” It has in its chain of narrators

Ahmad al-Juwaybaaree, a known fabricator of Hadeeths and Muhammad

ibn Yazeed as-Salamee, whose narrationsa are classified unacceptable

(Matrouk) by Hadeeth scholars. (‘Alee ibn ‘Iraaq, Tanzeeh ash-Sharee’ah

al-Marfoo’ah (Beirut: Daar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmeeyah, 1979), vol2, p.30,no.10)

With regard to “Hadeeth” (a) above, it has no chain of

narration connecting it to anyone, much less to the Prophet (s.w.);

nor is it to be found in any of the books of Hadeeth. Narraded by al-Manaawee from the great Hadeeth scholar as-Subkee.

 It is therefore

incorrect ot even refer to is as a Hadeeth, as it is fabricated. With

regard to “Hadeeths” (b) to (e) above, although they can be found in

books of Hadeeth or about Hadeeth, they have all proven to be

unauthentic. The first is classified by Hadeeth scholars as Waahin

(extremely weak)
 Silsilah al-Ahaadeeth ad-Da’eefah was al-Mawdoo’ah, vol.1, p.80.

, the second and third as Mawdoo’ (fabricated)Ibid., pp.78-79 and 82-83.

and the fourth as Baatil (false).Ibid., p..81.

Thus, the Hadeeth evidence for the

glorification and perpetuation of differences among Madh-habs, is

totally unacceptable from the point of view of authenticity.

Not only are these so-called Hadeeths unauthentic, but their very

meanings are in obvious conflict with the Qur’aan itself. Throughout

the Qur’aan’s one hundred and fourteen chapters, Allaah has clearly

cursed and forbidden religious desagreement and has ordered unity

and agreement. Disagreement has been explicity forbidden in verses

such as:

“Do not dispute among yourselves and cause your

own failure and loss of power”Soorah al-Anfaal (8):46.

and

“Do not be like those among the idolaters who

split up their religion into sects, each group

happy with what they had”.Soorah ar-Room (30): 31-32.

Implicitly, too, Allaah has forbidden it, for example,

“If your Lord had so willed, He could have made

mankind one people; but they will not cease to

dispute, except those on whom your Lord has

bestowed His mercy.” Soorah Hood (11): 118-119.

If Allaah’s mercy puts an end to dispute among men as is implied in

the above, how then could disagreement and dispute be a mercy? In

the unmistakable terms of the following verse and others like it,

Allaah has ordered unity and agreement:

“Hold fast to the rope of Allaah together and do

not split up. And remember Allaah’s mercy on

you when you were enemies, then He put love in

your hearts and with His blessing you all became

brothers.”Soorah Aal ‘Imraan (3): 103.
 

 

In view of these clear Qur’anic condemnations, how then do

we account for the disagreement which occured at times among the

Prophet’s (s.w.) companions (SahaabahO and the early scholars of

Fiqh?

The differences of opinion which occured among the

Sahaabah were for the most part natural and unavoidable. A large

portion of it was due to their different reasoning abilities which

showed up in their various interpretations of Qur’anic verses and

Hadeeths. There were other causes which led to differences during

their time which later disappeared; for example, the wide distribution

of Hadeeths made it impossible for any individual Sahabee to be

aware of them all, and thus wrong dicisions were bound to be made

where information was lacking. Obviously, they cannot be blamed

for these and similar mistakes, which were not intentional.
 

Furthermore, it is clear that they readily corrected their wrong

decisions when authentic information or more relevant evidence

indicated that this should be done. It is this willingness to cast aside

wrong decisions in the search for truth which excludes these

conflicting rulings from the category of accursed disagreements. In

this connection, the messenger of Allaah (s.w.) had said, “If a judge

strives his utmost and makes a correct ruling, he receives two

rewards, but if he strives and errs he still receives one.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari
 Based on this Hadeeth, the Sahaabah are considered
 absolved from blame for

conflicting rulings. However, any discrepencies apparent in their

differnt rulings are not to be glorified and perpetuated. In fact they

themselves disliked disagreements, as is shown in the following

narration quoted by ash-Shaafi’ee’s student, al-Muzanee: ‘Umar ibn

al-Khattaab, the second Righteous Caliph, got angry because of a

dispute between the Sahaabee, ubayy ibn Ka’b, and another

Sahaabee, Ibn Mas’ood, wver the performance of Salaah in a single

piece of cloth. Ubayy considered in quite alright while Ibn Mas’ood

felt that was so only when cloth was scarce. ‘Umar angrily left his

residence and declared, “Have two of Allaah’s messenger’s

companions disagreed and they are among those whom the masses

watch closely and imitate? Ubayy is correct and Ibn Mas’ood should

desist! If I hear of anyone disputing about this matter after this point,

I will deal with him.”
Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm, vol. 2, pp. 83-4.
 

Indeed, the early scholars well aware of the causes of

differences among the Sahaabah and the tendency for people to want

to perpetuate them. Accordingly, they made definitive statements on

the matter in an effort to stave off dogmatism and sectarianism based

on conflicting rulings of the Sahaabah. The following are a few

examples of their statements on this vital subject. Ibn al-Qaasim,

who was among the main students of Imaam Maalik, said, “I heard

Maalik and al-Layth both say the following concerning the

differences among the Sahaabah: ‘People say there is leeway for

them in it, but it is not so; it was a case of wrong and right rulings’”

Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm, vol. 2, pp. 81-82.

Ash-hab, another of Imaam maalik’s students, said, “Maalik

was once asked whether one was safe to follow a ruling related to

him by reliable narrators who had heard it from companions of the

Prophet (s.w.). He replied, ‘No, by Allaah, not unless it is correct:

the truth is only one. Can two opposing ominions be simultaneously

correct? The opinion which is correct can be only one.’”
Ibid., vol.2, pp. 82, 88, 89.

Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee’s student, al-Muzanee, put it this way,

“The companions of Allaah’s Messenger (s.w.) disagreed from time

to time and declared each other mistaken. Some of them examined

the statements of others and researched them thoroughly. Therefore,

if all of them felt that whatever they said was correct, they would

never have investigated each other’s statements or declared each

other mistaken.” Al-Muzanee also said, “The following question

should be put to the one who allows disagreement, claiming that if

two scholars strive to strive at a decision concerningthe same

incident on eruling that it is “Halaal” and the other that it is

“Haraam”, both are correct. ‘Are you basing that judgement on a

fundamental text (the Qur’aan or the Sunnah) or on Qiyaas

(analogical deduction)?’ If the claims that it is by Qiyaas, he should

be asked, ‘How could the fundamental text reject dispute and you in

turn deduce from it that ispute is allowded?’ No common person

capable of reason would allow that, much less a scholar.”
Jaami’Bayaan al-‘Ilm, vol. 2, p. 89.

Although the Sahaabah differed in the application of some

principles, they used to go to extremes to preserve an appearance of

unity and avoid things which would divide their ranks. But, among

later scholars and followers who blindly and dogmatically clung to

the inherited Madh-habs, we find the complete opposite. As was

previously mentioned, their differenes at one point led to the splitting

of their rands over Salaah (formal prayer), the greatest pillar of

Islaam after the two testimonies of belief.

Conservative sectarians among later scholars at times carried

their differnces even beyond that extreme, making rulings which

struck at the very heart of the brotherhood and unity of Islaam. For

example, Imaam Abu Haneefah alone among the early Imaams felt

that Eemaan (belief) neither decreased nor increased; one eiter

believed or he disbelieved.

The position is at variance with both Qur’aan and Hadeeth. Allaah

described true believers as “Those whose Eemaan increases when people

tell them to beware the (enemy) which has gathered to attack them”

(3:173). Elsewhere we find, “And if His signs are read to them, their

Eemaan increases.” (8:2) The prophet (s.w.) also said, “None of you

believes until I become more beloved to him than his offspring, father, and

opinion, a ruling was made by later scholars of the Madh-hab stating

that if one is asked the question, “Are you a believer?” It is Haraam

to reply, “I am a believer, if Allaah so wills it,” as it implied that one

is in doubt about the existence of his belief.
 

On the basis of Abu Haneefah’s  According to the

Ijmaa’ of the scholars, doubt about one’s belief is equivalent to

disbelief (Kufr). Therefore, one should reply, “I am truly a believer”

This line of reasoning is clearlycontradicted by the following Hadeeth in

which the Prophet (s.w.) taught us to make the following prayer at

graveyards: “Peace be on the believing and submitting people of these

abodes, may Allaah have mercy on our predecessors and our Successors.

And Allaah willing, we will be joining you all”
  Sahih Muslim

 The Prophet (s.w.) was not in doubt about dying.

The implied but unstated meaning of this ruling was that

the followers of the other schools of thought were in doubt about

their Eemaan and thus in disbelief. This was never state dby early

Hanafee school, but some later scholars deduced from it the ruling

that followers of the Hanafee Madh-hab were prohibited from

marrying followers of the Shaafi’ee Madh-hab Which was the

second most prominent Madh-hab at that time. This deductin was

later over-ruled by scholars of the Hannafee Madh-hab, Ibn Abee al-‘Izz, Sharh al-‘Aqeedah at-Tahaaweeyah, (Beirut: al-Maktab

al-Islaamee, first edition , 1972), pp. 395-397.

 but stands as historical evidence documenting the dangers 
of sectarianism  all mankind.” 
The negation here is taken to be a negation of perfection and

not a negation of existence; otherwise, none of us could be considered

Muslims.  al-Bukhaaree  Sahih Muslim

The new ruling was made by the famous Hanafee scholar titled, “Muftee

ath-Thaqalayn”, who allowd the marriage of Shaafi’ite women on the basis

of the allowance of marriage to christian and Jewish women (Zayn ad-Deen

Nujaym, quoted by the 16th century Egyptian Hanafee scholar in his eight

volume work entitled al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq. However, this ruling implied that

Hanafite women were still not allowed to marry Shaafi’ite men just as they

cannot marry chiristian and Jewish men!
 

1. The position of the generality of Muslims is that the four Madhhabs

are infallible, everyone must follow one of them and

followers must not change Madh-habs or pick rulings from other

Madh-habs.
(Under the heading Math-bah of the Convert the author of Taqleed andIjtihad writes: “If such a person lives in a place where a particular Math-habis happens to be in a place where several Matha-hib are in 0peration on a more or less equivalent basis, then the will be free to choose any Math-hab acceptable to him. However, once the choice is made, he will be obliged toremain steadfast on the Math-hab of his choice.” (p.13))

2. One who does not subscribe to the infallibility of the Madh-habs

or does not follow any of the four Madh-habs is commonly, but

mistakenly classified as a heretic and mislabelled either

“Wahhabi” or “Ahl-i-Hadeeth”.

3. The Hadeeths used to defend Madh-hab sectarianism are either

misinterpreted or unauthentic.

4. The Qur’aan explicity and implicity condemns conflict and

dispute among Muslims.

5. Differences among the Sahaabah were due to varying

interpretational abilities and the extent to which they were

exposed to Hadeeths of the Prophet (s.w.). Their different rulings

were not rigidly clung to in the face of evedence to the contrary.

6. Early scholars emphasized the fact that only those rulings of the

Sahaabah, which were proven to be correct in the long run were

to be followed as correct.

7. Disagreements among the Sahaabah never led to disunity and

division amongst them, whereas, among later scholars of the

Madh-hab, differences evolved into disharmony among

Muslims.