The Differences among the Ummah

After seeing the overall contributions to the progressive enrichment and unifying character of Fiqh in the Muslim world, and seeing that the early generations exhibited a certain liberalness in their thinking (i.e. they were not restricted, they expressed their ideas freely, sometimes even opposing the Caliph and suffering), the reality is that in time this free approach became closed and rigid and the Muslim Ummah suffered as scholarship closed in itself, Ijtihad was banned, and people went into blind following. What this then produced was four schools of law, all of which people were told were correct, and regardless of whom you followed you were on the right path.

The schools of Fiqh became a source of division among the Ummah, instead of being a source of added information as it was in the early days and it is important for us at the end of it all to be able to handle those initial questions that we began with:- The question with regards to the Madhhab – Whether we should abandon them all together, take one and follow it, or create our own Madhhab. 

Some people have stated that the idea of functioning without a Madhhab is itself a Madhhab. The fact of the matter is that functioning without a specified Madhhab is indeed a Madhhab but what we propose is that it was the original Madhhab, and the approach of the founders of the Schools of Islamic law.  

The arguments which people commonly use to justify the differences are through quoting these so called Hadiths of the Prophet: “My companions are like stars, if you follow any one of them you will be rightly guided” and the “Differences among my Ummah are a mercy from Allah” and other similar narrations. The reality is that these narrations are between outright fabrications and extremely weak hadiths that can’t be used as evidences.

Fundamentally, the very idea that differences can be a mercy contradicts the Qur’an texts. The Qur’an prohibits excessive disagreements and argumentation. Allah says in (8:46):

In (30:31-32):

This is a description of the situation today.

In (11:118):

(3:103):

Allah indicates his mercy is with those who don’t dispute. 

However, disagreement is something unavoidable as interpretation is always going to breed some differences. But how does one handle them? Does one label a person he disagrees with a deviant, isolate them, and try to get people to follow the norm? No. If a person brings an opinion based on evidence, then his evidence is just as valid as those who came after him.

We cannot remove all differences. The best of generations, the companions, differed. Reality is differences will exist, the question is what we do with these differences. If we allow the differences to split our ranks we suffer the consequence, but if we allow effort to be made to bring parties together and resolve differences then that’s what we will see.We shouldn’t allow our differences to drive wedges between our hearts.

The basic position we should take is that differences are resolvable and we should sit down and try to as much as possible. If we end up with two strongly supported opinions by Hadiths then we can say you have two options. But the Imams held that the Madhhabs were not infallible and people were free to what they considered authentic. The attitude of many people who are locked into a Madhhab is that they find it unacceptable that people would  not consistently follow all the opinions held by any given Maddhab andwhat they have done is develop a series of labels for people who don’t conform with their norm. This is the greatest challenge people involved in having a new look at Fiqh and its development without being bogged down and trapped in the Madhhab quagmire have.

There are two main terms used to describe anyone who opposes the standard approach to Madhhab:

1)     Wahhabi – This is taken from Muhammed ibn AbdulWahhab, a scholar from the 18^th century who led a movement of revival; calling people back to the Qur’an and Sunnah as it was originally understood, attacking seeking intercession from the dead, building structure over graves, etc. He appeared heretical because those practices had become so widespread. Those who opposed what people followed came to be known as innovators, although they were merely revivers.

2)     Ahlul Hadeeth – This term was originally used for scholars like Imam Bukhari, Muslim, etc. but in later generations it came to mean one who deviated from the way of Madhhabs.

The fact of the matter is that both these movements had a major impact in reviving Ijtihad, thinking, and people stepping out of the confines of the Madhhab and taking opinions and ideas from the other schools based on evidence. This is really what we have to come to in the end.

One has to be tolerant of other positions and willing to hear the arguments of the other side.