The Differences between the Companions

There were differences that occurred during and after the lifetime of the Prophet and they were differences which were a consequence of differences of opinion resulting from different interpretations. Some texts have more than one possible interpretation where we don’t have clear evidence to indicate one or the other.

 The compilation of everything the Prophet said didn’t take place at his time, so it was possible that some companions didn’t know a Hadith which others did, which led them to differ.

Umar bin Khattab heard of a dispute between Ubayy bin Ka’b and Ibn Masoud over the issue of praying in a single piece of cloth. Ubayy was of the opinion that it was correct, while Ibn Masoud disagreed. Umar bin Khattab became very upset and called on both of them and said, “Have two of Allah’s Messengers companions disagreed and you are among those whom the masses watch closely and imitate?”

Disagreement which occurs externally can create an environment of disagreement if it is not kept under control.

He went on to say, “Ubayy is correct and Ibn Masoud should desist, and if I hear anyone disputing of this matter  after this I will deal with them”

We find that Ibn AlQasim (the student of Imam Layth and Malik) said he heard both of them say regarding the disagreements of the companions, “People say there is leeway for them in it, but it was not so – it was a case of right and wrong rulings”

This doesn’t mean every single difference was this case, there are cases where there are two options because they were both based on practices of the Prophet. However, most of the differences which had to do with their opinions were issues of right and wrong.

Imam Malik was asked by one of his students if it was correct to follow a narration indicating a ruling made by a companion. He said, “No, by Allah not unless it is correct; the truth is only one. Can two opposing opinions be simultaneously correct? The opinion which is correct can only be one”

Al-Muzani argued that a person who allows disagreements, claiming that both scholars strove to arrive at a decision, even though one said it is Halal and the other Haraam, should be asked whether he is basing that conclusion on a fundamental text (from the Qur’an and Sunnah) or Qiyas. If he claims that it was based on a fundamental text, how could a fundamental text support it, when the fundamental text opposes disagreement? If it is by Qiyas, then if the fundamental text is opposed to disagreement, and you have deduced a ruling from it, then the ruling must be one which somehow implies that disagreement is not correct. How can you deduce a ruling from a fundamental text which is completely opposite to what the fundamental text says? This is illogical.

The approach of the companions in general is that whenever a Hadith came to the contrary they would accept it and give up whatever position they held. We find Imam Malik doing this as well.