Reasons Why Madh-habs Differ Part I

An Unfinished Masjid in Baghdaad

The Reasons for the Difference of Opinions of the Fuqahaa

All praise is due to Allaah. May the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon the Messenger of Allaah.

Although Allaah decreed that unity of this Ummah is not possible, nevertheless it is obligatory to unite upon the rope of Allaah and it was prohibited to divide. In fact in several places in the Qur’aan, we are told that those who came before us were destroyed because they divided themselves and we are commanded not to imitate them. Not all differences of opinion should cause splitting and division (and consequently fighting and declaring Jihaad against one another!). Scholars elucidated that those differences in matters where ijtihaad is allowed, differing of opinions should not affect the hearts and cause hatred and enmity.

During the time of the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم all matters were referred to him as per Qur’aanic instructions, O you who believe if you in disagreement over something refer it back to Allaah and His Messenger. (4:59)

Once when the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم sent a group of Companions on a mission to Banu Quraydha, he ordered them not to pray Asr until they reach it. So when time of Asr came, some of the companions prayed, thinking that what the Prophet meant to say was to hasten their travel so as to reach it even before Asr prayer. Other group of companions obeyed the Prophet literally and prayed the Asr prayer in Banu Quraydha although it had passed already beyond its time. After this incident they consulted the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم and he did not say anything against both groups. So during the time of the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم the difference of opinion between the Sahaabah were resolved due to the intervention of the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم himself.

Later during the time of the righteous caliphates difference of opinions amongst the Sahaabah were resolved under the decision of the Caliphs. One example is the compilation of the Qur’aan into a single book. Although, initially Abu Bakr refused the idea, his decision to undergo such task was one of the major decisions he made in his caliphate. Hence the decision of the Muslim Khaleefa is binding upon the Muslims as long as it is in accordance with the Sharee’ah. Even though it is binding upon the Khaleefa to do consultation (shoora), he is not bound by such. Example of this is the war of apostasy when some companions were of the opinion that war cannot be declared on those who don’t pay Zakaah. Yet Abu Bakr’s decision, as the Khaleefa, was binding upon them and they have to follow.

All of the above examples can be understood from the Qur’aanic verse: O you who believe, Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger, and those who are in authority (4:59)” the Khaleefa being the authority here that must obeyed – obedience that is bound to and must not contradict, the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

When the Islaamic Empire spread to the corners of the east and the west, several scholars from amongst the Sahaabah settled in different areas of the Muslim world at that time. Consequently, they carried only with them knowledge of Qur’aan and Sunnah that are known to them. Having settled in these areas, students began to gather around them and take knowledge from them. Hence several ‘schools’ evolved in these areas. Since we cannot say that a single Sahaabi knows everything about the details of Qur’aan and Sunnah in their totality, therefore, it can be said that not a single group from amongst these ‘schools’ have all the knowledge pertaining to Islam. These Sahaabah had with them a number of students who continued to practice Islam and teach it to the next generation according to how they learned it from their teachers and so on and so forth. This went on until the time of the great Imaams like Abu Haneefah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee and Imaan Ahmad and other Imaams less famous than them. Although even at this period, students of hadeeth travel to different places in the empire suffering untold hardships in order to gather the hadeeth of the Prophets, and gigantic collections of hadeeth have already been existent such as the Muwatta of Imaam Maalik and the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad, the golden age of hadeeth has yet to begun in the time of Imaam Bukhari, Imaam Muslim and the rest of the collectors of the Kutub as Sunan.

Therefore, what can be said at this point in time (the time of the Imaams of Madhhabs) is that Islaamic knowledge got scattered in the vast empire and the perfection of collection of hadeeth is yet to come. Thus, difference of rulings amongst the great Imaams of Fiqh occurred in light of these circumstances. Furthermore, after the Khulafaa ar Rashideen, Khilaafa came into the hands of less deserving people and less knowledgeable in the Sharee’ah. Ideally the Khaleefa should be knowledgeable of Islaamic issues so that he can save the Ummah from splitting due to differences in opinion.

Details of the processes of differences of opinions falls generally into the presence of evidence available, evaluation of such evidence as to its acceptability, Fiqh principles formulated by the Imaams, and natural tendency to differ of human understanding.

As we have narrated above, the expansion of the Islaamic borders causes knowledgeable Sahaabahs to dispersed and settled into these areas. Therefore not all evidence pertaining to a single issue is available for the scholars of a particular area. Alternatively, the evidence might be present but a scholar might not be able to retrieve it from memory once he made a decision.

Sociopolitical factors such as the shifting of the capital by the Caliphs to different regions away from Madeenah cause uneven distribution of ‘knowledge’ in terms of number of the Sahaabah living in an area. Naturally the more the Sahaabah is living in an area, the more the hadeeth of the Prophet صل الله عليه وسلم can be retrieved. Consequently some ‘schools’ relied more on Qiyaas than others in their rulings.

Moreover, even if the evidences are present, but differences as to its acceptability as proof in the Sharee’ah also caused difference of opinions. This is particularly true when there is a difference of opinion concerning a given narrator of a hadeeth in the Isnaad whether he is acceptable or not. This would make a hadeeth Sahih or Da’eef depending on the how a scholar evaluates a certain narrator and the conditions he sets for the acceptability of hadeeth. Thus an evidence of one scholar might not be evidence to another. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal calls a hadeeth da’eef while in reality they are actually Hasan in the definition of other scholars.

The issue of abrogation also comes to mind. An evidence might be present but an abrogating text might have had escaped a scholar. Or some heavier evidence exists in contradiction to evidence held by a scholar, thereby making his evidence Shaadh (odd narrations opposing stronger narrations).





to be continued...