22. MAIN REASONS FOR CONFLICTING RULINGS
Evolution of the Math’habs
In the era of the Righteous Caliphs, the Fiqh principle of ijmaa (decisions by unanimity) evolved and ijtihaad (reasoned rulings) became an independent principle of Fiqh under the name of Qiyaas. The math’hab during this period was, in reality, that of each of the Righteous Caliphs, since the final say in legal matters rested with them. However, all legal decisions were subject to alteration on the basis of recorded statements or practices of the Prophet (r), i.e. hadeeths.
During the Umayyad dynasty (661-750 CE) there was a shift from caliphate to monarchy and the caliph/king was no longer the head of the math’hab. Scholars among the companions of the Prophet and their students left the centers of the Islaamic state and dispersed in the outer lying provinces. This led to an increase in ijtihaad as ijmaa became increasingly difficult to achieve. During this period students of Fiqh freely and frequently changed teachers and exchanged legal opinions. In the first hundred years of the ‘Abbaaside dynasty (750-850 CE) many math’habs flourished and though they were becoming distinct entities, they maintained the characteristic of flexibility in making and accepting legal rulings with existed in the previous period. Besides the current four, the Awzaa‘ee, Laythee, Thawree, Thaahiree and Jareeree math’habs were among the well- known math’habs of this period. Following the death of the major scholars themath’habs rigidity began to set in. During the latter period of the ‘Abbaaside dynasty, between the year 950 CE and the sacking of Baghdad (1258 CE), court debates (called Munaatharaat) between scholars of different math’habs for the entertainment of the caliphs and their entourage became popular. This spawned competitiveness and dogmatism, since the loss of a debate not only meant the loss of monetary reward from the caliph but it also meant the loss of personal prestige and that of one’s math’hab. Consequently, the principle of defending one’s math’hab right or wrong came to be considered a virtue. As a result, math’hab sectarianism and fanaticism became rampant among the court scholars. In time, The spirit of rivalry largely generated by these debates spread to the masses, and math’hab factionalism became widespread.
Four Madh-habs
During this stage, the number of major math’habs dwindled to four; three major and one minor. In other words, the math’habs of great Imaams like al- Awzaa‘ee, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Ibn Abee Laylaa, Aboo Thawr and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d had all disappeared leaving only the math’habs of Aboo Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi‘ee and Ahmad ibn Hambal. In time, these schools of Islamic legal thought became so predominant that the common people soon forget that any other schools ever existed. Furthermore, each of these schools took on a dynamic of its own and their followers started the practice of naming themselves after their respective math’habs. For example, al-Husayin ibn Mas‘oud al-Baghawee, author of the Fiqh classic, Sharh as-Sunnah, was commonly referred to as al-Husayn ibn Mas‘oud al-Baghawee ash-Shaafi‘ee after the Shaafi’ee math’hab.
Emergence of Taqleed
The six centuries starting with the sacking of Baghdad in 1258 CE and the execution of the last ‘Abbaasid caliph, al-Musta‘sim, and ending around the middle of the nineteenth century of the Christian era may be referred to as the “Muslim Dark Ages.” It represents the rise of the Ottoman Empire, founded in 1299 CE by the Turkish leader ‘Uthmaan I, until its decline under the attacks of European colonialism.
Scholars of this period left all forms of Ijtihaad and unanimously issued a legal ruling which was intended to close the door of Ijtihaad permanently. They reasoned that all possible issues had already been raised and addressed, and there was therefore no need for further Ijtihaad. With this step, a new concept of math’hab arose, namely that one of the four math’habs had to be followed for one’s Islaam to be valid. In time this concept became firmly embedded among the masses as well as the scholars of Fiqh. Consequently, the religion of Islaam itself became restricted within the confines of the four existing math’habs; Hanafee, Maalikee, Shaafi‘ee and Hambalee. These schools of law came to be considered divinely ordained manifestations of Islaam. It was claimed that all of them were completely correct, equal and representative of true Islaam, yet there were innumerable differences among them. In fact there were scholars in this period who interpreted some Hadeeths in such a way as to prove that the Prophet himself had predicted the appearance of the Imaams and their math’habs. Consequently, any attempt to go beyond these canonical math’habs was considered heretical and anyone who refused to follow one of them was classified an apostate. The hyper conservative scholars of this stage even went so far as to rule that whoever was caught transferring from one math’hab to another was liable to punishment at the discretion of the local judge. A ruling was also made in the Hanafee math’hab prohibiting the marriage of a Hanafee to a Shaafi‘ee. And even the second most important pillar of Islaam, Salaah, was not spared the effects of math’hab fanaticism. The followers of the various math’habs began to refuse to pray behind Imaams from other math’habs. This resulted in the building of separate prayer niches in the masjids5 of communities with more than one math’hab. Even the most holy masjid, al-Masjid al-Haraam of Makkah, which represents the unity of Muslims and the religion of Islaam, was affected. Separate prayer niches were set up around the Ka‘bah: one for an Imaam from each of the schools. And when the time for Salaah came, an Imaam from one of the math’habs would lead a congregation of followers from his math’hab in prayer; then another Imaam from one of the other math’habs would lead his congregation of followers and so on. Separate places of prayer for each of the math’hab remained around the Ka‘bah until the first quarter of the twentieth century when‘Abdul-‘Azeez ibn Sa‘oud and his army conquered Makkah (October of 1924) and united all worshippers behind a single Imaam regardless of his or their math’habs.
Consequently, all the math’habs (schools of Islaamic law)contributed in different degrees to the development of Fiqh and no single math’hab can properly be claimed to represent Islaam or Islaamic law in its totality. All of the schools have been important instruments for the clarification and application of the Sharee‘ah. In fact, the only infallible math’hab which deserves to be followed without question is that of Prophet Muhammad himself. Only his interpretations of the Sharee‘ah can rightly be considered divinely guided and meant to be followed until the last day of this world. All other math’habs are a product of human effort, and are therefore subject to human error. Or as Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee, founder of the Shaafi‘ee math’hab, so wisely put it, “There isn’t any of us who hasn’t had a saying or action of Allah’s Messenger elude him or slip his mind. So, no matter what rulings I have made or fundamental principles I have established, there will be in them things contrary to the way of Allah’s Messenger. However, the correct ruling is according to what the Messenger of Allah said, and that is my true ruling.”
Although the Imaams of the four major math’habs were all agreed on the primacy of the four fundamental principles of Islamic law (the Quran, the Sunnah, Ijmaa‘ and Qiyaas), certain differences have occurred and still exist among the rulings of their math’habs. These differences arose for various reasons, the chief ones being related to the following aspects: interpretation of word meanings and grammatical constructions; Hadeeth narrations (availability, authenticity, conditions for acceptance, and interpretation of textual conflict); admissibility of certain principle (Ijmaa‘, customs of the Madeenites, Istihsaan, and opinions of the Sahaabah); and methods of Qiyaas. Mention will be made of the positions of the four existing math’habs where relevant.
1. WORD MEANINGS
The interpretational differences which occurred over the meanings of word took three basic forms:
a) Shared Literal Meanings
There are a few words which occur in both the Quran and the Sunnah with more than literal meaning; for example, the word Qur (plural Quroo’ or Aqraa’), which means menses as well as the time of purity between menses. Thus, scholars of Fiqh were divided into two camps concerning the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse,
“Divorced women should wait three Quroo’.”7
The particular interpretation chosen makes an important difference when considering the case of a divorced woman who has started her third menses. According to those who considered Qur’ to be the period of purity, the divorce becomes finalized as soon as her menses have started, while according to those who viewed Qur’ as the actual menses, it is not finalized until her third menses have ended.
(i) Maalik, Ash-Shaafi‘ee and Ahmad ruled that Qur’ meant the period of purity.
(ii) Abu Haneefah, ruled that Qur’ meant the actual menses.
Note:
‘Aa’eshah said, “Umm Habeebah had irregular menses and she asked the Prophet about it. He told her to stop praying during the days of the Qur’s.” ‘Aa’eshah was also reported to have said, “I told Bareerah to observe a waiting period (‘Iddah) of three menses.” These narrations clearly indicate that the intended meaning of Qur’ is the menses itself.
b) Literal and Figurative Meanings
There are also some words in the Quran and the Sunnah which have both literal and figurative meanings. For example, the word ٌLams (touch) is literally used to indicate touching by the hand or the coming in contact of two objects, and figuratively to indicate sexual intercourse. Thus, the jurists were of three different opinions concerning the meanings of the Qur’anic verse:
“…or you touched (Laamastum) women and can not find water, then make Tayammum11 from clean earth.”12
This verse occurs in the context of the factors which break the state of Wudoo.
(i) Ash-Shaafi‘ee and most of his students ruled that Lams meant the touch of the hand or body contact. Therefore, if a man intentionally or accidentally touched a woman or vice versa, skin on skin, then both of them would lose their state of Wudoo.
(ii) Imaam Maalik and most of his students also ruled that Lams meant touching by the hand. However, he stipulated that Wudoo would only be broken if the touch were pleasurable, whether the touch were intended or unintended, skin on skin or otherwise. This was also the most well known position of Imaam Ahmad. They took the position that the deciding factor was the occurrence of pleasure due to the existence of accurate Hadeeths stating that the Prophet used to touch his wife ‘Aa’eshah’s foot in order to move it out of the way when he was making Sujood (prostration during prayer).
(iii) Imaam Abu Haneefah ruled that Lams is the verse under consideration meant sexual intercourse and therefore, touching a woman did not break Wudoo, whether it was accompanied by a pleasurable feeling or not.This position was based on the previously mentioned Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ eshah as well as another from her reported by the Sahaabee, ‘Urwah, that the Prophet kissed some of his wives then left for Salaah without performing Wudoo.
c) Grammatical Meanings
There were also certain grammatical constructions in Arabic which were ambiguous. For example, the word elaa (to) could simply mean “up to but not including”, as in the case of the Quranic verse,
“And complete the fast up to (elaa) the night.”17
The fast is continued up to Maghrib (sunset), the beginning of the night, but does not include the night itself. There is no dispute about this interpretation. However, elaa also means “up to and including” as in the Qur’anic verse,
“And We will drive the guilty up to (elaa) Hell like a weary herd.”18
Thus, Fiqh scholars held two opinions concerning the meaning of the following Qur’anic verse describing an aspect of the performance of Wudoo:
“…then wash you faces and your hands up to (elaa) your elbows.”19
(i) Abu Haneefah’s student Zufar, Ibn Daawood adh-DHaahiree and some of Maalik’s students interpreted this verse to mean “up to but not including the elbows.”
(ii) The four Imaams all ruled that the verse meant “up to and including the elbows.”This position is supported by the description found in authentic Hadeeths of the Prophet’s method of performing Wudoo.
2. NARRATIONS OF HADEETHS
The causes of legal differences which developed among jurists over the narration and application of Hadeeths may be subdivided as follows:
a) Availability of Hadeeths
There were numerous cases where certain narrations of Hadeeths, did not reach some of the scholars, due to the fact that the Sahaabah who narrated them had settled in various regions throughout the Islamic empire, and the major Madh- habs were founded in different parts of the empire before the comprehensive compilations of Hadeeths were made. To be more specific, the Madh-hab of Abu Haneefah (702-767 CE), Maalik (717-855 CE), Ash-Shaafi‘ee and Ahmad (778- 855 CE) were founded between the middle of the eighth century (CE and the early part of the ninth, whereas the most authentic and comprehensive compilations of Hadeeth (the Sound Six) were not available until the latter part of the ninth century and the early decades of the tenth.
(i) Abu Haneefah ruled that Istisqaa (Prayer for rain) did not include formal congregational prayer (Salaah). His position was based on the narration of Anas ibn Maalik in which the Prophet, on an occasion, made a spontaneous Du‘aa (supplication) for rain without making Salaah.
(ii) However, his students Abu Yousuf and Muhammad and the other Imaams all agreed that Salaah for Istisqaa was correct. Their position was based on the narration of ‘Abbaad ibn Tameem and other in which the Prophet was reported to have gone out to the prayer area, made Du‘aa for rain facing the Qiblah (direction of Makkah), reversed his cloak and led the people in two units of Salaah.
b) Weak Narrations of Hadeeths
There were cases where some jurists based their rulings on Hadeeths which were in fact Da‘eef (weak and unreliable), because they were unaware of the unreliability of those Hadeeths or because they took the position that a weak Hadeeth was to be preferred to their Qiyaas (analogical deduction). For example,
(i) Imaam Abu Haneefah, his companions and Imaam Ahmad ibn Hambal all held that the state of Wudoo is broken by vomiting basing their ruling on a Hadeeth attributed to ‘Aa’eshah in which she reportedly claimed that the Prophet had said, “Whoever is afflicted by Qay, Ru‘aaf or Qals (different forms of vomiting) should leave (the Salaah), make Wudoo, then continue where he left off without speaking during.”
(ii) Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee and Imaam Maalik ruled for two reasons that Qay’ (vomit) did not break Wudoo: First, the above mentioned Hadeeth was not authentic and second, Qay’ is not specifically mentioned in other sources of Islamic law as an act which breaks Wudoo.
c) Conditions for the Acceptance of Hadeeths
Other differences among jurists in the area of the Sunnah arose from various conditions they placed on its acceptability. For example, Imaam Abu Haneefah stipulated that a Hadeeth had to be Mash-hoor (well known) before being regarded as admissible evidence, whereas Imaam Maalik stipulated that Hadeeth must not contradict the customs of the Madeenites in order to be admissible. On the other hand. Imaam Ahmad considered Mursal29 Hadeeths acceptable as proof, while Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee accepted only the Mursal Hadeeths of Sa‘eed ibn al-Mussayib which most Hadeeth scholars felt were highly authentic.
d) Resolution of Textual Conflict in Hadeeths
The founders of the Madh-habs and their students took two main approaches in resolving apparent contradictions between the literal meanings of some of the recorded narrations of Hadeeth. Some jurists chose the path of “Tarjeeh ” which meant giving preference to some Hadeeths while rejecting others on the same topic. On the other hand, some of the other jurists chose the path of Jama‘, which involved combining such Hadeeths using one in a general sense. For example, there is an authentic Hadeeth in which the Prophet forbade Salaah at certain times saying; “No Salaah (is allowed) after Fajr prayer until the sun has risen and after ‘Asr prayer until the sun has set.” At the same time there are other equally authentic Hadeeths in which certain Salaahs were recommended without time restriction. For example, “If any of you enters a masjid, he should pray two Raka‘aat (units of prayer) before sitting down.”
(i) Imaam Abu Haneefah gave preference to the first Hadeeth and ruled that all forms of Salaah were forbidden during the forbidden times.
(ii) Imaam Maalik, Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee and Imaam Ahmad combined the two Hadeeths, ruling that the first Hadeeth was general and referred to voluntary Salaah (Nafl), whereas the second Hadeeth was specific, allowing highly recommended Salaah (Mustahabb) even during the generally forbidden times.
3. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN PRINCIPLES
There were among the Imaams some who developed a number of controversial principles on which they based some of their rulings. As a result, both the rulings and the principles became sources of differences among jurists. For example, the majority of jurists recognized the validity of Ijmaa‘ among the generations after the Sahaabah, but Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee questioned its occurrence while Imaam Ahmad rejected it outright. Similarly Imaam Maalik’s reliance on the customs of the Madeenites as a source of legislation was rejected by the majority of jurists. And, Imaam Abu Haneefah’s principle of Istihsaan and Maalik’s Istislaah were both disallowed by Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee as being too independent of the Quran, the Sunnah, and Ijmaa‘. That is to say, they relied too much, in his opinion, on human reasoning. On the other hand, Imaam ash- Shaafi‘ee felt that the opinion of the Sahaabah had to be accepted on legal matters, while others felt that it was only reasoning on their part which was not binding on the later generations.
4. METHODS OF QIYAAS
The various approaches which jurists took in their application of Qiyaas were perhaps the largest source of differences among them. Some narrowed down the scope of Qiyaas by setting a number of preconditions for its use, while others expanded its scope. Because this principle was based on opinion to a greater extent than any of the others, there were no hard and fast rules with which to contain it, and thus a wide range of differences developed.
By Bilal Philips
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.