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.222 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. 223

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.” (b) “Differences among my Sahaabah are a mercy for you.”224

(c) “My Sahaabah are like stars. You will be guided by whichever of them you follow.”225

(d) “Verily my Sahaabah are like stars. You will be guided by any statement of theirs you adopt.”226

(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 which they (the Sahaabah) have differed, as far as I am concerned, he will be following guidance’.”227

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.228

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.229 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)230, the second and third as Mawdoo’ (fabricated)231

and the fourth as Baatil (false).232 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:

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: