It has been clarified that the evidences used to oblige unity of the Islamic work cannot be considered as evidence. However, this does not mean that the other opinion, which permits the plurality of groups, has become legitimate. This is because the negation of a matter does not prove its opposite. There must be evidences that demonstrate the correctness of the istidlaal (deduction), and precision of the istinbaat (inference). So what are these evidences?

Indeed, the evidences that permit disagreement in the furu’ (rules) and not the Usul (beliefs) are innumerable. The Sunnah has indicated the permissibility of disagreement in furu’. Hence we find the Sahabah disagreeing amongst themselves, as well as the Tabi’in and the scholars of the Salaf (pious predecessors). As for the prohibition of disagreements, it came regarding the disagreements of the Kuffar, which was about the fundamentals of the deen and not in the furu’. For example the disagreements they had over the Prophets, the Day of Resurrection, life, death and their books, until they became sects, parties, and milal and nihal. They went away from the truth revealed by Allah 􀀬 to their Prophets, and deviated their Prophets’ followers. He 􀀬 said; “Then the sects differed, so woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of a great Day.” [TMQ 19:37] Thus, Allah 􀀬 warned us about the disagreements like those of the Kuffar.

The Messenger 􀁕 accepted, at the day of the trench, the different understandings of the Sahabah for his 􀁕 words; “Whosoever hears and obeys, let him not pray ‘Asr (prayer)

except in Bani Qurayza.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham] The following things are deduced from this hadith:

1- The Mujtahid will make mistakes and get things right. The fact that he is a mujtahid does not mean he does not make mistakes.

2- The rule deduced by the Mujtahid is considered a Shar’ee rule, even if it was a mistake.

3- The Mujtahid who has made a mistake does not know that he has made a mistake. If he had known then he would not be allowed to remain in his error. Rather his understanding is more weighty, in his view, than the understanding of others.

4- The mujtahid is rewarded by Allah 􀀬, whether he was right or wrong, though the reward is different.

The Imams (the scholars) agreed that the sin is removed from the Mujtahideen regarding the Shar’ee rules that pertain to speculative issues in jurisprudence.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) says in his tafseer; “The Sahabah still continued to differ regarding the rules of the incidents, though they remained in harmony.” Al-Baghdadi reported the following saying of ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul-’Azeez 􀁗 in his book ‘Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqqih’; “I would have not been pleased if the Ashab (Companions)

of Mohammed did not differ, because if they did not differ, there would not have been a permission (for us to differ).” Many books have been written by great Muslim scholar that clarify the reasons for disagreement.

One of these reasons is that man’s understanding, by his very nature, will differ from one person to another. Their abilities differ and so does their understanding. Hence, different ijtihadaat and istinbaat existed since the age of the Sahabah until our age today, and this will remain until the Day of Judgement. One of these reasons is the fact that the nature of the Shar’a forces the Muslims to differ, and there is a mercy in that.

- The difference in the qira’aat (readings) leads to differences in understanding. Every mujtahid will have an understanding in accordance to his reading. This is like the disagreement regarding the ayah of Wudu (ablution) in regards to whether the feet should be washed or be wiped?

- The ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’ differed on certin ahadith. A hadith may be Sahih (authentic) for one scholar but not for another, depending upon the method employed by the scholar in accepting or rejecting ahadith. For instance let’s take the example of the Mursal hadith. The Muhaddithun (hadith experts), Usuliyyoon (scholars of the foundations of jurisprudence)

and Fuqahaa’ (jurists) from the a’immah of this Ummah, have differed on the use of Mursal hadith as proof. Some used it as proof whilst others did not, considering it a Munqati’ hadith (ie an hadith that had a break in the chain of transmission.)

- The conflict of evidences is another reason for difference. For example, some texts prohibited the use of something that is najas (impurity) or something that is haraam for medical purposes, as in the hadith, “Verily, Allah 􀀬 revealed the disease and the cure, and for every disease he has given a cure. So do not cure with the Haraam.” [Reported by Abu Dawud], whilst other texts permitted the use of the najas (impurity) or haraam substance, as in the hadith:

“That the Prophet 􀁕 permitted ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf and ah- Zubayr to wear silk because they suffered from itching” and like the hadith, “The Muslims used to use the urine of camels as medicine and they did not see anything wrong in that.” [Reported by Bukhari] - When there is no clear text regarding an issue, then the method of finding the rule of Allah 􀀬 will be by Ijtihaad, and Ijtihaad is a speculative rule prone to disagreement.

- The expansive nature of the Arabic language in its meanings is also a cause for difference. The presence of Ishtiraak (homonyms), Haqeeqah (literal meaning), Majaz (the metaphorical), Mutlaq (absolute) and Muqayyad (restricted), ‘aamm (general) and Khaas (specific) illustrates this.

Thus, the nature of the Arabic language in which the revelation was sent down, is that its expressions and syntax are open to different meanings and diverse indications.

Thus, the saying of Allah 􀀬 regarding the divorced women; “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three Quru.” [TMQ 2:228]. The word (quru’) in Arabic can mean either pure or the time of menstruation. But which meaning is intended? This was one of the reasons for the disagreement of the Fuqahaa’ (jurists) regarding this subject.

This is regarding the Sharee’ah in general. But does any of what has been mentioned apply to the subject under discussion? In other words, does the permissibility of disagreement in the Shar’ee rules, which is accepted by the Shar’a, allow the plurality of movements, groups or parties working for change? Or does this subject have its own specific evidences which exclude it from the original rule?

The group or party is established on a Shar’ee understanding of texts that have the propensity to be understood in different ways, just like any other Shar’ee understanding is, except for that concerning the definite rules. The Shar’ee rules adopted by the group are Shar’ee rules that have been deduced, and are liable to be correct or mistaken. It is not allowed for a Muslim who sees many errors in a group to work with it. Rather he should advise it and search for the group that will relieve him of the sin in front of Allah 􀀬 through him working with it. As we have mentioned, the nature of people, their scholars, the Shar’a and Arabic language all indicate that it is permissible to have multiple understandings. This is what justifies the presence of more than one group. There is no harm in this, as long as it is not more than disagreement in understanding. In that case the work with the group or party that is closest to the truth becomes an obligation.

In addition there is the ayah:

“And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khayr (Islam), enjoining the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). And it is they who are successful.” [TMQ 3:104] The order in this ayah is focussed on the obligation of establishing at least one group whose work will be the following; calling to the Khayr (Islam), enjoinng the ma’roof (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). The ayah does not mean the presence of one group. Otherwise He 􀀬 would have said: ‘Ummah waahidah (one Ummah).’ Rather what has been ordered is the type of group whose work will be da’wah, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar. This fard is a fard of sufficiency and its obligation is realised by the presence of one group. As for when more than one group exists, because of the different understandings of the work to be done, there is nothing wrong with that. This type of expression has been repeated in hundreds of ayaat and ahadith. For example the hadith; “Whosover amongst you sees a munkar, let him change it with his hand...” It does not mean one munkar, but the type of munkar.

Abu al-A’la al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the following in his book ‘Islamic concepts regarding religion and state’ under the chapter on: The obligation of enjoning the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar; “What is apparant from the partative in the ayah; ‘And let there arise out of you a group inviting to all that is khair (Islam).’ It does not mean that the Muslims are ordered to have a group that will undertake the obligation of da’wah to Islam, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar, whilst it is not an obligation on the rest of the Muslims to undertake this task in origin. Rather its meaning is the obligation that the Ummah should not be at any time without -at leastone group that will guard the light coming from the lamp of truth and goodness, and struggle against the darkness of evil and dangers of falsehood. When no such group exists amongst the Muslims, then it is impossible for the Ummah to be saved from the curse and severe punishment of Allah 􀀬, let alone be the best Ummah brought forth for mankind.” Based on what we have mentioned previously:

- We must know very well that whatever the Shar’a approves is a mercy.

If it turned into an affliction then that is because of the misunderstanding of the Muslims and nothing else. Look at the exalted Fiqh of two great Imaams of this Ummah; it has been mentioned in ‘Shuzuur az-Zahab’ (Fragments of gold) that the students of Shafi’i came to him one day complaining how he visits Imaam Ahmad b. Hanbal, while they dispute with his students because of their differences in opinions. Shafi’i said; “They say; ‘Ahmad visits you and you visit him’, I say; ‘The virtues do not separate from his home.

If he visits me, then thanks to him, and if I visit him, this is because of his grace.

In both situations the grace is for him.’” A similar thing happened with the students of Imaam Ahmad and him. So Imaam Ahmad told them; “If we differ in lineage, then a knowledge which we have put in the position of a father unites us; If the water of the seas differ, we are all fresh (water) that streams out from one vessel.” - Whosoever wishes to unite all the Muslims on one action, besides his negligence of the reality of Shar’a and the reality of people, we say to him what Imaam Malik said to Harun ar-Rasheed when Harun ar- Rasheed wanted to adopt Malik’s understanding and mazhab (school of thought) and make it binding on the people and forbid them from (following) the understanding of others; “Do not make narrow for the Muslims that which Allah 􀀬 has made wide for them.” - When the Kaafir states and the regimes under their control see a group or groups working seriously to establish the rule of Allah 􀀬, in addition to using harsh measures against them and spreading rumours, they try to derail these groups or cause them to fail by establishing groups which are under their control. If we assume that having more than one group is not allowed, this means the group must unite with all the other groups, and thus include the good and the bad. But what is required is the opposite, where we have to throw away the bad, and keep the good that benefits the people.

- Since this suggestion, (the obligation of uniting the Islamic work and prohibiting the plurality of groups) contradicts the reality of the Shar’a, human beings and the language in which the revelation was sent down.

Then this is an impossible suggestion to realise. Discussing it will remain a distraction from what is more important, which is the work to establish the Khilafah. The statement that Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims, unless they unite, is an baseless judgement that is unacceptable. Rather, Allah 􀀬 does not help the Muslims unless they adhere to the Shar’a and hold fast to the rope of Allah 􀀬 and fulfill His command. Allah 􀀬 will help them even if they are few. For the one person committed to the truth counts as many, while the many people who are on the falsehood are like the scum (of the sea).

It remains to mention a word on this subject, that the presence of the Khaleefah and the Islamic State is the most important aspect that unites the Muslims; there is no unification without it. The understandings will remain different, but we are ordered to obey the Khaleefah. The Imaam adopts, and by his adoption he settles the dispute, but he does not prevent the dispute or remove it. His order must be obeyed openly and secretly by the Muslims. As for the Ameer of a party, his order is obeyed within the party and he settles the dispute between the members of the party and not the Muslims at large.