In view of these clear Qur’anic condemnations, how then do we account for the disagreement which occured at times among the Prophet’s (s.w.) companions (SahaabahO and the early scholars of Fiqh?

The differences of opinion which occured among the Sahaabah were for the most part natural and unavoidable. A large portion of it was due to their different reasoning abilities which showed up in their various interpretations of Qur’anic verses and Hadeeths. There were other causes which led to differences during their time which later disappeared; for example, the wide distribution of Hadeeths made it impossible for any individual Sahabee to be aware of them all, and thus wrong dicisions were bound to be made where information was lacking. Obviously, they cannot be blamed for these and similar mistakes, which were not intentional.

Furthermore, it is clear that they readily corrected their wrong decisions when authentic information or more relevant evidence indicated that this should be done. It is this willingness to cast aside wrong decisions in the search for truth which excludes these conflicting rulings from the category of accursed disagreements. In this connection, the messenger of Allaah (s.w.) had said, “If a judge strives his utmost and makes a correct ruling, he receives two rewards, but if he strives and errs he still receives one.”237 Based on this Hadeeth, the Sahaabah are considered absolved from blame for conflicting rulings. However, any discrepencies apparent in their differnt rulings are not to be glorified and perpetuated. In fact they themselves disliked disagreements, as is shown in the following narration quoted by ash-Shaafi’ee’s student, al-Muzanee: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, the second Righteous Caliph, got angry because of a dispute between the Sahaabee, ubayy ibn Ka’b, and another Sahaabee, Ibn Mas’ood, wver the performance of Salaah in a single piece of cloth. Ubayy considered in quite alright while Ibn Mas’ood felt that was so only when cloth was scarce. ‘Umar angrily left his residence and declared, “Have two of Allaah’s messenger’s companions disagreed and they are among those whom the masses watch closely and imitate? Ubayy is correct and Ibn Mas’ood should desist! If I hear of anyone disputing about this matter after this point, I will deal with him.”238

Indeed, the early scholars well aware of the causes of differences among the Sahaabah and the tendency for people to want to perpetuate them. Accordingly, they made definitive statements on the matter in an effort to stave off dogmatism and sectarianism based on conflicting rulings of the Sahaabah. The following are a few examples of their statements on this vital subject. Ibn al-Qaasim, who was among the main students of Imaam Maalik, said, “I heard Maalik and al-Layth both say the following concerning the differences among the Sahaabah: ‘People say there is leeway for them in it, but it is not so; it was a case of wrong and right rulings’”.239

Ash-hab, another of Imaam maalik’s students, said, “Maalik was once asked whether one was safe to follow a ruling related to him by reliable narrators who had heard it from companions of the Prophet (s.w.). He replied, ‘No, by Allaah, not unless it is correct:

the truth is only one. Can two opposing ominions be simultaneously correct? The opinion which is correct can be only one.’”240 Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee’s student, al-Muzanee, put it this way, “The companions of Allaah’s Messenger (s.w.) disagreed from time to time and declared each other mistaken. Some of them examined the statements of others and researched them thoroughly. Therefore, if all of them felt that whatever they said was correct, they would never have investigated each other’s statements or declared each other mistaken.” Al-Muzanee also said, “The following question should be put to the one who allows disagreement, claiming that if two scholars strive to strive at a decision concerningthe same incident on eruling that it is “Halaal” and the other that it is “Haraam”, both are correct. ‘Are you basing that judgement on a fundamental text (the Qur’aan or the Sunnah) or on Qiyaas (analogical deduction)?’ If the claims that it is by Qiyaas, he should be asked, ‘How could the fundamental text reject dispute and you in turn deduce from it that ispute is allowded?’ No common person capable of reason would allow that, much less a scholar.”241

Although the Sahaabah differed in the application of some principles, they used to go to extremes to preserve an appearance of unity and avoid things which would divide their ranks. But, among later scholars and followers who blindly and dogmatically clung to the inherited Madh-habs, we find the complete opposite. As was previously mentioned, their differenes at one point led to the splitting of their rands over Salaah (formal prayer), the greatest pillar of Islaam after the two testimonies of belief.

Conservative sectarians among later scholars at times carried their differnces even beyond that extreme, making rulings which struck at the very heart of the brotherhood and unity of Islaam. For example, Imaam Abu Haneefah alone among the early Imaams felt that Eemaan (belief) neither decreased nor increased; one eiter believed or he disbelieved.242 On the basis of Abu Haneefah’s opinion, a ruling was made by later scholars of the Madh-hab stating that if one is asked the question, “Are you a believer?” It is Haraam to reply, “I am a believer, if Allaah so wills it,” as it implied that one is in doubt about the existence of his belief.243 According to the Ijmaa’ of the scholars, doubt about one’s belief is equivalent to disbelief (Kufr). Therefore, one should reply, “I am truly a believer”.244 The implied but unstated meaning of this ruling was that the followers of the other schools of thought were in doubt about their Eemaan and thus in disbelief. This was never state dby early Hanafee school, but some later scholars deduced from it the ruling that followers of the Hanafee Madh-hab were prohibited from marrying followers of the Shaafi’ee Madh-hab Which was the second most prominent Madh-hab at that time. This deductin was later over-ruled by scholars of the Hannafee Madh-hab,245 but stands as historical evidence documenting the dangers of sectarianism.

1. The position of the generality of Muslims is that the four Madhhabs are infallible, everyone must follow one of them and followers must not change Madh-habs or pick rulings from other Madh-habs.246

2. One who does not subscribe to the infallibility of the Madh-habs or does not follow any of the four Madh-habs is commonly, but mistakenly classified as a heretic and mislabelled either “Wahhabi” or “Ahl-i-Hadeeth”.

3. The Hadeeths used to defend Madh-hab sectarianism are either misinterpreted or unauthentic.

4. The Qur’aan explicity and implicity condemns conflict and dispute among Muslims.

5. Differences among the Sahaabah were due to varying interpretational abilities and the extent to which they were exposed to Hadeeths of the Prophet (s.w.). Their different rulings were not rigidly clung to in the face of evedence to the contrary.

6. Early scholars emphasized the fact that only those rulings of the Sahaabah, which were proven to be correct in the long run were to be followed as correct.

7. Disagreements among the Sahaabah never led to disunity and division amongst them, whereas, among later scholars of the Madh-hab, differences evolved into disharmony among Muslims.