From the preceding chapters we have seen that the Madhhab has gone through four basic stages as a result of the effects of the following factors: conditions of the Muslim state (unity, disunity), status of religious leadership (unified and orthodox, or fragmented and unorthodox) and communication among scholars. When the state was a single body, the leadership was unified and orthodox, and Muslim scholars were close to each other thereby facilitating communication. At that time there was only one Madh-hab, whether that of the Prophet (s.w.) or tha tof each of the Righteous Caliphs.

There followed a breakdown of political and religious leadership within the relatively unified state (under Umayyad and ‘Abbaasid rule), and the dispersion of the leading scholars throughout the empire. Consequently, a large number of Madh-habs arose as scholars in various parts of the state were obliged to make rulings without benefit of that close consultation which had existed when communication was not a problem. Characteristically, these scholars managed to retain the flexibility of former times, readily discarding their individual rulings in favor of the rulings of others which were based on more authentic or comprehensive Hadeeths. Subsequently, in the latter part of the ‘Abbaasid dynasty, scholars were caught up in the political rivalry resulting from the splintering of state leadership.

The situation was futher aggravated by the official promotion of court debates which brought special rayal favors to individual winners and their Madh-habs. Thereafter, it was but a step to fanatical sectarianism for which many of the followers of the four surviving Madh-habs became noted.

The Situation today is a mixture of the preceding stages.

Mass communication has brought Muslim scholars into close contact once again, but religious leadership at the state level disappeared long ago when the Muslim world became divided into nationalist evtities each with its own politico-economic governmental system.

The vastly increased Muslim population of today (variously estimated between 800 million and a billion) has been held together by their belief in Allaah and His Prophet (s.w.) and by their commitment to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Religious leadership such as there is tends to be exercised in separate stated through one of the four Madh-habs, which though less fanatic than formerly, unfortuantely continue to be sectarian and hence divisive However, there have ben encouraging signs, especially since the middle of this century, that the drive towards unity divinely built into Islaam is propelling Muslims the world over towards a revival of their religion as the decisive factor in their lives at the personal, communal and national levels. Given the multiplicity of cultures represented in the Muslim population and the uncreasing diversity of issues and problems arising from daily living in this rapidly changing world, many Muslims scholars have long felt that the goal of reestablishing Islaam at the supreme guide in the daily lives of Muslims, anywhere in the world, is-chievable only by a revival of a dynamic Fiqh such as was practised in what we previously described as the “Stage of flowering”. This implies a reunification of the Madh-habs with all traces of fanaticism and sectarianism removed, and the revival of Ijtihaad to make Fiqh once more a dynamic, objectively deduced body of laws so that individual Muslim scholars and jurists may effectively and uniformly apply the Sharee’ah in all parts of the Muslim world, no matter what the socio-politicaleconomic conditions.

No less important is the possible impact of such a reformation, not only on new converts to Islsaam, but also on the new generation of Muslims born into the faith. In the case of the former, they would be spared the perplexing effects of conflicting rulings from Madh-hab to Madh-hab, while in the case of the latter, they would be spared the frustration of the sectarianism generated by Madh-hab contradictions and avoid the tendency towards total rejection of the Madh-habs and the outstanding contributions of early scholars.

Finally, a unified Madh-hab and a dynamic body of Fiqh envisioned above are felt to be needed in order to evolve vibrant Islamic communities and unite such communites throughout the world in the types of co-operative endeavors that would protect the common interest of mankind and project Islaam on a global scale.

Assuming the desirability and validity of the twin goals of unifying the Madh-habs and re-establishing a dynamic Fiqh, what are the steps that might be taken towards achieving these goals? In the first place, concerted efforts will have to be made to resolve in a truly objective way the differences between the existing Madh-habs and their predecessors, using the methodology of the early scholars as defined by their statements and practices quoted in the previous chapters.

The mechanics of initiating appropriate action calls for enlightened leadership springing from the ranks of progressive and influential scholars of high calibre, that is, some person or persons imbued with the zeal to effect changes along the lines proposed will have to take the initiative to communicate with other interested parties with a view to planning nad organizing the procedural details.

Drawing on modern day systems approaches to problem solving, these steps would include: objective definition of the real obstacles to solution; selection of the nost appropriate solution; determination of possible methods of implementation; selection of the most appropriate method; then putting the solution into effect. At each stage in this type of planning, the steps chosen would have to be continuously evalutad with regard to the problems and the goals.

Obviously, the task of unifying the Madh-habs, and restoring dynamic Fiqh are not susceptible to simplistic solutions, but with Allaah’s blessings they are within the realm of possibility.

On a theoretical level, it is comparatively easy to make sugestions for the resolutions of interpretational and application differences among Madh-habs. The following framework, based on the methodology of the early Imaams, has been recommended at various times by progressive-minded Islamic scholars.

Differenes among Madh-hab’s rulings fall into two main cetegories; firstly, conradictory differences (Ikhtilaaf Tadaadd), totally opposite rulings which can not logically be simultaneously correct, for example rulings in which one Madh-hab defines something as Halaal and another difines it as Haraam, and secondly, variational differences (Ikhtilaaf Tanawwu’), conflicting rulings which are logically acceptable variations which can co-exist, for example, various sitting positions used by the Prophet (s.w.) in Salaah some of which have been preferred over others by the different Madh-habs. In many cases of differences arising from meanings (literal and figurative) of words and grammatical constructions, there are authentic Hadeeths which specify the meanings intended and these specified meanings should be given preference over all other interpretations. Similarly, legal rulings which were made according to conditions which eliminated authentic narrations, should be regarded as invalid and should be replaced by the rulings of other jurists which were made on the basis of authentic Hadeeths. As for rulings based on controversial principles or unrestricted Qiyaas, these should be objectively examined in the lighte of the fundamental principles of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah; rulings agreeing with these fundamentals should then be accepted and those contradicting them should then be rejected. Outside the scope of the foregoing suggested solutions, there remain a number of issues on which there is more than one ruling equally supported by the Qur’aan, the Hadeeth, the Ijmaa’ of the Shaabah or Qiyaas. The different rulings in such cases should be treated as viable options to be applied according to circumstances and these are a part of the logically acceptable variations mentioned as the second category of differences in Madh-hab rulings.

This framework for the resolution of differences among the Madh-habs could best be effected within institutions devoted to the objective study of Fiqh; that is, institutions devoted to the objective study of Fiqh’ that is, institutions of learning in which no Madh-hab is given preference over another. Islamic law could then be studied from its primary sources, and the positions of the various Madh-habs could then be analyzed rationally and objectively as outlined previously. If the standard of scholarship in such centers of learning were high, the enormous task of re-unifying the madh-habs could then be undertaken with excellent prospects for eventual success. A single Madh-hab completely free from sectarianism and firmly based on sound scholarship, could provide not only trustworthy and continuing leadership for the Muslim world in general, but also concrete guidence to various reformist movements aimed at reestablishim divine law as the only valid basis for geverning Muslim countries. With success in the area of the Madh-hab reunification and the establishment of divine law, we could then look towards the reunification to the Ummah, the Muslim nation, and the reestablishment of the Khilaafah, the true caliphate. This would provide the necessary foundation for the execution of Allaah’s law throughout the earth, if Allaah so wills it.