In the preceding chapters we have traced the historical development of Fiqh and the Madh-habs, showing their interrelationship and their contribution to a general, as well as specific, understanding of Islaam as revealed in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It should be noted that both Fiqh (Islamic law) and the Madh-habs (schools of Islamic thought) were and are necessary additions complementing the divine revelations which define the basic principles giverning man’s rights and responsibilities in his relationships with Allaah and his fellow man. It is through specific applications of the interpretations of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah that Allaah’s divine will can be made manifest to man over time and through space. With God-given intellectual powers man (specifically Islamic scholars) can provide relevant interpretations of the general to meet the particular: thence relevance of the Madh-hab (the circle of Islamic scholars) and Fiqh (the body of Islamic laws together with principles for deducing these laws). Herein lies the true importance of Fiqh and the Madh-hab in Islaam.

Now since Islaam is a religion divinely ordained for all men at all times and in all climes, it was given to scholars in different regions and times to evolve principles of Fiqh as well as specific laws of Fiqh in order to resolve various new issues as they arose. The correctness of their interpretations was proportional to their innate capabilities and to the type and quantity of evidence available to them at the time of making rulings. Some were faced with the additional factor of cultural differences, and many were deprived of the assistance to be gained from mural consultation, owing to their distance from their colleagues and the consequent difficulties of communication. Hence the differences of opinion that arose from region to region. Despite various handicaps, the early scholars discharged their duties to Islaam and to their fellowmen by using their God-given powers of intellect to interpret Allaah’s purposes for men. Situated in different parts of the Muslim state, they became the founders of different schools of Islamic thought, hence the multiplication of Madh-habs at one stage in the evolution of the Islamic law and the Muslim state. Historically, therefore, the appearance of more than one Madh-hab was inevitable. Furthermore, as the numbers of Madh-habs increased and communication and other factors exercised their influence, difference and contradictions, too, were a natural outcome. However, so long as scholars managed to keep the goal to truth foremost in mind and were not led astray by sectarianism, fanaticism, or a desire for personal glory and reward, the essential spirit of Islaam was preserved in their Madh-habs. In such circumstances, scholars were in no way reluctant to abandon their individual opinions in favor of rulings by others which were clearly shown to be nearer the intended meaning deducible from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. In others words, there was a continuing search for truth up until such time as the negative factors previously mentioned (sectarianism and desire for personal glory) became dominant in the lives of some of the scholars. Then, indeed, blind following of Madh-hab (Taqleed) coupled with the ban on Ijtihaad led to the widespread promotion of sectarianism among the masses and the general decline in the search for truth among many scholars.

Thereafter, the four survining Madh-habs, with their different and sometimes contradictory rulings, assumed the character of infallibility, and spurious Hadeeths arose to bolster this anti-Islamic trait. As a counter to this decline, various reform movements through the ages have called for a unification of the Madh-habs or, in some cases, rejection of the need for any Madh-hab. The former position is a legitimate one, as we have shown; the latter is an extremist one, possibly heretical since it overlooks the importance of a unified school of Islamic thought as a necessary complement to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, for a better understanding and appreciation of Allaah’s divine laws.

From the historical development of Fiqh and the evolution of the Madh-habs described in the preceding chapters, we have seen that there was a period during which natural differences among the various Madh-habs became extremely exaggerated to the point of sectarianism, so much so that scholars of that time discarded Ijtihaad and imposed upon the generality of Muslims the blind following (Taqleed) of one of the four major Madh-habs. However, the Imaams to whom the four schools are attributed were themselves totally against the enthronement of these differences and fought vehemently against Taqleed either among their own followers or among the masses in general. Yet, till today, many people feel that if an authentic Hadeeth should be discarded because, accepting it would mean declaring that the Imaam of one’s Madh-hab was mistaken in his ruling which, in their opinion is an act of disrespect akin to blasphemy. Little do they realize that their preference of their Imaam’s opinion over the Prophet’s (s.w.) statement is itself in total opposition to the stand taken by their own Imaam, and is in fact bordering on a form of Shirk198 known as “Shirk fee Tawheed alIttibaa‘”, that is sharing the unquestioned following which belongs only to the Prophet (s.w.). For in the declaration of one’s Islaam (there is no god but Allaah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allaah), the Prophet (s.w.) is accepted as being the only person who should be followed unquestioningly, since following him is equivalent to following Allaah.

As most Muslims today are unaware of the contradiction between the position of the early Imaams hand that of their Madhhab is it exists today, it is appropriate there to take a closer look at the stand taken by the early Imaams and their students towards Taqleed as revealed in their actual statements.