Kwa kuzingatia kulaaniwa huku wazi kwa Qur'ani, basi tunaelezaje tofauti zilizotokea wakati mwingine miongoni mwa Maswahaba wa Mtume ﷺ (s.w.) na wanazuoni wa mwanzo wa Fiqhi?

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?

Tofauti za maoni zilizotokea miongoni mwa Maswahaba zilikuwa nyingi za asili na zisizoepukika. Sehemu kubwa yake ilitokana na tofauti za uwezo wao wa kufikiri, ambazo zilijitokeza katika tafsiri zao mbalimbali za aya za Qur'ani na Hadithi. Kulikuwepo pia sababu nyingine zilizosababisha tofauti wakati wao, ambazo baadaye zilitoweka; kwa mfano, kuenea kwa Hadithi kote kulifanya isiwezekane kwa Sahaba mmoja mmoja kuzijua zote, na hivyo maamuzi yasiyo sahihi yalilazimika kufanywa pale ambapo taarifa ilikosekana. Ni wazi kwamba hawawezi kulaumiwa kwa makosa haya na mengine yanayofanana nayo, ambayo hayakuwa ya makusudi.

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.

Zaidi ya hayo, ni wazi kwamba walikuwa tayari kurekebisha maamuzi yao yasiyo sahihi pale ambapo taarifa sahihi au ushahidi unaohusiana zaidi ulipoonyesha kwamba hilo lifanyike. Ni utayari huu wa kuachana na maamuzi yasiyo sahihi katika kutafuta haki ndio unaozitoa hukumu hizi zinazopingana katika kundi la khilafu zilizolaaniwa. Kuhusiana na hili, Mjumbe wa Allaah ﷺ alisema: "Ikiwa hakimu atajitahidi kwa uwezo wake wote na akatoa hukumu sahihi, anapata thawabu mbili, lakini akijitahidi na akakosea, bado anapata thawabu moja."237 Kwa msingi wa Hadith hii, Maswahaba wanachukuliwa kuwa hawana lawama kwa hukumu zinazopingana. Hata hivyo, tofauti zozote zinazoonekana katika hukumu zao mbalimbali hazipaswi kutukuzwa wala kuendelezwa. Kwa kweli wenyewe walichukia khilafu, kama inavyoonyeshwa katika simulizi ifuatayo iliyonukuliwa na mwanafunzi wa ash-Shaafi'ee, al-Muzanee: 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab, Khalifa wa pili mwongofu, alikasirika kutokana na mzozo kati ya Sahaba Ubayy ibn Ka'b na Sahaba mwingine, Ibn Mas'ood, kuhusu kuswali Swalah kwa kipande kimoja cha nguo. Ubayy alidhani kuwa ni sawa, huku Ibn Mas'ood akihisi kuwa ni sawa tu pale nguo zinapokuwa adimu. 'Umar aliondoka kwa hasira nyumbani kwake na kutangaza, "Je, masahaba wawili wa Mjumbe wa Allaah wamekhitilafiana, nao ni miongoni mwa wale ambao umma unawatazama kwa karibu na kuwaiga? Ubayy yuko sahihi, na Ibn Mas'ood aache! Nikisikia mtu yeyote akibishana kuhusu jambo hili baada ya hapa, nitashughulika naye."238

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

Kweli, wanachuoni wa mwanzo walifahamu vizuri sababu za tofauti baina ya Maswahaba na mwelekeo wa watu wa kutaka kuendeleza tofauti hizo. Kwa hiyo walitoa kauli thabiti katika suala hili, kwa lengo la kuzuia msimamo mkali wa kimafundisho na ushabiki wa kimadhehebu unaotokana na hukumu zinazokinzana za Maswahaba. Zifuatazo ni baadhi ya kauli zao kuhusu suala hili muhimu. Ibn al-Qaasim, mmoja wa wanafunzi wakuu wa Imam Maalik, alisema: “Nilimsikia Maalik na al-Layth wakisema yafuatayo kuhusu tofauti baina ya Maswahaba: ‘Watu husema kwamba kuna wepesi kwao katika jambo hilo, lakini si hivyo; ilikuwa ni kisa cha hukumu sahihi na hukumu isiyo sahihi’.”239

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, mmoja wa wanafunzi wengine wa Imaam Maalik, alisema: "Maalik aliulizwa mara moja kama ilikuwa salama kufuata hukumu iliyosimuliwa kwake na wapokezi waaminifu ambao waliisikia kutoka kwa Maswahaba wa Mtume ﷺ. Akajibu: 'Hapana, kwa Allaah, isipokuwa ikiwa ni sahihi.'"

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:

Ukweli ni mmoja tu. Je, maoni mawili yanayopingana yanaweza kuwa sahihi kwa wakati mmoja? Maoni yaliyo sahihi yanaweza kuwa moja tu.’”240 Mwanafunzi wa Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee, al-Muzanee, alisema hivi: “Masahaba wa Mtume wa Allaah ﷺ walitofautiana mara kwa mara na kutangaza kila mmoja kuwa amekosea. Baadhi yao walichunguza kauli za wengine na kuzifanyia utafiti wa kina. Kwa hiyo, kama wote wangeona kwamba walichosema ni sahihi, wasingechunguza kauli za kila mmoja wala kutangaza kila mmoja kuwa amekosea.” Al-Muzanee pia alisema: “Swali lifuatalo linapaswa kuulizwa kwa yule anayeruhusu khilafu, anayedai kwamba ikiwa wanazuoni wawili watajitahidi kutoa hukumu kuhusu tukio lile lile, mmoja akisema ni “Halaal” na mwingine akisema ni “Haraam”, wote wawili ni sahihi. ‘Je, hukumu hiyo unaijengea juu ya maandiko ya msingi (Qur’aan au Sunnah) au juu ya Qiyaas (hoja ya kulinganisha)?’ Ikiwa atadai ni kwa Qiyaas, aulizwe: ‘Maandiko ya msingi yanawezaje kukataa mzozo, nawe kisha ukatoa kutoka kwake kwamba mzozo unaruhusiwa?’ Hakuna mtu wa kawaida mwenye akili atakayeruhusu hilo, achilia mbali mwanazuoni.”241

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

Ingawa Maswahaba walitofautiana katika kutumia baadhi ya kanuni, walikuwa wakijitahidi kwa kiwango cha juu kudumisha sura ya umoja na kuepuka mambo yanayoweza kugawanya safu zao. Lakini miongoni mwa wanazuoni na wafuasi wa baadaye ambao walishikilia kwa upofu na kwa ukaidi Madh-hab walizorithi, tunaona kinyume kabisa. Kama ilivyotajwa hapo awali, tofauti zao wakati mmoja zilisababisha safu zao kugawanyika kwa sababu ya Swalaah (sala ya faradhi), nguzo kubwa zaidi ya Uislamu baada ya shahada mbili za imani.

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.

Baadhi ya wanazuoni wa baadaye, wenye msimamo mkali wa kimadhehebu, walikwenda hata zaidi ya hapo, wakitoa hukumu zilizogusa moyo wenyewe wa udugu na umoja wa Uislamu. Kwa mfano, Imaam Abu Haneefah peke yake miongoni mwa Maimamu wa mwanzo alikuwa na maoni kwamba Eemaan (imani) haipungui wala haizidi; mtu anaamini au anakufuru.242 Kwa kuegemea maoni ya Abu Haneefah, wanazuoni wa baadaye wa madhehebu hiyo walitoa hukumu kwamba ikiwa mtu ataulizwa swali, "Je, wewe ni mwumini?" si halali kujibu, "Ni mwumini, Allaah akipenda," kwa kuwa hiyo inaashiria kwamba mtu ana shaka juu ya kuwepo kwa imani yake.243 Kwa mujibu wa Ijmaa' ya wanazuoni, shaka juu ya imani ya mtu ni sawa na ukafiri (Kufr). Kwa hiyo, mtu anapaswa kujibu, "Mimi ni mwumini kweli."244 Maana iliyodokezwa lakini isiyotajwa wazi ya hukumu hii ilikuwa kwamba wafuasi wa madhehebu nyingine walikuwa na shaka juu ya imani yao na hivyo walikuwa katika ukafiri. Jambo hili halikuwahi kutajwa na shule ya mwanzo ya Hanafi, lakini baadhi ya wanazuoni wa baadaye walitoa kutokana nalo hukumu kwamba wafuasi wa madhehebu ya Hanafi wamekatazwa kuoa wafuasi wa madhehebu ya Shaafi'i, ambayo wakati huo ilikuwa madhehebu ya pili kwa umaarufu. Uamuzi huu baadaye ulifutwa na wanazuoni wa madhehebu ya Hanafi,245 lakini unabaki kuwa ushahidi wa kihistoria unaoonyesha hatari za ukimadhehebu.

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. Msimamo wa jumla wa Waislamu ni kwamba madhehebu manne ni yasiyokosea, kila mtu lazima afuate mojawapo yao, na wafuasi wasibadilishe madhehebu wala kuchukua hukumu kutoka madhehebu mengine.246

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. Mtu asiyekubali kwamba madhehebu (madh-hab) ni maasumu, au asiyefuata yoyote kati ya madhehebu manne, mara nyingi huainishwa kwa makosa kuwa ni mzushi, na hupewa lakabu ya "Wahhabi" au "Ahl-i-Hadeeth".

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. Hadith zinazotumiwa kutetea ukereketwa wa madh-hab zinafasiriwa vibaya au si sahihi.

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

4. Qur'ani inakataza waziwazi na kwa kudokeza mgogoro na mizozo miongoni mwa Waislamu.

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

5. Tofauti za maoni miongoni mwa Maswahaba zilitokana na tofauti za uwezo wao wa kufahamu na kutafsiri, na kiwango cha kufikiwa kwao na Hadithi za Mtume ﷺ. Hukumu zao tofauti hazikushikwa kwa ukaidi pale ushahidi wa kinyume ulipojitokeza.

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. Wanazuoni wa mwanzo walisisitiza kwamba ni zile hukumu za Maswahaba tu ambazo zilithibitika kuwa sahihi baada ya muda mrefu ndizo zilizopaswa kufuatwa kama sahihi.

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. Tofauti za maoni miongoni mwa Maswahaba hazikuwahi kusababisha mgawanyiko na farakano baina yao, ilhali miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa baadaye wa madhehebu, tofauti hizo zilibadilika na kuwa kutoelewana miongoni mwa Waislamu.

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.