Ushbu aniq Qur'on qoralashlari nuqtai nazaridan, Payg'ambar (s.w.) sahobalari (Sahobalar) va dastlabki fiqh olimlari o'rtasida ba'zan yuzaga kelgan ixtilofni qanday izohlaymiz?

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?

Sahobalar orasida yuz bergan ixtiloflarning aksariyati tabiiy va bartaraf etib bo‘lmas edi. Ularning katta qismi sahobalarning fikrlash qobiliyatlari turlicha bo‘lgani sababli, Qur’on oyatlari va hadislarni turlicha tushunganlaridan kelib chiqdi. O‘sha davrda ixtiloflarga olib kelgan boshqa sabablar ham bor edi, ular keyinchalik yo‘qoldi; masalan, hadislarning keng tarqalishi natijasida har bir sahobiy ularning hammasidan xabardor bo‘lishi imkonsiz edi, shuning uchun ma’lumot yetishmagan joyda noto‘g‘ri qarorlar qabul qilinishi muqarrar edi. Albatta, ular niyatlaridan qat’i nazar sodir bo‘lgan bunday va shunga o‘xshash xatolar uchun aybdor qilinishi mumkin emas.

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 Allah ﷺ 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 Hadith, the Sahaabah are considered absolved from blame for conflicting rulings. However, any discrepancies apparent in their different 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, over the performance of Salaah in a single piece of cloth. Ubayy considered it 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 ﷺ 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

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

Darhaqiqat, dastlabki olimlar sahobalar orasidagi ixtiloflarning sabablarini va odamlarning ularni saqlab qolishga intilish moyilligini yaxshi bilganlar. Shu sababli ular, sahobalarning turli hukmlariga asoslangan dogmatizm va mazhabparastlikning oldini olish maqsadida bu muhim masala bo'yicha qat'iy bayonotlar berganlar. Quyida ularning ushbu muhim mavzudagi bir necha bayonotlari keltirilgan. Imom Molikning asosiy shogirdlaridan bo'lgan Ibn al-Qosim shunday degan: "Men Molik va al-Laysning sahobalar orasidagi ixtiloflar haqida quyidagilarni aytganini eshitganman: «Odamlar bunda ularga keng yo'l berilgan deydilar, lekin bu unday emas; bu noto'g'ri va to'g'ri hukmlar masalasi edi»".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, Imom Molik shogirdlaridan yana biri, dedi: "Molikdan, ishonchli rivoyatchilar Payg'ambarning (s.a.v.) sahobalaridan eshitib naql qilgan hukmga ergashish xavfsizmi, deb so'raldi. U javob berdi: "Yo'q, Alloh haqqi, agar u to'g'ri bo'lmasa, unday emas."

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:

Haqiqat faqat bittadir. Ikki qarama-qarshi fikr bir vaqtning o'zida to'g'ri bo'lishi mumkinmi? To'g'ri bo'lgan fikr faqat bitta bo'lishi mumkin.”240 Imom ash-Shofe'iyning shogirdi al-Muzaniy buni shunday ifodalagan: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺning sahobalari vaqti-vaqti bilan ixtilof qilishgan va bir-birlarini xato deb e'lon qilishgan. Ulardan ba'zilari boshqalarining so'zlarini tekshirib, ularni chuqur o'rganishgan. Shuning uchun agar ularning barchasi o'z so'zlarini to'g'ri deb hisoblaganlarida edi, ular bir-birlarining so'zlarini hech qachon tekshirmagan va bir-birlarini xato deb atamagan bo'lar edilar.” Al-Muzaniy yana shunday degan: “Ixtilofga ruxsat beruvchidan quyidagi savolni so'rash kerak. U da'vo qiladiki, agar ikki olim bir xil voqea bo'yicha ijtihod qilib, biri uni “halol”, ikkinchisi esa “haROM” deb hukm qilsa, ikkalasi ham to'g'ri bo'ladi. ‘Sen bu hukmni asosiy matnga (Qur'on yoki Sunnatga) tayanib chiqarganmisan yoki qiyos (o'xshatish orqali xulosa chiqarish)ga tayanib?’ Agar u qiyos orqali deb da'vo qilsa, undan so'ralishi kerak: ‘Asosiy matn ixtilofni qanday rad etadi-yu, sen esa undan ixtilofning ruxsat etilganini xulosa qilasan?’ Aql egasi bo'lgan oddiy odam ham buni ruxsat etmaydi, olimga esa bundan ham kam.”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

Garchi sahobalar ba'zi qoidalarni qo'llashda bir-biridan farq qilgan bo'lsalar ham, birlik ko'rinishini saqlash va saflarini bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan ishlardan qochish uchun haddan oshib ketishardi. Ammo keyingi olimlar va tobe'inlar orasida, meros bo'lib qolgan mazhablarga ko'r-ko'rona va qat'iy yopishib olganlarda esa, aksincha holatni ko'ramiz. Ilgari aytib o'tilganidek, ularning ixtiloflari bir paytda namoz (ma'lum shakldagi ibodat) borasida ularning safining bo'linishiga olib keldi, namoz esa ikki shahodatdan keyin Islomning eng buyuk ustunidir.

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.

Ba'zi keyingi ulamolar orasidagi qat'iyatli mazhabparastlar ihtiloflarini bundan ham ileriga olib bordilar va Islom birodarligi hamda birligining o'ziga zarba beradigan hukmlar chiqardilar. Masalan, dastlabki imomlar orasida faqat Imom Abu Hanifa iymon (ishonch) kamaymaydi va ortmaydi, deb hisoblagan; kishi yo iymon keltiradi, yo kufr keltiradi.242 Abu Hanifaning bu fikriga tayanib, keyingi ulamolar mazhabga oid bir hukm chiqardilar: agar kishidan "Sen mo'minmisan?" deb so'ralsa, "Agar Alloh xohlasa, men mo'minman" deb javob berish harom, chunki bu o'zining iymoni borligiga shubha qilganini bildiradi.243 Ulamolarning ijmosiga ko'ra, o'z iymoniga shubha qilish kufrga teng. Shuning uchun kishi: "Men albatta mo'minman", deb javob berishi kerak.244 Bu hukmning ochiq aytilmagan, ammo nazarda tutilgan ma'nosi shu ediki, boshqa mazhab tarafdorlari o'z iymonlarida shubhada va shu sababli kufrda edilar. Bu narsa dastlabki Hanafiy maktabida hech qachon aytilmagan, ammo keyingi ba'zi ulamolar undan Hanafiy mazhabi tarafdorlariga o'sha paytda ikkinchi darajali mashhur mazhab bo'lgan Shofi'iy mazhabi tarafdorlariga turmushga chiqish yoki uylanish man etilgan, degan xulosa chiqardilar. Bu xulosani keyinroq Hanafiy mazhabi ulamolari bekor qildilar,245 ammo u mazhabparastlikning xavfli oqibatlarini hujjatlashtiruvchi tarixiy dalil sifatida qolmoqda.

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. Musulmonlarning umumiy qarashi shundaki, to‘rt mazhab xatodan xoli bo‘lib, har bir kishi ulardan birortasiga ergashishi kerak va muqallidlar mazhablarini o‘zgartirmasligi hamda boshqa mazhablardan hukm tanlamasligi lozim.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. Kim mazhablarning ma'sumligini tan olmasa yoki to'rt mazhabdan birortasiga ergashmasa, uni ko'pincha, lekin noto'g'ri ravishda, bid'atchi deb hisoblashadi va "Vahhobiy" yoki "Ahli hadis" deb ataladi.

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. Hadislar, ya'ni mazhabchilikni himoya qilish uchun keltiriladigan hadislar yoki noto'g'ri talqin qilingan, yoki sahih emas.

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

4. Qur’on musulmonlar orasidagi nizo va ixtilofni ochiq va yashirin ravishda qoralaydi.

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

5. Sahobalar o'rtasidagi farqlar ularning turlicha ijtihod qobiliyatlari hamda Payg'ambar ﷺ hadislariga qanchalik ko'p duch kelganliklari bilan bog'liq edi. Ularning turli hukmlari dalil-isbotga qarshi kelganda qat'iy ravishda ushlab turilmas edi.

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. Dastlabki olimlar shuni ta'kidlaganlar: sahobalarning faqat uzoq muddat davomida to'g'ri ekanligi isbotlangan hukmlarigina to'g'ri deb qabul qilinishi kerak.

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. Sahobalar o‘rtasidagi ixtiloflar ularning orasida hech qachon birlik buzilishiga va parokandalikka olib kelmagan, holbuki, keyingi mazhab olimlari orasida paydo bo‘lgan farqlar musulmonlar o‘rtasida nizoga aylanib ketgan.

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.