Difference of opinions after the death of Prophet Mohammad

[Naushad]

Salaam alaykum everyone,

Can someone please clarify that how muslims handled differences of opinions due to possibly different interpretations of Quran after the death of exalted prophet? Opponents of four sunni schools (Hanafi, Shafi etc) usually argue that in earlier islamic society (after the death of prophet Mohammad) as many as 19 different schools of thought existed (Allama Iqbal mentions this in his 'Reconstruction of Religious Thought').

If above was the case then obviously muslims and jurists of those times had many many opinions on any given issue (be it marriage, divorce, inheritance etc). What I am having difficulty understanding at times is that with that much freedom of opinion (assuming Hadith literature had not taken over the intellectual reasoning and ijtihaad) who in the eyes of Allah was really correct? For example, out of, lets say, even 5-6 possible opinions on any single issue few of them were probably declared as permissible and few as prohibited mainly due to the difference of intellectual reasonings by different jurists (again assuming they did not use hadith literature whatsoever to form their opinions and formed their opinions under the general guidelines provided in Quran). So in this case also did people never pondered that what is allowed by one jurist is prohibited by another? In the eyes of Allah, the same thing cannot be allowed or prohibited at once (specially in same geographical area and in same society at any given point), right? It can be argued that with changing times the opinions are changed but what about varying opinions in the same cultural and same regional contexts?

I guess my main point is that after the death of prophet supposedly even sahaabas dis-agreed on matters. Unless it was a state-level issue they did possibly do things differently when it came to daily transactions etc or am I wrong? If sahaabees differed on certain daily issues then again whose opinion was ultimately the right one because again there cannot be a prohibition and allowance on the same issue from Allah. This main issue still continues till today even in the remaining schools of sunni law. What is allowed by Hanafi at times is totally prohibited by Shafis or vice versa. How can a muslim be doing halaal in one school and the same act is considered haraam by another muslim following another school?

Nowadays we can say that this divergance is due to following contradictory hadith literature but what about the days before Imam Shafi (who made hadith literature as a second primary source of Islam)? Difference of opinions (such as upto 19 schools of thought) did exist between muslims before canonization of hadith literature too so what makes the situation any different now?

I am in no way in support of the four schools of thought or taqleed or hadith literature. Just asking this question to clarify my concerns.

Thank you,

Naushad.

[Arnold Yasin Mol]

Salaam,

One of the biggest mistakes, is to see them as different schools. There was only one government ruling a very large state. There were several lawschools and universities created to train and educate new lawyers and judges and adminstrators.

These were NOT different schools who rejected other schools or formed into different groups.

These were education centers run by DIFFERENT scholars, just like any University today creates different minded lawyers and judges. But they ALL were taught the same law.

The teachers were individuals, not twin robots. People forget this alot when looking back at these schools. The differences were created through being individuals who tried to implent the same laws, not by trying to create sects.

The laws that were followed were accepted through these simple rules:

Chose the best law:
39:18 Who listen to the Word, and follow the best of its application (in a given situation) Such are those whom God guides, and they are the insightful ones.

Through mutual consultation:
42:38 They respond to their Lord by establishing Salaat, and conduct their affairs by mutual consultation. And what We have given them, they keep it open for the welfare of others. (‘Establishing Salaat’ = Establishing the System where following of the Divine Commands is facilitated. ‘Nafq’ = Open-ended tunnel = No hoarding)

The real divisions in Islam came after 100 years, then schools were forming that indeed created sects. In the first 100 years, there were schools who all tried to implent the same laws, but sometimes had different ideas about them as they were all individuals.

If they were 19 is not known, as the history we have is scarce and not trustworthy. But we can believe there were education centers, universities, which all had indivual scholars believing the same thing, Quran, but all had indvidual minds which created sometimes different interpretations. This is normal, we can see it today in Western and Eastern law-schools.

[Quasim Hamdani]

I believe that differences in opinion are not the culprits. Intelligent human beings must have different points of view on a topic, without it, the learning process comes to a halt. Like present day Qur-an reading Muslims, the earlier Muslims must have argued about the various interpretation of the Qur-anic messages. The overall efficacy of the Qur-anic thought however lies in how these differences were resolved. The methodology for resolution should follow these mutual consultation steps:

- Read the Qur-an and identify the verses that directly and indirectly apply to the subject at hand

- Incorporate Qur-an’s ‘big picture’ aspects into the thought process and formulate law(s)

- Compare the competing versions of the law(s) and identify areas of variability

- Engage in an intellectual discourse to further understand the various interpretations and also impress your peers on your point of view

- Produce law(s) acceptable to all concerned

This process will take some time before the group emerges with a single definition of the law(s). The point to emphasize here is that the people engaged in these activities are sincerely trying to resolve situations that impact the humanity, and strengthen the Divine System (based on Salat and Zakat) through mutual consultation.

In comparison, it seems, the ancient scholars were arrogant and selfish enough to break away from the activities centered on the Divine System, to establish competing set of laws – thus creating sects. Today we are drowning in the consequences of their non Qur-anic decisions.

[Arnold Yasin Mol]

This is of course only the part of scholars that were supported by different elite. No lawschool can develop and flourish without the consent of the ruling elite.

In the end, the sect-creating schools were made superior over the original schools by the elite so the power was taken away from the people.