There can only be one truth, right?
There could be only one truth, right? Therefore, when it comes to Islamic law, this should also be so. There may be different opinions, but only one of them is correct, and therefore my "sheikh& # 39;, & # 39;madhhab& # 39;, & # 39;tariff& # 39;, & # 39; Group & usually has the right to exclude others. This may be the type of logic that leads to most intolerance among Muslims today, especially in the West. You only need to interact for a moment on social networks or talk to people, usually around masides, to experience it.
More disturbing is that this type of relationship often comes from people who seem to have little or no religious training, except that they are activists of a particular group or followers of Sheikh X. Which led us to this terrible situations?
Because a Muslim is defined as one who submits to Allah and then acts in accordance with Islamic law, questions fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and related debates and disagreements invariably become an integral part of the life of an “active” Muslim. shari`ah (Islamic faith, law, and ethics) is central to the personality of the Muslim, as he informs about his values and actions.
However, our tradition in general - and our legal tradition in particular - has always been one that takes into account different opinions within an agreed framework. Take the Quran itself; There are at least seven different, but equally valid ways to read the Quran. They were widely represented in imams (leading experts) recitations all the way from sahaba (companions of the Prophet), which all learned the Quran directly from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
Take a look at our legal system. We have four extant law schools (madhahib), but they were much more. Throughout history, Muslims have generally recognized them as equal schools. Then in schools, you have a variety of different opinions between the founder of the schools and their students or later scholars. madhhabHowever, often followers or supporters of the same madhabs or their sheikhs (scientists) become fanatical or go to extremes due to various factors, one of which is their lack of understanding that madhhab really is. This misunderstanding is not limited. madhhab alone; this can be applied to the opinion or to a particular scientist.
Sheikh al-Hassan al-Deda describes madhhab in this regard: “Madhab is the way to deal with the text (Quran and Hadith). Therefore, all that Djibril `alayhi alsalam (Angel Gabriel, peace be upon him) associated with Allah Subhanahu va ta & # 39; ala (exalted He) is not the exclusive property of anyone madhhabAll that counts qat & # 39; i (“Final”, clear cut) of the texts is not the exclusive property of anyone’s madhhab, Consequently madhhab (exists) only in those matters that require ijtihad (reasoning to understand the meaning or legal implications).
In other words, these texts are from the Quranor Hadith (narrations of the Prophet ﷺ), which are consistent in terms of their meanings and legal implications, are not the exclusive property of anyone madhhab or sheikh but rather, be sure to accept and follow them without any difference. Differences and therefore existence madhabs occur in those texts that are “speculative” (Danny) in terms of meaning and carry more than one interpretation due to a number of factors that are set out in the books Usul al-Fiqh (legal jurisprudence). The question here is in this respect, when legitimate differences arise in the conclusions, is there only one real truth in this question?
Before we get to the answer to this question, it is worth clarifying another common confusion. There is a distinction between what is legally justified, and something right or the only truth. There may be several opinions on one issue, and if they are issued from qualified scientists who sincerely followed the procedures ijtihad and made every effort to achieve the truth, then all opinions can be valid and acceptable. Although only one of them may have reached the actual truth or the correct answer.
To give an example, Hanafis consider bleeding to be invalid. voodoo (ablution), while other schools such as Shafi madhhab believe that it is not. Both opinions are considered by all parties to be legally valid for a non-professional that for someone who follows any opinion, his voodoo is valid.
Therefore, we return to the question of whether there really is only one correct solution to this question, even if others are wrong, but valid. Al-Shaukani says that Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi and most of the lawyers (may Allah bless them and welcome) believe that in such matters the truth (Hack) is one, but it is not defined or known to us, although it is known to Allah (swt). In other words, there is only one correct opinion that Allah (swt) knows and does not know anyone else with 100% certainty. However, other opinions, even if they are not correct, are still relevant for the average person.
If we could just accept the general rule that different madhabs and legal opinions are equally valid if they are due to valid ijtihad from qualified scientists and not from abnormal (shadh), which were rejected by the overwhelming majority, - then we could begin to understand the nature and dynamics of our shari`ah which would strengthen unity among our communities, especially in the West, where basic levels of Islamic literacy were low and where diverse Muslim communities often live together with access to a multitude of thoughts, madhabs and opinions.
We should reflect on the words of Imam al-Shafi, who were said to have said: “I think my opinion is correct with the possibility that this is wrong, and I believe that the opinion of those who disagree with me is mistaken that it is right. " It was the attitude of most Imams. Sahabas who were trained by the Prophet, differed among themselves in legal matters, but supported fraternity and respect.
As soon as this becomes clear, another logical point that needs to be taken, and to accept it, is to avoid condemnation of other legally valid opinions as "batil (lower), & # 39; & # 39;haram (illegal), “erroneous”, etc. In other words, “do not attribute good and prohibit evil” on actual legal differences as one of the conditions prohibiting evil (munkar) is that it must be a concerted evil, and not one in which there is a real disagreement.
As our communities in the West grow and develop, our scientists will be called upon to address a whole host of complex and often unprecedented issues. They will not necessarily agree, but if we understand the above, we will respect each other’s differences and remain united as communities, despite our differences.