The Multiplicity of Legal Opinions in Islam

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

In this article, I shall discuss the implications of having multiple opinions regarding legal issues and how they have a positive impact on the Muslim ummah; their legitimacy, authority, validity and correctness; why Muslims should not abandon the four madhabs and become their own “mujtahids”; the negation of the idea that accepting multiple positions in fiqh is a form of compromise in order to maintain harmony in the ummah; and the inter-relationship between hadith, fiqh and usul al-fiqh.

Fiqh is Islamic jurisprudence. Rules of fiqh are inferred from the Quran and Sunnah (which includes ahadith) through the methodology which is called usul al-fiqh. Usul al-fiqh is the study of the origins, the sources and the practice of the fiqh. These sources include the ahadith, hence the relationship between fiqh, usul al-fiqh and hadith.

Coming straight to the point, in my opinion, plurality of legal opinion does not in any way harm the authority and legitimacy of new rules. In Ijma, there is massive plurality of opinion, yet the procedure is such that when a decision is passed in Ijma, there is no room for anyone to doubt its validity and the decision becomes binding on all Muslims to follow. If anything, Ijma, which is the product of plurality of opinions of scholars, adds to the authority of laws that are zanni or of a speculative type. In addition, all the scholars in Ijma are required to be in agreement regarding an issue otherwise Ijma is not passed. As long as there is dissent, there is the probability that one group is wrong. Unanimity removes this possibility, hence adding to the legitimacy of the legal opinion.

In ijtihad as well, no mujtahid is allowed to over-rule the verdict given by a previous mujtahid. Only the mujtahid who gave the original decision can alter it, and that too if the previous verdict was a serious miscarriage of justice or was against the law. If the mujtahid was allowed to change his decision frequently and under any circumstances, it would lead to uncertainty and hence cast doubt about the validity of ijtihad. Hence, plurality of legal opinion in matters of ijtihad too adds to the authority and legitimacy of new rulings instead of hampering it.

In the present era, where revelations from Allah and the coming of new Prophets has been terminated, it is ijtihad through which we can continue to get guidance by which to stay on the right path in the light of Quranic teachings and Sunnah in the face of changing circumstances. The rules whereby the previous ijtihad of a mujtahid can be changed are very strict. All this promotes stability and continuity of Islamic law.

The first implication of plurality of legal opinion in Islam that comes to mind is the spirit of tolerance that prevails amongst the Muslim scholars, a feature rare to find in the jurisprudence of other religions. In the case of Ijma, different scholars come up with different solutions or answers to the same problem. They then unanimously accept a particular view. In this way, Ijma can be said to promote a culture of tolerance. The plurality of legal opinions here does not in any way harm the unity of the ummah in the case of Ijma. On the contrary, it promotes unity when Muslims unanimously agree on something. We can also mention here the tolerance that Muslims of one madhab are supposed to show to followers of the other three madhabs; they are required to accept all four madhabs to be of equal validity and respect all four of them. Here again, the plurality of legal opinion does not harm unity of the ummah.

An advantage of plurality in legal opinion is that through it the very best solutions to a problem can be found out. For instance, in Ijma, all opinions of the scholars are heard and the best and most suitable one is adopted. If there was no plurality of legal opinion and only one authoritative person’s opinion was supposed to be implemented, it is possible that there might be an opinion that was better than that person’s opinion which, if implemented, could have had even better consequences.

Plurality of legal opinion, in my opinion, can also be related to the adaptive capability of Islam under changing circumstances. For example, in Ijma, the best solution proposed by all the mujtahids regarding a new problem is adopted, hence playing a role in the evolution and adaptation of Islam in the face of new situations.

Moreover, the motive behind the idea of having plurality of legal opinions is that it makes people ponder over the commandments of Allah. A mujtahid is supposed to come up with his own ijtihad in a matter. He may not imitate another mujtahid or allow a more learned mujtahid’s decision affect his own ijtihad. This way, Islam makes the mujtahid ponder over the teachings of Allah.

Yet another implication that came to my mind is that plurality of legal opinion gives people more choice as to who to follow. They can choose and follow the opinion which they like and which they find most suitable and easy to follow and which they are most comfortable with. This highlights the characteristic of Islam that Islam makes religious practices easier for people to follow.

Due to the above mentioned facts, I think plurality of legal opinion is a positive characteristic of Islamic law.

Does plurality generate negative heterogeneity? The arguments already given above in support of the idea that plurality of legal opinion promotes notions of authority, legitimacy, stability and continuity can be used to argue that plurality would not in any way generate negative heterogeneity amongst Muslims. However, in my opinion, these characteristics minimize the possibility of negative heterogeneity but do not altogether eliminate it. History tells us that in the early centuries of Islam, there were a lot of disagreements and confusions amongst the ulema regarding matters of fiqh. It was after Imam Shafi’i laid down the methodology or usul al-fiqh that these differences, though they existed later on in the four madhabs, were largely minimized. It was, in my opinion, precisely because of these differences that the four madhabs were formed, otherwise only the madhab of Imam Shafi’i would have been there and no other schools of thought would have emerged. These differences continue even today but are of a lesser intensity than before. The greatest proof that these differences have been minimized and brought under control is that all four madhabs respect each other and Muslims have not adhered to or formed any more new madhabs. Jurists have always endeavored to get their opinions coincide with the prevailing opinion of the madhab they belong to, hence minimizing heterogeneity. One might say that there should be only one madhab so that there would be no heterogeneity at all, but we must be grateful that there are not more than four madhabs, else there would have been increased chances of conflict in my opinion.

Can multiple positions in legal matters be valid and/or correct? To understand the answer, we must, logically speaking, look at how these multiple positions are arrived at. The mujtahid who is a highly qualified Islamic scholar, when performing ijtihad, uses considerations of justice and fairness and the established usul al-fiqh to perform various forms of analysis such as qiyas and istihsan which are all based on the Quran and Sunnah. In the case of Ijma, all opinions are analysed and the most suitable one is agreed upon. Obviously, it is agreed upon because it is correct. Logically too, the decision adopted is the unanimous decision of a lot of highly qualified people and is selected from a wide variety of other opinions so it must be correct. All the decisions of all the mujtahids are accepted as correct in Islam. For ordinary Muslims, accepting the validity of the Ijma is a divine command whether they like it or not. Hence, multiple positions in my opinion are valid and correct. It is not hard to realize that this acceptance of multiple positions as being correct is the very basis of tolerance between the followers of the four madhabs.

One might wonder whether accepting multiple positions is an apologetic stance aiming to gloss over irreconcilable positions. I think the greatest argument against this view is the fact that a mujtahid is not allowed to take the ruling of another mujtahid over his own ijtihad even though the other mujtahid may be more learned than him. A mujtahid is bound only by his own ijtihad. He is not even allowed to adhere to the rulings of his madhab but must derive the rulings himself. If accepting multiple positions was an apologetic stance aiming to gloss over irreconcilable legal positions, then surely the purpose of the stance would have been to bring about harmony which can only be brought about by having minimum legal positions rather than multiple ones. The real reason why Islam allows the possibility of having multiple legal positions is to make people ponder over the instructions given by Allah.

In my opinion, it would be impractical for an ordinary individual to take it upon himself to evaluate the Quranic ayats and ahadith in the light of his own knowledge or aql. First of all, we must realize that the four madhabs have not developed in one night. They have been improved, added into, and updated by highly qualified scholars for centuries. A layman cannot claim to have gained enough mastery of Islam so as to practice his own ijtihad in legal matters. Secondly, for a person striving to become competent enough, he must first master Arabic in addition to gaining all the required knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah. This is because it would be unadvisable for anyone to read translations of the Quran or the ahadith in order to become a master of fiqh as translations often are unable to convey the exact essence of the meaning of the text as mentioned in the reading “Al-Fatiha”. Arabic has a very rich and diverse vocabulary and often translations of Arabic works lack the proper words required to convey the exact meaning of the text. As mentioned in the reading “Understanding the four madhabs”, another obstacle in the path of such a person, if he is a non-Arab, can be the fact that not all Arabic works are available in other languages. For example, many authentic books of ahadith are not there in English. This would be a serious handicap in the knowledge of an amateur attempting to come up with his own decisions regarding judicial matters. Such a stance is likely to create much confusion and discord in the ranks of the Muslims and can be successfully exploited by the enemies of Islam to undermine the unity of the ummah. Furthermore, becoming a mujtahid is a time-consuming and difficult job. If all Muslims tried to become mujtahids then all the other affairs of the ummah would come to a standstill. It is for this reason that Muslims have been asked to keep in touch with scholars rather than becoming their own mujtahids. I agree with Maulana Kamaluddin Ahmed’s notion in class where he mentioned the chains representing the different madhabs linked to the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). He said that this chain would break down if ordinary people took the matters of judicial decisions in their own hands instead of following the madhabs.

To conclude, I think that having multiple legal positions in religious and judicial matters is a blessing for Muslims and a positive feature of Islamic law. I consider these multiple positions of the mujtahidun to be perfectly valid, correct and legitimate, and I do not think that accepting their authority is by any means a form of compromise in order to maintain the sanctity of the ummah. More so, in my opinion, ordinary Muslims should not strive to come up with their own interpretations of religious matters unless they are competent enough in their knowledge of these matters.

(This article was written by me for my Islamic Studies class taught by Mufti Kamaluddin Ahmed during my Sophomore year at LUMS.)