Severe disagreements plague Islamic scholarship on innumerable legal and theological issues.
And the reasons behind the differences are:
(i) Human weaknesses, and (ii) inherent ambiguities in the scripture(s).
The differences are not simply an issue of scholars erring as in that case the 14 centuries of peer reviewed scholarship would have eventually eliminated the errors. The persistence of differences from the very first generation itself is evidence that the differences are not just an issue of errors.
Similarly, the differences are not motivated by any ulterior agendas of the scholars otherwise they would have not agreed upon the thousands of issues that they have agreed upon!
I made the above arguments in detail in article #16. Do give it a read before proceeding further over here!
Therein, I also asked and answered the following questions:
Why on earth would God give a book that has ambiguities that lead to differences?!!?
Moreover, the Qur’an claims to be a clear book then why the ambiguities?!!?
The answers I put forward for were/are:
Constitutional texts like the Quran, that rely heavily on the nuances of language and linguistics, inevitably have the scope of interpretation leading to differing opinions.
Differences are inevitable as there can be no limit to hairsplitting.
Thus the ambiguities and the resultant differences exist only on very specific secondary matters that are left to the hair splitting of the interpreters.
Ambiguities and resultant differences don’t exist over primary matters as they are general and clear.
Thus there is this bifurcation of issues into the clear-simple-primary matters and the ambiguous-complex-secondary matters.
The primary ones (clubbed under the Shariah) are drawn from the clear primary sources of Islam, that is, the explicit verses of the Quran and the concurrently established practices (‘Sunnah’) of the Prophet(s).
And the secondary matters (covered under the secondary legal rulings or ‘fiqh’, and under detailed theology or ‘aqeedah’) are drawn from the ambiguous verses/text of the Quran and the secondary sources of Islam like the historical records/reports (‘ahadith’), etc.
Primary simplicity, topped by secondary sophistication, spawns a pool of opinions that enhances the robustness of Islam as this enables the application of Islam to different scenarios in different times and places.
It also allows leeway to believers as there are no disagreements over primary matters that they will be held strictly accountable for; while the secondary matters that are ambiguous and fall in the grey zone are left to the discretion of the followers!
Also, tests of intelligence, piety, and humanity of the believers are some other probable Divine reasons behind keeping the ambiguities in the texts of Islam.
And then in the previous article, no.24, I further presented the case that:
God too is an ambiguous issue;
and ambiguous issues like God are a matter of choice;
and choices are made based upon not just some evidence but also upon practical reasons like:
(i) Mindset: Take for example, a metaphysicalist mindset versus a naturalist mindset. A naturalist cannot accept God unless he turns into a metaphysicalist first. Like a vegan cannot tolerate mutton biryani unless he turns into a non-vegetarian.
(ii) Tastes/preferences: A person who prefers certainty to freedom; and eternal life to eternal nothingness/oblivion, can easily accept theism and an associated religion, but not someone who is comfortable with uncertainties, comfortable with the idea that there is no life after death, and desires more moral and lifestyle freedoms that come with atheism! Like a non-vegetarian who prefers mutton biryani to chicken biryani. It’s a purely personal subjective choice, hence there is no point arguing over the matter as to why someone likes mutton more than chicken! Likewise there’s no point getting mad over why someone prefers atheism over theism!
(iii) Convenience, contemporary relevance, and future prospects: Where it’s convenient or fashionable to be an atheist, many would choose to be an atheist. Where it’s convenient to be a Muslim, many would choose to be a Muslim, just to be in sync with the surrounding culture and its people. It’s a case of pragmatism driving one’s choice of beliefs. Like a person who prefers non-veg biryani but chooses to have veg biryani at a place where non-veg food is unavailable!
In the previous article thus, I listed down my reasons behind coming back from agnosticism and ‘choosing’ to believe in God, and then my reasons for adopting Islam as the theistic religion of my choice!
Choice of the brand/denomination of Islam too is a matter of choice
Once the choice to follow a particular religion has been made, then the entire narrative explicated above with regards to ambiguous issues applies also to the choice of specific ideas/opinions and/or schools/versions of that religion. Let me explain this with a few brief examples.
Metaphysicalist versus Naturalist mindset: Within Islam, someone with a metaphysicalist mindset can easily accept ‘miracles’, but not someone with a naturalistic mindset. A naturalist like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan will reinterpret the scripture(s) to explain away the supposedly miraculous (supernatural) events mentioned therein as nothing but allegorical allusions to purely natural phenomena. While others would read the same scripture(s) and extract purely supernatural interpretations of the same events.
A case in point is the issue of the immaculate birth of Jesus. While the predominant opinion within Islamic scholarship is that the relevant Quranic verses mean that Jesus was born miraculously without any male intervention, that is, Mary was a virgin while she conceived Jesus! The same narrative is upheld by the Christians at large. But some naturalistic/modernist thinkers like Mufti Abu Layth say there is no clear cut Quranic exposition that Jesus was born from a virgin Mary!1,2
Rationalist versus Literalist: The Ahlur Raai (people of qiyaas or analogical reasoning, e.g.; imam Abu Haneefah) versus the Ahlul Hadith (people of reports/‘ahadith’, e.g.; imam Shafi’i and imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal). Or the Ahlur Raii versus the Ahlul Zaahir/Dhaahir (literalists, e.g.; imam Ibn Hazm).
Philosophical versus Traditional: The Falaasifa (free thinking philosophers, e.g.; Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd) versus the Mutakallimeen (traditionalist theologians, e.g.; Al-Ghazali and Ar-Razi).
Modernist versus Traditionalist: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan versus Qasim Nanotvi.3
Mystical versus Traditionalist: Ibn Arabi versus Ibn Taimiyyah.
Mystical versus Rationalist: Ibn Arabi versus Ibn Rushd.
Political Islamists versus the purely spiritual/religious quietist missionary activists: Jamaat-e-Islami and Ikhwaanul Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood) versus the Tablighi Jamaat and the Ahle Hadith of the Indian subcontinent.
Liberal versus Hardline: Leniency-ease loving versus strictness-hardship inclined.
And several more in a non-exhaustive list:
Iconoclastic versus Conformist.
Disruptive versus Conservative.
Holistic versus Reductionist.
Inclusivist versus Exclusivist.
Utilitarian/Pragmatic versus Idealistic.
If I talk about myself thus; my iconoclastic-modernist-rationalist-liberal mind leans towards modernist-rationalist-liberal interpretations of Islam (of the type espoused by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Mufti Abu Layth al Maliki, etc.) as opposed to the predominant conservative-traditionalist-literalist-hardline interpretations!
In my next article, I’ll give a detailed exposition of the various versions/brands/flavours/types/ denominations of Islam based upon the different types of mindsets and tastes listed above.
Guidance of God extracted from the Word (Scripture): Is thus a subjective endeavour that suffers from great scholarly/ academic differences (‘ikhtilaaf’), in law (‘fiqh’) as well as theology (‘aqeedah’).
These academic disagreements have stayed for over a millennium now. They cannot be the result of simply the ill-will and/or errors of scholars as in that case these would have been erased through the hundreds of years of peer reviewed scholarship.
It is the very sources/scriptures that are interpretable/malleable hence ikhtilaaf arises naturally and inevitably!
An objection: I argued above that the derivation of guidance from the scripture is dependent upon mindset and taste! If that is the case, then the scripture is not inherently ambiguous and subjective; rather it’s the differing tastes and mindsets of different people that interject and project ambiguity and subjectivity onto the scriptures.
The response: The fact that mindsets/perspectives/preferences play/can play a role in extracting guidance/truth from the scripture(s), proves the malleability and subjectivity of the scripture(s). Otherwise, if there was no malleability inherent in the scripture(s), then despite differing mindsets and tastes, scholars would have ultimately reached the same conclusions.
There is no scope for mindset and taste to forever affect the extraction of truth in clear-objective matters. 2+2=4 is equally true to people of all mindsets and tastes!
Since the sources are malleable to begin with, their interpretable nature is susceptible to differing conclusions by scholars of different tastes and mindsets.
I have discussed this issue of ambiguity/interpretability of scriptures in my article no.16 under points 5i-5k with reference to an example of the famous hadith of Banu Quraizah4,5 wherein the Prophet didn’t clearly specify what was to be done if the time of the prayer/salaah was about to expire before the destination arrived.
While the ‘literalists’ took the Prophet’s words literally, hence prayed the due (‘qazaa’) after reaching the destination; the ‘objectivists’ on the other hand looked at the intended objective that is to reach Banu Quraizah as early as possible (not to be delayed by stopping for prayer on the way) hence they prayed on the way itself, not letting it become due/‘qazaa’.
To conclude
There is no absolute ‘objective Truth’ in the matters of: existence of God, which religion is true, and which version of Islam is true; wherein there’s thousands of years of genuine disagreements/ikhtilaaf amongst the scholars.
People thus choose their ‘subjective truths’ based upon individual preferences/tastes, mindset, convenience, contemporary relevance and/or future prospects.
Thus I differ from my ustadh imam Javed Ahmad Ghamidi saab in that he doesn’t recognise the inherent subjectivity in these matters. He considers Islam to be objectively true in that he considers it to be the only true path to salvation.
But those who are sincere yet unable to reach Islam will be ‘forgiven’ by God. And then he considers the Farahi school of thought to be the correct version of Islam.
While I consider these matters to be inherently subjective and thus Islam can be true only for those who have a metaphysical bent of mind (as explained in the previous article).
Those who don’t have a metaphysical bent of mind, Islam cannot be true for them. In fact, theism as a whole cannot be true to them. Hence no question of them being ‘forgiven’ by God! Given their naturalistic bent of mind, God doesn’t even expect them to see the truth of Islam in the first place!
But those with a metaphysical bent of mind, should be able to, more probably, reach theism and then reach Islam maybe! If they can’t despite being sincere, they will be forgiven by God.
And then, after reaching Islam, they would inevitably have to choose a version of Islam. That can be any version based on:
Critical research and analysis (tahqeeq) of the evidence (dalaail), principles (usul), and methods (manhaj). This being the case with the researchers/scholars.
While the masses or the laymen choose according to their personal mindset, tastes/preferences, convenience, relevance and/or prospects.
Although I would add that even scholars’s adherence to a school of thought/denomination of Islam is not free from influence of their personal mindset-tastes-contextual relevance-future prospects! Ultimately their principles and methods (usul & manhaj) too rest upon critical external factors like their upbringing and training, the environment, their friends and relatives, teachers/mentors/seniors, and institutions/organizations/movements; that collectively shape and drive their personality-mindset-inclinations which in turn determines what finally appeals to them as true or false, more correct or less correct! The same goes for the laymen, but minus the evidence-principles-methods part.
But ultimately, it doesn’t matter which version they end up choosing because the core Islam, derived from the clear verses of the Quran and the agreed upon/established Sunnah, is the same in all the different versions.
The differences exist only on superficial secondary issues derived from secondary/zanni sources or the unclear/ambiguous/ interpretable verses of the Quran.
Like chicken biryani versus mutton biryani versus beef biryani versus veg biryani, all are in essence biryani, but the superficial difference is only in the type of meat. People choose on the basis of their personal tastes, convenience (availability, price), mindset (vegan or omnivorous), etc.
So how to identify the core Islam?
It’s the Islam that’s derived from its explicit primary sources, that is, the clear verses of the Quran and the concurrently agreed upon/established Sunnah.
Hence it consists of all those things over which there is no disagreement amongst any of the schools of any of the three sects of Islam. Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi being the three sects. And then within these three sects, many different schools of thought.
Thus it is the same in all the different versions of Islam. Hence absolute consensus/ijmaa is the identifier of the core Islam.
It contains only the primary matters of Islam and can be dubbed as the Shariah.
Non-core Islam consists of all those matters over which disagreements/ikhtilaaf exist as it is extracted/derived from the ambiguous verses/text of the Quran and from the secondary sources of Islam like the historical reports (akhbaar-e-ahaad/ ahadith), analogical reasoning (qiyas), customs (urf) of a community/nation, etc.
These include only the secondary/trivial matters and are contained in the vast secondary corpuses of Islam like the secondary legal opinions (fiqh), detailed theology (aqeedah or kalaam), mysticism (tasawwuf), history (taareekh) or ahadith/akhbaar-e-ahaad/riwaayaat, etc.
New age Islam for the Gen Z
Will be the minimalist core Islam consisting of only the principles (usul), obligatory/mandatory injunctions (the faraaiz; pl. of farz), and the prohibitions/forbidden acts (hurmaat; pl. of haraam) that are unanimously agreed upon to be so by all the scholars of the Sunni-Shia-Ibadi triumvirate throughout the ages of Islam.
Any matter whose validity, legality-illegality is disputed/disagreed upon, will be considered non-core/secondary in nature, and hence its practice to be left to personal discretion.
Thus, all the agreed upon usul (principles), faraaiz (obligatory acts) and hurmaat (forbidden acts) should be collected in one work/compilation and adopted for the community as a whole, especially for the modern Gen Z. Whereas the disagreed upon matters should be relegated to secondary status and left open to personal choices.
When implemented, what this would actually mean is, in cases like that of Muslim men’s marriage with Jewish and Christian (Ahle Kitaab) women, since its legality is disputed; it must be treated as a secondary issue, therefore none of the different opinions on it can be rigidly enforced upon the community, hence its practice must be left to individual choice!
Similarly, it is agreed upon by the Shias and Sunnis alike that mu’tah (temporary marriage, where a man and a woman can mutually contract temporary marriage for a predefined period of time, be it a month or year!) was initially allowed in Islam (as is clear from the Quran) but there is disagreement over whether it was later abolished (as the Quran is silent on its abolishment), but the ahadith have their own take on it.
The Sunni sources of ahadith mention that it was later on forbidden by Muhammad (and later on, strictly enforced by the second Caliph Umar); but the Shias don’t agree with it because their sources of ahadith don’t mention any such prohibition from Muhammad! Thus the dispute on this matter is due to the disagreement over the acceptability of the ahadith.
Since this matter rests on the ahadith which are secondary sources, it must be of secondary importance, it cannot be of fundamental importance, not an issue of clear cut haraam and halaal (legal or illegal), hence its practice should be left to personal choice, without disparaging those who hold different opinions on it!
Similarly with the case of ‘triple talaq’, a hotly debated issue these days. So does uttering the word ‘talaq’ three times at once effect three divorces and permanently/irrevocably separate the wife from the husband? Or does it count as one talaq only and thus retain the scope for their reunion as a couple?
Same with the issue of whether ablution/ritual purification (wudu) gets nullified upon touching women. A widely disputed matter.
Hence these must be of secondary importance, and thus one can do what one personally deems to be correct, without adopting any strict stance on it, and without disparaging those who hold different opinions on it!
And ten of thousands of more such issues should thus be relegated to a gargantuan corpus of secondary/non-core Islam and left for people to adopt or discard based upon their personal preferences/tastes, mindset, convenience, relevance and prospects.
While the minimalist core Islam would be a lean body of only the primary/essential principles, do’s, and don’ts that are agreed upon by all the schools of all the three sects of Islam!
This will give the modern Muslims, especially the urban Gen Z, some breathing space to freely explore and grow with the crazy pace of the current world as they get liberated from the stifling and retarding shackles of rigid-mullanic version(s) of al-Islam!