Is every Mujtahid Scholar correct or can some of them be incorrect
in their rulings in the branches of Islamic law?
Imam Abd Al-Mu’min Al-Hanbali (658-739)(رحمه
الله) says:
“الحق في
قول واحد, و المخطئ في الفروع – ولا قاطع- معذور, مأجور على اجتهاده “
“The truth is (only) in
one statement (ruling). And as for the
scholar who makes a mistake in issues related to the branches of the religion (not in issues that have definitive proofs),
he is excused, rewarded for his Ijtihaad (deductive ruling)”
Sheikh Abd Allah bin Saalih Al-Fawzaan
Says:
“This issue is concerning the
correctness of a Mujtahid Scholar
,
and regarding it there are two opinions:
The first: That
only one opinion can be correct, and anything besides that is wrong, this is
because the truth can only be one and not more than one. And this is what the
large part of scholars (Jamhoor) are upon from the Shafi’I, Maaliki, and
Hanbali Madhabs, and it is one opinion from the Hanafis.
As for the one who is incorrect, he has made a mistake in an issue from the
among the issues of the branches of Islamic Jurisprudence (Furoo in Fiqh) in
which the proofs are “supposed (ظنية)”
and not “definitive (قاطع”)-which come from the texts of Quran and Sunnah or Ijma’a
(Majority ruling), then he (the one who made the mistake) is excused, and there
is no sin upon him, because of the correctness of his intention, and because he
made a mistake without intending to do so.
Rather he is rewarded because of
the hadeeth where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said “If a ruler
rules by his Ijtihaad (deductive ruling) and he makes a mistake (in the ruling)
he has one reward.” And this reward is the reward to him for doing the Ijtihaad
(deductive ruling).
Imam Abd Al-Mu’min continues by
saying:
"و قال بعض المتكلمين: كل مجتهد مصيب, و ليس على الحق دليل
مطلوب. و قال بعضهم: اختلف فيه عن أبي حنيفة و أصحابه..."
And some Islamic Scholars of
Rhetoric have said that every Mujtahid scholar is correct, and it is not a
requisite for the truth (In an Islamic issue: i.e.: مسالة)
that there come along with it a (definitive) proof (directly and clearly from
the text: i.e.: نصيor
قطعي: i.e.: definitive), and some of them said Abu Haneefa (رحمه الله) and his companions had a difference of
opinion about which one of these was correct.”
Shiekh Abd Allah says:
“The second opinion
concerning the correctness of the Mujtahid scholar and his mistakes when he
does Ijtihaad (deductive ruling), is that every Mujtahid scholar is correct, and
that it is not a requisite for the truth to be true that it come along
with definitive proof (قطعي), rather whomsoever struggles in trying to find the correct
answer from among the various possibilities he is correct, because of the lack
of definitive proof for that answer to be completely clear that it is in fact
the only correct way from among the other opinions that differ from that
scholars selection.
As for the first position it is
the most correct in this issue, because of the hadeeth that was previously
mentioned of Aamir bin Al-‘Aaas where he heard the Prophet (
صلى الله
عليه و سلم) say “If the ruler rules with his deductive ruling (Ijtihaad)
and he is correct, he will get two rewards, and if the ruler rules with
deductive ruling (Ijtihaad) and makes a mistake, he will get one reward.”
Sheikh Sa’ad
bin Naasir Ash-Shatari mentions in his book “Al-Usool wa al-Furoo’” the
following concerning this specific issue.
“The People of Knowledge differ
concerning the rulings related to the branches (furoo) of Islamic law when the
people of Ijtihaad (deductive ruling) have differed in their rulings: The issue
is, “Is the truth in only one of their rulings, or can the truth be in multiple
rulings for any specific issue?”
In which case the scholars have two
statements:
That the truth is in only one
of the rulings (and the rest of the rulings in the same issue are wrong), and
the Majority (Jamhoor) had this opinion, it is an opinion of Abu Haneefa (رحمه الله), and most of his companions took it as
well, and it is a statement of Imam Malik (رحمه
الله) and most of the Madhab,
and it is a statement of Shafi’I (رحمه الله) and most of the Madhab as well, and it is a
statement of Imam Ahmad (رحمه الله) it
is what those who follow him follow. Likewise
there is a group from the Mu’tazilites who take it and a saying of Abu Al-Hasan
Al-Asha’ri (رحمه الله) and some of the Ashaa’irah have followed it.
They derived this ruling from many proofs, and from the most prominent of those
proofs are:
1) The Statement of Allah in the English translation:
“And [mention] David and Solomon,
when they judged concerning the field - when the sheep of a people overran it
[at night], and We were witness to their judgment. And We gave
understanding of the case to Solomon, and to each [of them] We gave judgment
and knowledge. And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Us], along with David
and [also] the birds. And We were doing [that].”
So Allah says: “And We gave
understanding of the case to Solomon”
And in order to understand the
reasoning behind their deriving the proofs from these verses is that Allah
specified Suleiman with understanding which proves that he was correct in his
ruling, and a ruling that differed with him was a mistake.
The opposition in terms of those
who disagree with these derived proofs mention the following points:
a) That saying this causes you to say that the Prophets of Allah
are fallible, and this is not correct.
In response to this we say, they are infallible in their delivering the message
sent by God, and they are infallible in terms of doing major sins, as for
making some mistakes in rulings then no they are not infallible. (They would
mistake and Allah would correct them.)
b) It could be that they both were correct in their rulings and it
only meant that Allah specified Suleiman and not Dawood.
In response to
this we say, that the ayah proves that not only was Suleiman specified with
understanding, anything that opposed his ruling was wrong. Alongside that when Dawood heard the ruling
of Suleiman he retracted his ruling, and one would not do that unless he was
mistaken”
The sheikh goes on to mention 17
proofs for this opinion, however the nature of the article is not necessarily
to prove which opinion is correct through the proofs, rather it is to mention
that the opinion that truth only resides in one is not only the opinion of the
Hanbali Madhab as well this has been mentioned in Rawdhatu Naadhir by Muwafiq Ad-Deen Ibn Qudaama Al-Maqdisi (541-620) (رحمه الله) , but many scholars also accepted and took this as their opinion.
So therefore if a person would like further information he should return to the
book and read what the Sheikh brought forth.
Then he mentions the second
opinion by stating:
“That every Mujtahid is correct,
and anything that his Ijtihaad(deductive ruling) leads to it is true, so the truth with them is
multiple, and it has been said that Abu Haneefa held this opinion, and a
statement of Maalik, and it has been linked to Shaafi’i, however some of them
have denied this from among his Madhab, and this is because it has been found
in some texts that the Mujtahid is correct in his ijtihaad(deductive ruling) even if he doesn’t arrive upon the correct
answer, so they understood from this that every Mujtahid is correct. This is
the opinion of the Mu’tazilite and most of the Ash’aairah, and Imam Al-Ghazaali
(رحمه الله) and Ibn Burhaan. (رحمه
الله)”
In order to clarify in a way that
can be understood, we can look at an issue of the branches of Fiqh where the
scholars disagreed, for example in the issue of whether or not the eating of
Camel meat breaks ones spiritual purity (Al-Wudhu’). Some say it does, and some
say it doesn’t.
So if we take the first
statement as truth, in that not every Mujtahid scholar is correct, we would say
that, the opinion for example of the Hanaabilah is correct in that eating Camel
meat does break ones Wudhu’ and anyone who said otherwise from among the
scholars is wrong, however they are rewarded for their Ijtihaad (deductive
ruling).
The second opinion would say that, no both of these opinions are right, and
both scholars are right. Now this is hard to understand because how can the Law
of Allah be more than one in any one specific issue? How can eating Camel both
break your Wudhu’ and not break your Wudhu’ at the same time? We say, according
to the first opinion of this article, that in can’t be true. The law with Allah
in both Usool (Foundations) and Furoo (Branches)is only one way, and when a
scholar does Ijtihaad (deductive ruling)” in the branches he is rewarded,
however, only one of them is correct, and the correct one gets two rewards.
Alongside this we have to mention
that even though we believe that only one Mujtahid Scholar is correct, this
doesn’t mean we don’t accept differences of opinions. Rather we accept
differences of opinions in the branches of Fiqh, and we don’t allow this to
cause differing or hatred, we respect that perhaps in these issues of the
branches the scholars who have given other rulings that differ than ours have
saw the proofs differently than the scholars whom we may be following, and thus
even though we believe that only one of them is correct, if it’s an issue that
is not entirely clear
,
we can’t be entirely certain that we are correct and he is incorrect. Thus we
accept the difference, and say it’s possible he may be right, however we still
feel as though we are following what is correct. While in the law of Allah (The
Shariah) only one right way truly exists.
Written by Abu Hasaan Yahya
Trento, 4/16/2013.
May Allah send his peace and
blessings upon his Prophet Muhammad, Upon his Family, and Upon All of his
companions.
