• Schools of thought: Basic concept
What is the concept behind having four imams and four schools of thought. What is their status and importance in our religion? Back home, people tend to make a great deal of belonging to these four schools of thought. Sometimes loudspeakers in these mosques are misused. To me, the situation is very confusing. It is so difficult to decide who is right and who is wrong. Please explain.
Each of the four scholars, who founded the schools of thought known after them, is simply a great scholar. He does not aspire to any higher position. None of them has added anything to the religion of Islam. None has a special status. None has made a claim to be followed. They are simply scholars of great eminence. They lived in the early period of Islam, with Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifah living toward the end of the first century and the first half of the second century, followed by Imam Al-Shaf'ie who lived in the second half of the second century and passed away in the year 204 H., and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal being his contemporary and surviving him to live for some time.
A school of thought is all about method of construction and deduction of rulings and verdicts from Qur'anic and Hadith statements. Those four imams did not have the same frame of knowledge available to each one of them. They certainly learned the Qur'an properly, but their knowledge of Hadith differed and there were some differences in their approach to Hadith and how they deduced its meaning and applied it to practical situations. Each of them had students who became great scholars in their own right. This process was carried on, generation after generation. In each school of thought, you find scholars of great eminence who followed the same methods of construction and deduction, and applied them to problems and questions that arose in their own lifetimes. That gave each school of thought the sort of continuity which ensured a large following.
I would like to make two points clear. The first is that there is nothing special about their number 'four'. There were many other eminent scholars, some of whom were contemporaries to those four. A most notable example was Imam Al-Laith ibn Sa'ad who lived in Egypt. He was a contemporary of Imam Malik, and many scholars consider him to have been even of higher merit than Malik. However, Imam Al-Laith did not establish a school of his own, because there were few, if any, of his students who could achieve a degree of prominence in their own right. But if we find a ruling given by Imam Al-Laith which is supported by firm evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, then we may adopt it in the same way as we follow a ruling by any of the four imams. The second point is that in each of the four schools of thought we may find great scholars who differ on some specific questions with the founder of that school. There is no rigidity about following an imam in all questions and all matters. We may find a later scholar in a particular school of thought giving a different opinion from that of the founder of that school, and we find his opinion to be better supported. Therefore, we take that view without hesitation.
A good example is the ruling given by Imam ibn Taimiyah, of the Hanbali school of thought, concerning divorce pronounced three times in the same session. He considers that as a single, revocable divorce, while Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of that school, considers it as three divorces, which means that it is irrevocable. The family law in several Muslim countries has adopted the ruling given by Imam ibn Taimiyah which indeed relies on very strong evidence from the Sunnah. It is not necessary that a Muslim should follow a single school of thought. Indeed, this does not happen in practice. The division caused in your home country, and indeed in other Muslim countries, is simply due to ignorance. Had any of these four imams been alive today, he would have fought it with all his might. They were the first to admit that they were liable to error, and indeed each of them has made mistakes. I can tell you something more. There is no need to follow any of the four schools of thought. Indeed, many Muslims do not. This is because they have enough knowledge of Islam to be able to weigh the evidence supporting the view of each school. They can choose always the view supported by stronger evidence, regardless of which school of thought advocates that opinion.
• Schools of thought: Different views given by scholars
There are often different views given - each supported by scholars. Which one to follow?
I am afraid I do not have a simple answer. The only way is to weight up the evidence supporting each view and choose the one which you consider to be more accurate. If you are unable to do that, because you lack the knowledge necessary for that exercise, then you can only choose on the basis what have been told by a scholar [upon your asking]. As long as you are certain that the scholar you are asking is knowledgeable and God-fearing, you commit no sin by implementing the ruling he gives you, even if it is totally mistaken.
• Schools of thought: Dilemma for an ordinary Muslim
1. How would an ordinary Muslim distinguish between the different schools of thought. What books should he read?
2. Someone like myself is in a dilemma when divergent opinions are expressed on a particular matter. For example, people criticize a person who enters the mosque shortly before Maghrib and offers two rak'ahs in greeting to the mosque. An imam told me once that such prayer is to be offered regardless of the time one enters the mosque. How to sort out this confusion?
People often find the idea of different schools of thought with different opinions on the same question rather disturbing. But this is one of the aspects of the beauty of the religion of Islam. Let me tell my readers that we often find similar differences within the same school of thought. For example, if you are reading a book of the Hanbali school of thought, you often find a ruling and then the author, who would be a leading scholar of that school of thought, would say: "This view is agreed by scholars like (and he mentions a few of the leading scholars of all schools) and confirmed by one of the two reports attributed to Ahmad." He then mentions another view, which may be totally different and he mentions the scholars supporting it and adds, "and confirmed by Ahmad." Ahmad is of course the well known Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of thought.
Similarly we note that Imam El-Shaf'ie changed his rulings on many questions after he had settled in Egypt. His later rulings are known as the New Shaf'ie, as distinguished from the Old one. It goes without saying that the change of view did not occur haphazardly, but happened after El-Shaf'ie had settled in Egypt, found life and social and business relations were different in Egypt, which gave him a new understanding of the Hadiths he had already known. Such a change is perfectly understandable, because the purpose of all religious rulings and views is to serve the interest of the community.
Now which view should we take and on what basis? I have frequently said that the decision we arrive at must always be based on the evidence it relies upon. How to distinguish between the different views and their evidence? This is not easy, because it requires basic knowledge of how to compare and relate Hadiths and Qur'anic text. It is a matter for people who have studied such questions and are able to sift evidence and make a critical judgment of each piece of evidence. This is indeed a matter for people with reasonable standard of Islamic scholarship.
When you go to a scholar and put to him your question, he is bound to answer you on the basis of his study and perhaps follows the school of thought he knows best. It is like when you go to a doctor for treatment. Every doctor follows the method of treatment he learned and practiced. In a case which needs an antibiotic, a doctor who studied in the U.S. is more likely to prescribe the ones used in that country, while one who has studied in Britain will use the sort of antibiotic that is more commonly used in Britain. Similarly, most rulings given nowadays follow the school of thought the scholar concerned had studied.
So, what is a lay person to do? The answer is that his attitude should be the same as when he goes to a doctor who listens to his complaint, makes the diagnosis and prescribes the treatment. If the person has had the sort of education to understand the condition and the methods to treat it, he is likely to ask the doctor about the details of his case. The doctor would be willing to explain to him the different ways to deal with his condition. He may tell him when to stop certain medicines and when to switch from one method to another. Similarly a scholar may be able to tell him the basis of each ruling and he may then decide which to follow.
If we take the two examples given by the second reader, we may tell him that there is no difference between schools of thought concerning the times when voluntary prayer is discouraged. However, scholars differ on which is the original state: the permissible or the discouragement of voluntary prayers at these time, which are from the end of the obligatory Fajr prayer until the sun has risen well in the sky, and from the end of the Asr prayer until the sun has set. Those who say that the original state is that voluntary prayer is permissible at all times, then the particular condition of these times comes as a new situation to maintain that the discouragement applies in all circumstances. Thus if you happen to enter the mosque in these times, you do not offer the prayer known as the greeting to the mosque. On the other hand, there are scholars who argue that the discouragement to pray in these is the original state of affairs. Hence when a new situation applies, such as entering the mosque, or preparing to enter the state of consecration for Umrah or pilgrimage, etc. it modifies that state to make voluntary prayer permissible, or indeed recommended.
What is important to realize is that those who act on the advice of a scholar stand to earn reward, even if that advice is mistaken. The Prophet, peace be upon him, makes it clear that those who use scholarly discretion in order to arrive at a verdict concerning a particular matter will be rewarded even when the verdict they give is wrong.
"Whoever makes a learned judgment and he is wrong will have a single reward, but he who is right in his learned judgment will have a double reward."
Refer this article to Someone