Ibn al-Jawzi (r) said in Al-Sirr al-Masūn:
“I saw a group of men who from a scholarly circle acting in a way that is only befitting of the general masses. When a Hanbalī would pray in a Shāfi’ī mosque the Shāfi’īs would gang up against him and when a Shāfi’ī would pray in a Hanbalī mosque and recite the Basmalah aloud the Hanbalis would gang up against him. All whilst these being issues of Ijtihād and being so stern in these matters is an expression of ones desires (sectarian bigotry) which ought not to exist in the presence of knowledge.
Ibn ‘Aqīl (r) said,
‘I’ve seen men who weren’t prevented from carrying out oppression except for the fact that they didn’t have the power to do so. I do not speak of the average people here, but scholars.
The Hanbalis were in power during the reign of Ibn Yūsuf, during which they would unjustly bear down on the Shāfi’īs to the point where they wouldn’t allow them to read the Basmalah aloud nor perform the Qunūt of Fajr, despite this being a matter of Ijtihād!
Then when it was the time of Nidhām (al-Mulk), and Ibn Yusūf [1] had passed, and the Hanbalī dominance came to an end, the followers of al-Shāfi’ī began to bear down on the Hanbalis with the help of oppressive rulers: by inciting against them, with imprisonment, by harming the general Hanbalī population with slanders and their scholars by accusing them of anthropomorphism.’
He (Ibn ‘Aqīl) continued to say, ‘I really contemplated over both groups and it occurred to me that the etiquette of knowledge didn’t live within either of them. Were they any different to how armies behave where they attack when in power but frequent the mosques when jobless?’”
Whomsoever rejects the conclusions that were reached via Ijtihād then it is due to them being ignorant of the status of the Mujtahidūn; due to their ignorance of the amount of sleep those men deprived their eyes of, the effort they’ve put in, and the precious time and age they’ve sacrificed from their lives in pursuit of the truth. These scholars will without a doubt be rewarded, regardless of whether they got it right or erred, and those who follow them in their opinions are safe, as those (varying) opinions to which each of those Mujtahids arrived at was the legislation of Allāh Himself for them. The same manner in which Allāh legislates the consumption of carcass as permissible for the compelled and impermissible for the one who has a choice – these are two different yet established rulings on the same issue for both parties, by consensus [2].
Thus, the conclusion that which seems most likely to be true in the eyes of the Mujtahid is the Hukm of Allāh for him and for anyone who follows him.❞
[Kashhāf al-Qinā’] [1] Abū Mansūr b. Yūsuf al-Baghdādī (r) [2] The point being made here by Sh. Mansūr al-Buhūti is that it isn’t unusual in the Shari’ah of Allāh for there to be two different rulings on the same issue. It’s possible for two different opinions to exist on the same issue whilst both being valid for different people, just as consuming carcass can carry different rulings whilst both rulings being valid for different people.
1570total visits,2visits today