Ikhtilaf or difference of opinion between Muslims has existed as long as Islam itself. Whilst it is healthy to have a diversity of views it can also be problematic if differences are not resolved. It is argued that difference of opinion causes sectarianism, partisanship and conflict within societies.
Indeed the enemies of Islam use such differences to “divide and conquer” the Muslim lands. The US invaders in Iraq for example have stoked up sectarian strife in Iraq between Sunnis and Shia’s- so that they could take control of the country.
On the other hand it is argued that difference of opinion that allows nations to have more than a single view held by those in authority and power – this allows accountability, different angles about problems, policies and actions – this is a strength a nation possesses, if managed correctly.
Many view that uniting the Muslims on a single view is an impossible task. They see different opinions held by various schools of thinking, ulema and their followers and groups to be too deep-rooted to be overcome. They feel that followers of different opinions will never accept each another’s differences over fiqh or other matters.
It is such understandings that often leave some confused, despondent and apathetic about bringing unity for the Muslims by re-establishing the Khilafah. In this article we seek to examine the issues surrounding difference of opinion and how they will be resolved under the leadership of the Khilafah state.
What is a legitimate Difference of Opinion?
If an individual holds an opinion that a woman can wear western clothing and dress as she pleases in public, or that democracy is a valid form of government, or that acceptance of the state of Israel is permissible- then all these opinions are rejected as valid opinions because there is no basis for them from Islam- rather they are built on other than an Islamic basis.
Muslims are increasingly aware that the opinions held about such matters have to be based upon Islam and they therefore have to have Shari evidences to be acceptable. If these opinions are not based upon Quran, Sunnah, Ijma of the Sahaba, Qiyas or principles deduced on the basis of these – then the opinions cannot be accepted by Muslims.
Indeed Allah (swt) mentioned in the Quran “But no, by your lord they can have no Iman, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them” TMQ An-Nisa: 65
“And if you differ in anything amongst your selves refer it to Allah and His Messenger” TMQ An-Nisa: 59
If an opinion is based upon Islamic text then Muslims can accept it. If the opinion is based upon an individuals mind, whim or desire then it is not allowed to accept it.
Some may question about differences in opinion in technical or political matters. For example what is the best location for a highway, school or hospital? These matters are left to those that possess specialist technical knowledge to provide informed recommendations and judgements. This is because on the basis of textual evidences the building of highways, schools and hospitals is permitted. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those in ruling or in those in charge of a project to decide where the highway, school or hospital is to be built. The location is to be decided to serve the purpose and this is permitted in shariah.
As long as an opinion is based upon daleel (evidence) from Islam then Muslims should accept this is as an Islamic opinion, even if they do not follow it themselves. This is where the differences between the scholars of Islam occurred. Their view regarding the opinion that they deduced to the best of their ability, was that they were correct with the possibility they could be wrong as differences of opinion can only arise where the Islamic rule is not clear cut – therefore a possibility of error exists.
Indeed the Prophet (saw) said, “Whosoever does Ijtihad and errs therein shall have one reward. And whosoever performs Ijtihad and is correct shall have a double reward.” (Bukhari & Muslim)
Resolving the Differences of Opinion
It is well known that individual sahaba had differences of opinion. An example of such a difference is between Abu Bakr Sadiq (RA) and Umar (RA). When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, he paid equal grants to all the Sahabah (raa). He (ra) did not distinguish between the early Muslims and the new Muslims. When the Islamic State started receiving larger funds through the liberation of various lands, Abu Bakr (ra) continued to distribute the wealth equally. Umar (ra) and some of the Sahabah (raa) insisted that the earliest Muslims should be given preference over the later converts. Abu Bakr (ra) told him that he was aware of the differences that Umar (ra) had mentioned; however, his opinion was that distributing the funds equally was better in the sight of Allah (swt) than the principle of preference.
When Umar (ra) became Khalifah, he replaced Abu Bakr’s (ra) adoption of equality with his principle of preference. Umar (ra) did not like to pay the same amount to those who fought against the Prophet (saaw) and those who fought with him. Accordingly, he gave a larger amount to the early Sahabah (raa) who fought in Badr and Uhud and the relatives of the Prophet (saaw).
When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, Umar (ra) left his understanding and enacted the decree of Abu Bakr (ra), as did the judges, governors, and all Muslims. However, when Umar (ra) became the Khalifah, he obliged the enactment of his opinion and the others implemented it. On the basis of this the following shari principles have been deduced.
“The Imam’s decree settles the disagreement”
“The Imam’s decree is executed openly and privately”
All Muslims including the scholars, have to follow the opinion adopted by the Khalifah. They do not have accept it as the correct opinion and can maintain their opinion and teach it, whilst their obedience should be to the opinion that the Khalifah adopts.
Due to the level of understanding and the presence of many foreign forms of thinking leading to non Islamic opinions in Muslim societies – when the Khilafah state is established it will need to immediately present a constitution based upon daleel (evidence) on the basis of the Islamic sources. This will allow the Islamic opinions adopted by the state to be made clear to the citizens in a rapid manner. Citizens would be obliged to follow the constitution because this would be what the Khalifah adopts and the Muslims would be obliged to follow it. Even if some differed with the rules; as long as the rules were Islamic they would be obliged to follow.
In conclusion, Muslims can only accept opinions that are based upon Islamic evidences. All other opinions cannot be taken, Differences of opinion amongst Muslims have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The correct framework to handle them is through the Khilafah state - as any other route will merely lead to confusion, conflict, anarchy and chaos. The Khalifah has the right to adopt rules and opinions on the basis of Islam; initially this will be by adopting a constitution to cover all aspects of life’s affairs - Muslims would be obliged to follow even if it differed with their understanding.
