In early 20th century, each and every Sunni Muslim was raised in one of the four Masaalik. Masalak is the ‘Schools of Law’ which used Quran and Ahadeeth as the primary sources for reaching the Truth. The way the ‘secondary sources’ was used differed them from one another.
It has all changed now, with legions deserting a thousand-year-old legacy, and drifting into uncharted waters.
The Schools
Hanafiyah
In deriving rules, this school, named after its founder Abu Hanifah al-Numan ibn Thaabit (699-767), relied initially on the Quran and the judgements of their masters.
Based in Baghdad, the centre of the Abbasid Khilaafat, the Hanafis introduced reasoning by Qiyaas (analogical deduction) to reach the truth of a matter. However, their use of Istihsaan (juristic preference) created the biggest furore in Hijaaz, the base of early Islam.
The early Ahnaaf (plural of Hanafi jurist) were accused of exercising an opinion (ra’ay) to avoid a literal interpretation of Quran to seek fairness (Omar’s example where a thief’s hand was not amputation because of famine). Soon, they were derided as Ahl-al-Ra’ay – for having an opinion that is independent of Quran and Sunnah.
Malikiyah
Based in Madina, this school of Hijaaz was founded by Maalik ibn Anas (715-795). Maalik’s work Al-Muwatta (The Beaten Path) was the earliest collection of the Prophet’s Sunnah, and was also the first book of law. In their attempt to reach the truth, they introduced ‘Ijma of Madni Sahaba as their secondary source. For their close adherence to prophetic traditions, they came to be known as Ahl-al-Hadeeth.
However, when they added Istislah (public interest) as a secondary source to over-ride Quran and Sunnah in exceptional cases, they were accused of being unfaithful to the primary sources. Their protest that the use of this secondary source was not intended for matters of ibadaat did not satisfy many.
Though the three schools later accepted the ‘Ijma, the Maalikis strongly felt the Madni consensus was the only valid consensus; others spoke for ‘Ijma of all the Sahaba.
Shafi’iyah
Muhammad ibn ldris al-Shafi’i (767-820) was one of leading figure in the Ahl-al-Hadeeth who emigrated to Iraq, and was exposed to the methodology used by the Ahl-al-Ra’ay.
Shafi’i noticed inconsistencies in both madhhab: istihsaan and istislah were being used in an ad-hoc manner, causing contradictions and confusion.
In Egypt where he settled, he wrote Ar-Risalah articulating the broad outline of the legal theory of the Sources of Law:
1. For a clear text of Quran, no interpretation other than its literal meaning was to be allowed.
2. When the Quranic ayah allowed itself to be interpreted in several ways, then the Ahadeeth’s explanation is to be used.
3. For issues which were explained by the prophet but not mentioned in the Quran, Shafi’ argued that what is said on the authority of the Prophet is to be considered as said on the authority of Allah himself.
4. For issues that are not mentioned in the nass, Qiyaas is to be applied.
5. He did not like the use of istihsaan and ‘ijma because the rules derived from these tools did not lend themselves to a consistent outcome.
His proposal was immediately accepted by the Maliki madhhab, but was refuted by the Ahl-al-Ra’ay.
Shafi’s disciples also introduced the concept of ‘Urf (customary law), a tool by which many of the local/regional customs were accepted as parts of Shari’ah if they did not contravene the Naas (Quran and Sunnah). Thus female genital mutilation is accepted as a part of Shari’ah, though the custom was limited to North-East Africa.
Hanbaliyah
It’s founder Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855) refused to accept the Mu’tazilah doctrine, for which he was subsequently tortured and imprisoned. Through his great efforts, Islam was pulled back to its fundamentals.
Initially, his school specialised in Aqeedah (and their passionate duel with the Mu’tazilah). Later on, the Hanbali school accepted the Fiqhi rules, based on principles defined by Shafi and detailed by Kalaam (see below).
Political Upheavals, and School’s Evolution
Minhah (the Ordeal)
Baghdad, 827-47: During the times of Khaalif Ma’moon and Mu’tasim, a one group of ulema calling themselves Ahl-al-Adl wa-al-Tawheed (People of Justice and Tawheed) dominated the royal court; their opposition called them Mu’tazilah (one who separated).
Introducing a new method of inquiry called Kalaam (Dialectical Reasoning), they wanted to establish proofs on which Aqeedah (Creed) was based, calling their study Usul ad-Deen (Foundations of Religion). They were not a Madhhab (School of Law), though the overlap was potentially significant. Thus Fiqhi (legal) issues, called Furu’ ad-Deen (Branches of Religion) were left for Juristic Ulema.
Using, Aql (‘logic’ – then a Greek science), they speculated systematically on everything connected with the world, including Islam and the Quran. In the process, they invented the process of Ta’weel (interpretation) of Quran to justify their actions. They rejected the ahadeeth, citing the many fabricated ones.
Reactions to Minhah
Ulema like Ahmad ibn al-Hanbal (d 855), Dawood al-Zahir (d. 891) and others defended Aqeedah vigorously. However, the Zahiri school did not survive long due to their blind faith in the truth of all ahadeeth, which led to inconsistencies in their opinions and could not stand the stress of academic questioning by their opponents.
Mu’tazilah’s rejection of ahadeeth due to questions of reliability was a factor that launched the study into ahadeeth. ‘Ali ibn al-Madini (d. 848) was the first to classify ahadeeth, based on the reliability of their narrators into Sahih (sound), Hasan (good) and Da’if (weak). Later, Bukhari and Muslim perfected this science, striving to ascertain the truth, as best as possible.
Mu’tazilah’s introduction of Ta’weel al-Quran, formed the basis of many of the later justifications of Shi’a and Sufi practices. Al-Ghazali, a Shafi’i, later reconciled many such beliefs in Islam while condemning those that did not align with the maqaasid of Quran and Sunnah.
Rise of the Shi’a
874, Baghdad: Hasan alAskari, the 12th Shi’a Imaam, died. His only son, Muhammad, a five-year-old boy, apparently disappeared in what is called Ghaybah. With the loss of their boy-Imaam, and hereditary Imaamat, Baghdadi Shi’a were stunned and disoriented.
In Egypt, “the children” of the 7th Imaam, Isma’il, rose to power spinning a long thread of history to explain why nothing, absolutely nothing, is recorded of their ancestors between 813 to 882.
By 909, they managed to conquer today’s Tunisia. However, their supporters in Khorasan (Central Asia), Persia and Yemen failed. In the Arabian Peninsula, another branch of Isma’ili sect called Qaramati, rose to raid Iraq and Syria from their bases in Bahrain. Then they raided Makkah, stealing the Hajr al-Aswat.
In 950, the Fatimis forced the Qaramatis to return the Hajr al-Aswat, in contrast to Abbasia Khaalif’s inability to do from near-by Baghdad. By 969, the Fatimis captured Egypt after failed four previous attempts. They will rule the area for the next 50 years.
Reactions to Fatimi rule
With the weak Abbasi court, the ulema were left with the sole responsibility of upholding the Truth. In response to Fatimi use of Ta’weel of Quran to claim their legitimacy, the ulema began to comprehensively write Tafseer of Quran. Tabari (d.922), a Shafi’i, did the most comprehensive work at this time, though he liberally used raw hadeeth narrations (the reliability of his ahadeeth was in doubt, as he did not use the filters to sieve out the fabricated ones).
In a weak political environment produced by the Fatimi rise, Al-Ashari (d. 935), a Mu’tazilah himself, highlighted the limitations of logic. Joining the Shafi’i school, he introduced the very same concepts in matters of Furu’ ad-Deen. In the next 100 years, many of his Mu’tazilah colleagues drifted towards the Shafi’i school, while the Shafi’i school was the first to accept the Kalaam principles in reaching the truth and deriving the rule of Law.
Consolidation of Schools
11th century, Baghdad: The intellectual opposition to Fatimi rule was consolidated in the elite institutes called the Nizamiyah. Patronised by the sultans, these scholars made peace in the lands, and dispensed justice. Under their watch, Islam avoided willful and systemic human catastrophes like man-made famines, inquisitions, genocides and holocausts.
Hanafi school (Ahl-e-Ra’ay) were forced to toe the line of al-Shafi’i. Qiyaas was accepted by others when Ahnaaf reconciled their master’s verdicts with that of the Quran (via verses 59:2, 4:105, 2:79 and 59:7). While Istihsaan was validated via 34:18 and 39:55; Shaf’is were not convinced. Hanbalis (initially a school of Aqidah) were told to develop fiqhi protocols to be relevant.
Zahiri school, along with 14 other schools, were relegated to the history books.
It was from these institutions that the narrative of the Shi’a extremists was corrected, the esotericism of Sufis was incorporated into Islam, and more importantly, the Shari’ah was made independent of the whims of the impotent Khaalifs and rotating Sultans.
Spread of Schools
Hanafi School and its rational stance was responsible for acceptance of Islam in Turkey, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent where it is still dominant. In Arab lands, it is practised in Lebanon.
The Maliki School was instrumental in spreading Islam to the Magrib – Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco. Though, it failed badly in the Andalusia (historical Muslim Spain). It has some practitioners in Bahrain and Kuwait.
Shafi’i School spread via maritime traders from southern Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula to East Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia; and it has many followers in Palestine, Jordan and Syria.
If the above three are the centrifugal forces of Islam, the Hanbali were the centripetal force of Islam. Due to narrow interpretations of hadeeth, Hanbali followers were limited in numbers, and could not convince the other non-Muslim tribes or nations to accept Islam. Only in the 18th century were the Hanbalis given a boost by a new movement led by Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula.
Taqleed
1258, Baghdad: A cataclysmic event took place in Muslim history. The Khaalif of Islam was rolled in a carpet, and was pulped to death. With no khaalif or his court to guide the Ummah, the ulema rose to negotiate with the pagan Mongols now ruling the heart of Islam.
By providing the new pagan rulers with tools to govern people – justly, fairly and peacefully – a ‘new blood’ of the Mongols entered Islam, spreading it to Central Asia and al-Hind (great credit goes to tireless work of Sufis, and of course Imaam al-Ghazzali).
The real catastrophe of Mongol Invasion was the complete halt to the process of Ijtihaad. Ulema like Imaam Suyuti tried, but failed. They were never considered mujtahid by their contemporaries (it is a modern phenomenon to confer them titles of mujtahid). Taqleed took root in the minds and institutions of Muslim learning.
Decline
Taqleed served, and saved further division of Ummah during testing times of immense political upheavals. However, this stagnant system was destined to rot the institution of Madhaahib in the long run.
In the 18th century, sensing impending calamity, Shah Wali Ullah translated Qur’an into Farsi (the lingua franca of Indian Subcontinent then) breaking the taboos of Taqleed. However, that was to be the last effort. Taqleed has since prevailed in these institutions.
As Colonization took root, the Muslims jurists were sidelined from criminal courts. Post-independence, they were relieved of civil-court duties by the socialist rulers. And had since been confined to the Masjid. Today, the young increasingly care less about them. If they are cared, it due to their individual charm and oratory. Not for institutional policy.
Revival?
Today, our madrassa schooling are but a shadow of Nizamiyah institutes. It has become a hostel for poor orphans, derided by the urban and pretentious people who value neither history nor the changing world.
Despite the demand for instant guidance and gratification, and heavy media spotlight on them, the Ulema do consider their role in the ever-changing world – with courage, and willingness to face hard questions. These seminaries survive to make a positive contributions to societies, in their attempt to reach the Truth.
Despite the pecuniary pressure on them, and lack of other skills invested and cultured by wider society, I am very hopeful. Their legacy is cherished. Their willingness to uphold the principles of truth, justice, consistency, fairness, and their sacrifices, their hard work will glow the hearts of any seeker.
