Continuing the theme of addressing issues and misunderstandings in the da’wah, and helping to ground callers in ta’sil; or sound knowledge-based ‘principles’, here is another consideration:

I

While the way in which a few people carry out da‘wah to non-Muslims can seem like childish point scoring, vengeful sneering, or even an exercise in shaming, da‘wah to non-Muslims isn’t often or usually divisive (at least not in the manner it’s intended here; namely, intra-Muslim divisions). While da‘wah dramas, unsightly scuffles, or boisterous egos playing to a crowd might be a hallmark of a Speakers’ Corner type of spectacle, that’s not how most da‘wah occurs, and neither is it the most fruitful — even if it is the loudest.

Where schisms are exacerbated is when some of the same voices that are good at calling non-Muslims to Islam crossover and start to preach about the details of Islam, and ‘correcting the mistakes’ of fellow Muslims. This is where the fiasco takes place, sectarian strife kicks-off, and cringeworthy levels of ignorance can be on display. Division (tafarruq, furqah), in contrast to legitimate differing (khilaf, ikhtilaf), is expressly forbidden in Islam — as the Holy Qur’an says: And be not like those who fell into divisions or disputes after the clear proofs came to them. For them is a painful torment. [Q.3:105] As well as: And be not of the idolators. Those who split-up their religion and became factions, each party exulting in whatever it has. [Q.30:31-2]

II

The Qur’an does not just condemn disunity, division or splitting hearts apart, it actively enjoins unity and togetherness. This is a central message in the following hadith: Allah is pleased with you by three things and abhors for you three things. He is pleased that you worship Him alone and not ascribe any partner to Him, that you hold firmly to the rope of Allah altogether, and that you not become divided. He hates for you gossiping, asking too many questions, and squandering wealth.1

While all that brings about schisms and splits between believers is due to something that opposes the religion, as per these words of Ibn Taymiyyah: ‘All that brings about discord (fitnah) and division (furqah) cannot be part of the religion,2 then all that bring about love, brotherhood or togetherness among Muslims is urged by Islam, in as much as it doesn’t entail divine disobedience. In fact, striving to unite the hearts of Muslims, and to bring about affinity or accord between them, and to be acutely aware of any word or deed that may sow hurt, enmity, rancour or schism in their ranks, is from the greater forms of jihad in our time, as per the clear teachings of our scholars. The sanctity (hurmah) of this blessed ummah far outstrips the liberty of individual Muslims to say or do what they want: ‘Whoever harms others, Allah will harm them,’ states one hadith.3 The rule of thumb in Islam being: al-jaza’ min jins al-‘aml — ‘Recompense is proportional to the deed.’ It’s another way of saying: What goes around, comes around.

III

Bad behaviour or occasional slips in decorum aside, the main cause of schism to occur among practicing Muslims is violating the orthodox ijma‘-ijtihad rule. Simply put, it is the rule that says: In issues that scholars have a unanimous agreement over; i.e. a scholarly consensus (ijma‘), then that becomes binding to follow. To wilfully oppose it is to be guilty of sectarian splitting (tafarruq) and deviancy. Such issues tend to be the clear-cut ones found in the two primary sources of Islam: the Qur’an and Sunnah. But that is not always the case. Ijma‘ is defined as: ‘The unified agreement of the mujtahid scholars concerning a religious issue.’

When the issue is not clear-cut, but instead is subtle and isn’t categorically stated as such in the primary sources, then scholarly ijtihad to deduce or to infer the correct Islamic ruling is required. If scholars end-up differing in their conclusions on such issues (which they almost invariably do), then each qualified view represents a valid Islamic opinion, and to follow any of these ijtihad views isn’t sinful. So ijma‘ represents the Islamic view, while issues of scholarly ijtihad represent an Islamic view.

Contrasting innovators (ahl al-bid‘ah) to Sunni orthodoxy, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote: ‘The hallmark of such sects is their splitting from the Book, Sunnah and scholarly ijma‘. But whoever speaks with the Book, the Sunnah and the ijma‘ is from ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jama‘ah.’4

Elsewhere, he said: ‘As for statements and actions which are not known to contravene the Book or the Sunnah, but are rather the provenance of ijtihad that the people of knowledge and faith differ in, then such affairs may be cut and dry to some who Allah has made the truth clear to. However, it is not lawful to make binding on people what might be clear to some, but not clear to others.’5 

Moreover, the golden rule of mainstream orthodoxy is that there must be no censuring (inkar) in issues of ijtihad. Ibn Qudamah stipulated: ‘It is not for anyone to rebuke another who is acting according to his law-school (madhhab). As there cannot be any censure in issues of ijtihad.’6

The Four Sunni fiqh-schools (madhhabs), and the legal rulings contained in them, are all legitimate expressions of ijtihad that cannot be censured. Again: ‘A condition for censuring wrong (inkar al-munkar) is that the act being censured cannot be something whose wrong is known via ijtihad. All that is an area of ijtihad cannot be forbidden.’7 Honouring this rule should eliminate a lot of the cantankerous intra-Muslim bickering that continues to scar the da‘wah. Moreover, the ludicrous fiction that to follow a madhhab is to not follow the Qur’an or Sunnah should be buried in the graveyard of misguidance where it belongs.

IV

Three rogue traits that are explicit deviations from the ijma‘-ijtihad rule have now been normalised in the da‘wah. The first is claiming to follow the collective way (read, ijma‘) of the salaf, when it is just the opinion of a tiny fringe of contemporary scholars who sometimes even contradicts an ijma‘. Yet it is now passed-off as being the way of the salaf. Many an example of this has been detailed in my forthcoming book: Salafism Reconsidered, as have the proofs concerning the binding nature of ijma‘.

The second is the habit of creating schisms, divisions, inquisitions, or even judging others to be innovators, in issues of valid ijtihadi differing. This Kharijite-like ijtihadi intolerance and bigotry, and the crooked mindset towards valid scholarly differences, is the cause for the chaos; not the actual ijtihad itself. Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘Valid ijtihad is not what leads to the levels of sedition (fitnah) or schism, save when it is accompanied by transgression; not because of the ijtihad itself … Sedition and schisms are not caused by ijtihad, but by various wrongs that occur with it.’8 

Thirdly, the claim that: ‘We follow the proofs, not the consensus.’ And yet ijma‘ is the unanimous scholarly understanding of the proof. That is to say, the issue is not with the actual proof-texts, but with the understanding of the proof. For either the classical ‘ulama agreed on how to understand the proof in the given issue: then their ijma‘ is what must be followed; or they differed: in which case it is an area of valid ijtihad. What we do not do — at least, not on pains of being from the clear deviants at odds with the way of the salaf and ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jama‘ah — is to take the isolated view of a current shaykh or two in how they understand the proof, over the agreed upon understanding of countless of erudite souls far more learned than any current shaykh could ever be.

About this verse: If you differ in any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah an the Last Day, [Q.4:59] Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘They are ordered, if there is a dispute in any matter, to refer it back to Allah and the Messenger … If the people of fiqh agree on a ruling, then it is correct; or if the people of hadith concur over the soundness of a hadith, then it too is the truth.’9

Those who have internalised these rogue habits, and are at variance with orthodoxy on the matter, are to be advised sincerely. Hopefully, they will pay heed. For it is unlikely such callers deliberately intended to violate the ijma‘. As for ijtihadi bigotry, this tends to be less of an error in knowledge, and more often down to the ego and to questionable intentions. And that’s far harder to remedy!

≈

1. Muslim, no.1715.

2. Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Istiqamah (Riyadh: Jami‘ah al-Imam Muhammad b Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1991), 1:37.

3. Al-Tirmidhi, no.1940, grading it hasan gharib.

4. Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 3:346.

5. ibid., 10:383-4.

6. As cited in Ibn Muflih, al-Adab al-Shar‘iyyah (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah, 1996), 1:186.

7. Najm al-Din Ibn Qudamah, Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Qasidin (Beirut: Dar al-Khayr, 1998), 128.

8. Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Istiqamah, 1:31.

9. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, 19:91.