The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam

Chapter Two: The Spectrum of Disagreement

The Meaning and Nature of Ikhtilaaf

The Arabic term ikhtilaaf denotes taking a different position or course from that of another person either in opinion, utterance, or action. The related word khilaaf is from the same root as ikhtilaaf and is sometimes used synonymously with it. Khilaaf, which basically means difference, disagreement, or even conflict is broader in meaning and implication than the concept of direct opposition. This is so because two opposites are necessarily different from each other whereas two things, ideas, or persons that differ are not necessarily opposed to or in conflict with each other.

Differences between people may begin with a difference of opinion over an issue. This may lead to argumentation and mutual wrangling and recrimination. The term ikhtilaaf may therefore represent a mere difference of opinion or it could imply active controversy, discord, and schism. The Qur'an speaks of Christian sects that differed or were at variance with one another (19: 37), of people who held divergent views and positions (11: 118), of others whose beliefs and utterances were discordant (mukhtalif) in relation to the truth (51: 8), and of God's eventual judgment of people who differed among themselves and on the issues on which they differed (10: 93). Ikhtilaaf may therefore refer to absolute difference in beliefs and principles, opinions or attitudes. It could also refer to situations or positions which people may adopt.

With regard to the discipline and history of Islamic jurisprudence, scholars have specialized in the study of differences among various schools of thought (madhaahib; singular: madhhab). One process by which differences have been perpetuated is for the followers of a particular leading scholar (imam; plural: a'immah) to stick to his deductions and rulings and disregard or put down all other variant or contradictory findings without giving any justification. Of course, if a person were able to argue and produce supporting textual evidence for his conclusions, he would indeed become a legal expert in his own right. On the other hand, a follower by definition is not one who delves into the details of juristic evidence. His only concern is to cling to the legal pronouncements of his imam whose authority is, for him, sufficient to establish the validity of any judgment or to counteract any divergent ruling.

Dialectics (Jadal)

The stubborn adherence to its own opinion or position on the part of one or both of two parties at variance with each other, the attempt to defend this position, to prevail on others to accept it or to hold it against them - these are all elements in disputation or dialectics (jadal). Jadal implies carrying out a discussion in a contentious manner in order to gain the upper hand. The term jadal is used in the sense of "braiding" a rope. It conveys the sense of stretching and arm-twisting exercised by disputants while each endeavors to force the other to accept his point of view.

As a discipline, the "science" of dialectics (`ilm al jadal) is based on advancing evidence to show which juristic rulings are more sound. [ See Miftaah al Sa`aadah, 2/599, Daar al Kutub al Hadeethah, Egypt; also al Jurjaanee, al Ta`reefaat, 66, Aleppo.] Some scholars also regard it as a discipline which enables a person to maintain any position however false it is, or indeed to demolish any position however true it is. [ See Miftaah al Sa`aadah, 2/599, Daar al Kutub al Hadeethah, Egypt; also al Jurjaanee, al Ta`reefaat, 66, Aleppo.] This latter definition implies that dialectics is not a science based on the advancing of any specific evidence, but rather a skill or a talent which enables a person to triumph over his opponent without ever having to refer to evidence from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or any other source.

Dissension (Shiqaaq)

Sometimes a dispute may become severe and harsh with the disputant's only concern being to get the better of his opponent. There is no concern for finding out the truth or for clarifying what is right. This precludes any form of mutual understanding or agreement. The term dissension (shiqaaq) may be applied to such a situation. The word shiqaaq in Arabic has the original meaning of carving out a piece of ground into distinct portions, and seems to suggest that one piece of ground is not wide enough to accommodate both disputants at the same time. Sharp differences from which discord and dissension follow place either party in a dispute in a "fissure" or a "breach" as it were, separate from that of the other. This imagery is implicit in the Qur'anic verses:

If you fear that a breach (shiqaaq) might occur between a [married] couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people (4: 35).

And if others come to believe in the way you believe, they will indeed find themselves on the right path; and if they turn away, it is only they who will be deeply in the wrong or in schism (shiqaaq) (2: 137).

Acceptable and Unacceptable Differences

God Almighty has ordained differences between human beings in their mental capabilities, their languages, the color of their skin, and their perceptions and thoughts. All this naturally gives rise to a multiplicity and variety of opinions and judgments. If our languages, the color of our skins, and our outer appearances are signs of God's creative power and wisdom; and if our minds, our mental capabilities, and the products of these minds are also signs of God and an indication of His consummate power; and if the populating of the universe, the beauty of being alive, and being able to live are also indications of God's power, then we can justifiably say that none of this exquisite beauty and variety among human beings would have been possible if they had been created equal in every respect. Every created being indeed has its own unique characteristics:

If your Lord had so willed, He would have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to differ, except those on whom Your Lord and Sustainer has bestowed His mercy, and for this did He create them (11: 118-9).

The differences which occurred among our forebears in early Muslim history and which continue to be with us are part of this natural manifestation of variety. Provided that differences do not exceed their limits, and provided they remain within the standard norms of ethics and proper behavior, this is a phenomenon that could prove to be positive and extremely beneficial.

Some Benefits of Acceptable Differences

As mentioned above, if differences are confined to their proper limits and people are trained to observe the proper ethics and norms of expressing and managing differences, there are several positive advantages that could result.

If intentions are sincere, differences of opinion could bring about a greater awareness of the various possible aspects and interpretations of evidence in a given case. Such differences could generate intellectual vitality and a cross-fertilization of ideas. The process is likely to bring into the open a variety of hypotheses in tackling specific issues.

Such a process is likely to present a variety of solutions for dealing with a particular situation so that the most suitable solution can be found. This is in harmony with the facilitating nature of the religion of Islam which takes into account the reality of people's lives.

These and other benefits can be realized if differences remain within the limits and the ethical norms which must regulate them. If these limits and norms are not observed, differences could easily degenerate into disputes and schisms and become a negative and evil force producing more rifts in the Muslim Ummah, which already has more than enough of such fragmentation. In this way, differences of opinion can change from being a constructive force to being elements of destruction.

Impulsive Disagreements

Disagreement may be prompted by egoistical desires to get personal, psychological satisfaction or to achieve certain personal objectives. It may be impelled by the desire to show off one's knowledge and understanding or cleverness. To cause this type of disagreement is totally blameworthy, in that egoism or selfish desire suppresses all concern for the truth and does not promote goodness. It was such egoism that beguiled Satan and led him into disbelief. God says in the Qur'an:

Is it not so that whenever an Apostle from God came to you with something that was not to your personal liking, you gloried in your arrogance, and some of them you called impostors while others you would slay (2: 87).

As a result of following egoistical desire, many people have swerved from dealing justly:

Do not then follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice (4: 135).

Following one's own desires leads to deviation and error:

Say: I do not follow your vain desires. If I did, I would stray from the straight path and would not be among those who are rightly guided (6: 56).

Egoistical desire is the antithesis of knowledge. It seeks to stifle truth. It promotes corruption and leads to error:

Do not follow vain desire (hawaa) for it will mislead you from the path of God (38: 26).

If the Truth were in accord with their own desires, the heavens and the earth would surely have fallen into ruin, and all that lives in them (23: 71).

Many [people] lead others astray by their own [selfish] desires without having any real knowledge (6: 119).

The types of personal desire are various and stem from various sources. In general, desire springs from the ego and love of self. Such desire gives rise to many misdeeds and deviations. But a person is not easily trapped by it until every misdeed and deviation acquires a certain attractiveness in his eyes and he persists in straying. In this situation, truth appears as falsehood and falsehood appears as truth. The disputes among sects and propagators of misguided innovation in the religion of Islam can be attributed to the stranglehold of vain desire.

Through God's blessings and care a person may be made aware of the extent of the impact of vain desires on his opinions and beliefs before he is totally caught in the snares of error. Such a person may see the light of God's guidance and be made to realize that his opinions and beliefs which stem from infatuation with his own vain desires do not have any objective reality. They exist only in the mind and are illusory. They have been conjured up and made attractive by his own vain desires, however ugly and abhorrent they actually are. They are a source of affliction to the person thus ensnared.

There are various ways of detecting the effect of personal inclination on the formation of any opinion or belief. Some of these are external and some are personal. The external ways of doing so involve showing that the discordant opinion or belief is categorically opposed to a clear text of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. One would not expect a person who professes to be keen on upholding the truth to pursue an idea which contradicts the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

An opinion can also be shown to stem from personal caprice if it clashes with the considered assessment of persons with sound minds to whom people normally go for advice or arbitration. An opinion which calls for the worship of another beside God, or which rejects the application of the Sharee`ah in people's affairs, or which advocates illegal sexual intercourse, praises lying, or urges extravagance can only come from personal caprice and can only be advocated by someone who is led by evil influences.

With regard to internal ways of exposing whether an opinion stems from egotistical desire, this can be shown by reflecting not only on the source of the idea but also by questioning the justification for adopting that particular idea to the exclusion of another. It is also important to assess the prevailing circumstances which might have affected the holder of the opinion and the degree of his commitment to it should these circumstances change. One should also inquire whether there were any pressures which unconsciously led to the adoption of that course. Finally, one has to analyze the idea itself. If it appears to be shaky and unstable, oscillating erratically between strength and weakness, we should then be in no doubt that such an idea stems from vain desire and is insinuated by evil promptings. Having come to such a conclusion, a person must seek the protection of God and praise Him for making him see reality before he became bound by the shackles of egoism and personal caprice.

Some disagreements may indeed be motivated by the pursuit of knowledge and truth; selfishness and egoism may not be behind them. Such disagreements may also be spurred on by a striving for intellectual rigor and by the demands of faith. The differences between the people of faith on the one hand and disbelievers, polytheists, and hypocrites on the other is a necessary difference which no believing Muslim can shake off or attempt to reconcile. This is a difference required by faith and the preservation of truth. The same applies to the Muslim attitude towards atheism, Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and communism. However, the disagreement with these ideologies should not hinder the call to remove the underlying causes of such disagreement. This is in order that the way may be left open for people to embrace Islam and abandon the mainsprings of disbelief, worshipping others beside God, hypocrisy, schism and immorality, atheism and innovation, and the promotion of beliefs which are destructive of truth and goodness.

Differences among Muslims are also fostered by apportioning praise or blame over minor issues, often with little regard for genuine sincerity. Rulings on these issues allow for alternative opinions or practices. How this came about will be examined in a later chapter. Some examples of such disagreements concern the differences among the `ulamaa' with regard to the nullification of ablution (wudoo') by blood from a wound or by induced vomiting; about reciting the Qur'an aloud in salaah after the imam; saying Bismillaahi al Rahmaanee al Raheem at the beginning of al Faatihah, the opening chapter of the Qur'an; and saying aameen aloud after the recitation of al Faatihah. There are many other such examples.

Disagreement over such subsidiary issues are often quite sensitive and may lead a person to confuse piety with his own personal inclination, knowledge with conjecture, the preferable with what he himself has chosen, and the acceptable with the unacceptable. Such disagreements are inevitable unless we have recourse to agreed-upon criteria for resolving them, disciplines to regulate the methods of deduction, and ethical norms which would govern the conduct of handling differences. Otherwise, there would be a drift to wrangling, schism, and ultimate failure. In such a case, both parties in any dispute would slip from a position of piety and God-consciousness to the abyss of egoistical desires. The floodgates of chaos and anarchy would be opened and Satan would thrive.

Discord is Evil

It is important to emphasize that from early post-Qur'anic history, leading Muslim scholars have warned against disagreement in all its forms and emphasized that it is essential to avoid it. The companion of the Prophet, Ibn Mas`ood may God be pleased with him said: "Discord (khilaaf) is evil." [ See Ibn Qutaybah, Ta'weel Mukhtalif al Hadeeth, p. 22; Al `Awaasim min al Qawaasim, p. 78; al Mahsool, 2/Qafl/480.] Al Subkee, may God be merciful to him, said: "Kindness and compassion (rahmah) require that you should eschew disagreement."

There are many verses of the Qur'an and many sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in this regard. The Qur'an speaks of people who contended with one another after all evidence of truth had come to them, but as it was, "they did take to divergent views, and some of them attained to faith, while some of them came to deny the truth" (2: 253). And the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, has said: "The Israelites perished only because of their excessive questioning and their disputes over their prophets." [ The complete hadeeth is reported by Aboo Hurayrah: "Do not bother with what I have omitted. Those before you perished only because of their excessive questioning and their disputes over their prophets. When I enjoin anything on you, carry it out to the best of your ability and if I forbid you from anything, let it alone." Transmitted by Ahmad in his Musnad, and by Muslim, al Nasaa'ee and Ibn Maajah.]

Al Subkee lists three types of differences in dealing with minor issues over which people indulge in mutual blame and praise. The first, which he regarded as innovation and straying from the straight path, concerns the very sources of Islam. The second concerns opinions freely expressed and (internecine) wars; this type of disagreement is also forbidden because it is injurious to the public interest. The third concerns subsidiary matters with respect to what is lawful and what is prohibited. [ See al Ibhaaj, 3/13.] He concluded that agreement on these is better than disagreement. He also drew attention to Ibn Hazm's deprecation of disagreement on such issues in which he did not perceive any blessing but regarded the whole process as a scourge.

It is indicative of the harmful and dangerous consequences of disagreement that the Prophet Haaroon, on whom be peace, considered disagreement and discord (ikhtilaaf) at a given moment as more dangerous and more harmful than the outright condemnation of idol worship. When someone (called the Saamiree in the Qur'an) made a golden calf for the Israelites and said to them: "This is your god and the god of Moosaa" (20: 88), Haaroon pointed out to them the grave consequences of what they were being led into but waited for his brother Moosaa - peace be on him - to return. When Moosaa came and saw the people worshipping the golden calf, he rebuked his brother most severely. His brother's only reply was to say:

Son of my mother! Seize me not by my beard nor by the hair of my head! Truly I was afraid that you would say, `You have caused a division among the Children of Israel, and you did not respect my word' (20: 94).

The Prophet Haaroon thus made the fear of division and disagreement among his people his justification for not severely reprimanding the Israelites, resisting them, and distancing himself from them. He felt that that was a time when outright condemnation would be counter-productive, not beneficial, and would lead to disagreement and disunity.