Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn
It has been reported in some narrations as follows:
You are in such a time that you are inspired to act.
A people will come after you who will be inspired only to argue.159
Allah's most detested servant is the one who is most severe in argument.160
Whichever people have been given argumentation, that people has certainly been prevented from acting.161
Allah, Exalted is He, knows everything better than all people!
159) Kut al-Qulūb (without chain of transmission)
160) Muslim and Bukhārī (from ʿĀʾisha)
161) Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, Kut al-Qulūb (from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Laylā)
FOURTH SECTION The Reasons for the Public's Turn to the Knowledge of the Caliphate, the Calamities of Argumentation and Debate, and the Conditions for Its Permissibility After the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), the rightly guided caliphs succeeded to the office of caliphate. They were the leaders of the scholars who truly knew Allah, and were great jurists in the knowledge of rulings. They were capable of issuing fatwas on matters that arose before them on their own. In matters that required consultation, they would consult with Companions (ṣaḥāba) qualified for consultation and seek help from the jurists among the Companions. Despite this, the scholars of that era were entirely devoted to the knowledge of the Hereafter. They always strove to acquire this knowledge. When a fatwa was requested, the person from whom it was requested would refer the questioner to others. If someone asked a question about worldly matters, one would refer him to another.
They were completely turned to Allah in ijtihād. As is reported in the sources concerning their biographies (sīra), this was their state. When the office of caliphate unjustly passed into the hands of others after the rightly guided caliphs, this principle changed. For those who newly assumed this office were deprived of the ability to act independently in the knowledge of fatwa and rulings. Therefore, these people had to seek help from jurists. In order to implement rulings, they had to obtain fatwas from them and keep their company. However, in that era, there were people resembling the noble Companions. Many scholars from the noble Tābiʿūn turned to the pure side of religion and transmitted what they heard from the predecessors as it was. When scholars from among the Tābiʿūn were asked for fatwas, they would avoid giving them.
So much so that rulers would force these individuals to serve as judges and magistrates. The people of that day knew very well how noble these scholars were, how much the rulers needed them, and how, despite this, they avoided office and position. But unfortunately, after them,
those who came after in the time of Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn began to acquire the knowledge of fatwa and rulings in order to attain honor and prestige, rank and position. They devoted all their time—even at the expense of their lives—to the knowledge of fatwa, and presented themselves to the rulers with this knowledge, seeking rank and gifts from them. Some managed to achieve these desires. Others were not able to realize these ambitions. However, even those who possessed knowledge could not save themselves from the humiliation of seeking gifts. The jurists who were once sought after by the rulers now fell into the humiliation of seeking out the rulers themselves. The situation had completely reversed. The jurists who were once noble by turning away from the rulers now fell into humiliation because they sought office and position.
However, the scholars whom Allah, Exalted is He, protected should be considered outside this ruling. In those centuries, because there was a great need for the knowledge of fatwa and rulings in judgments and legal matters, many scholars of that era were compelled to cling more tightly to these sciences. After them, some rulers emerged. These rulers listened to the words spoken about the fundamentals of creed (ʿaqāʾid) and began to seek evidences to prove these words. It became apparent to everyone that the rulers were inclined toward debates in the science of Kalām (theology). For this reason, the public also turned to the science of kalām. Many books were authored in this field. The methods of debate in this science were established. In mutual discussions, methods of altering and reversing words were developed, and thus another science was invented.
If you were to ask those engaged in these matters, they would tell you that they are defending the religion of Allah, striving to revive the noble sunnah (sunnah-i saniyya), and working to silence the innovators. They would claim that their predecessors were also engaged in the science of fatwa, and thus, by taking on the religious affairs of the Muslims, they advised the people and did them great good. Later rulers, however, did not approve of delving into the science of kalām and opening the doors of debate to people. For they saw that when this door was opened, great fanaticisms arose, these fanaticisms set people against each other, and hostilities emerged that led to the shedding of innocent blood… These rulers, too, became inclined to disputing over jurisprudential matters; whether the Shāfiʿī or the Ḥanafī school was superior,
Kitāb al-ʿIlm / Section IV
and thus the public also adopted the same attitude, abandoning kalām and all its related sciences, and plunging into the disputed issues between the Shāfiʿīs and the Ḥanafīs. They also took up the disputed issues among Imām Mālik, Sufyān al-Thawrī, Imām Aḥmad, and other great scholars. When asked why they engaged in this erroneous attitude, they tried to justify themselves by saying, 'Our aim in doing this is to reveal the subtleties of the sharia (sharia—the sacred law), to make known the subtleties of the school, and to ensure the spread of the methodology of fatwa.' Countless works have been authored on this subject, many inferences have been made, and various types of polemics and compilations have been written. This situation continues to this day.
We do not yet know what the coming centuries will bring. Thus, all the reasons for plunging into disputed issues and debates are none other than those we have listed above. If those who held worldly power—that is, the rulers—had been inclined to debate the disputes of others besides Imām al-Shāfiʿī and Imām Abū Ḥanīfa among the jurists, or had turned to other sciences, the scholars who sought worldly gain from them would have inclined toward their side and changed their efforts according to this desire. They would again justify themselves by counting the science they were engaged in among the religious sciences and would never remain silent or stay in their place. Again, they would claim that by acquiring these sciences, they attained Allah's pleasure, for they had no other aim…
Confusing These Debates with the Consultation of the Noble Companions and the Deliberation of the Predecessors These people tell the public, 'Our aim in these debates is to seek the truth and clarify it. For the truth must be sought; cooperation in scholarly opinions and the convergence of the ideas of several people toward the same goal is beneficial and effective. The custom of the Companions was also consultation (shūrā). For example, their consultations regarding the status of the grandfather and brothers of the deceased in inheritance (farāʾiḍ), the penalty for intoxicants, and the financial liability resulting from the error of the imam (head of state)… As an example of the imam's financial liability for his error, it is narrated that ʿUmar paid the blood money for a woman who miscarried her child out of fear of ʿUmar.'
Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn Many incidents have been reported regarding the consultations of the Companions in matters of inheritance and other issues. Similarly, debates, discussions, and consultations of this kind have been narrated from Imām al-Shāfiʿī, Imām Aḥmad, Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, and other scholars. I will try to show that this claim is a deception (talbīs—mixing truth with falsehood or presenting falsehood as truth), so that the realities may be known to you! In research on the true matters of religion, there is cooperation. However, this has eight conditions and signs: 1. A person who does not fulfill the individual obligations (farḍ ʿayn) should not engage in debate, which is a communal obligation (farḍ kifāya). If a person who has individual obligations to fulfill occupies himself with a communal obligation under the pretext of 'My aim is to make the truth known,' he is lying.
Such a person is like someone who, while neglecting prayer, makes clothes for others to wear and then claims, 'The reason I make these clothes is so that if there is a naked person, I can help him cover himself and thus enable him to pray,' thereby justifying himself. Such a claim is only rarely true. Just as it is rare for a jurist who delves into disputed issues to be justified… Those who engage in the science of debate, according to the consensus of all scholars, neglect many individual obligations… If a person who holds a trust that must be delivered neglects to deliver it and instead begins to pray—which is the most effective means of bringing people closer to Allah—he has disobeyed Allah.
Performing an act of obedience does not prove that a person is a servant obedient to Allah. However, if he observes the conditions, time, and order in those acts, then the matter is different. If a person has no more important communal obligation than debate, he may engage in debate. But if he knows that he must fulfill a more important communal obligation than debate and neglects it to engage in debate, what he does is nothing but disobedience to Allah. Such a
Kitāb al-ʿIlm / Section IV
person's situation can be explained with the following example: A person sees a group dying of thirst. Everyone has left this group to their dire situation. Although he is able to help them by giving them water, he does not do so, and instead occupies himself with learning the art of cupping (bloodletting). In his opinion, cupping is a communal obligation. He tries to justify himself by saying that if there is no one in a country who knows this art, the people will perish. If he is told, 'Do not occupy yourself so much with this cupping, for there are many others who do it; instead, try to find a solution to the plight of those thirsty people,' he still insists on his opinion and says, 'The existence of bloodletters does not remove the status of this science as a communal obligation.
Therefore, learning this art is fulfilling a communal obligation.' The state of such a person who neglects his primary duty is just like that of someone who neglects communal obligations on a national scale and occupies himself with debate. As for the science of fatwa, there are groups who occupy themselves with this science. However, there is no country in which many sciences that are communal obligations are not neglected. Jurists consider even turning to these communal obligations a burden and do not deign to occupy themselves with them. At the head of the neglected sciences that are communal obligations is the science of medicine. Today, in many parts of the Islamic world, there is no Muslim doctor whose opinion can be trusted in medical matters and whose advice can be relied upon.
Despite this, you will not see any jurist occupying himself with this science. Enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa nahy ʿan al-munkar) is also like this. Fulfilling this duty is also a communal obligation. The debater often sees that those who attend the assembly of debate wear clothes made of silk fabrics and sit on cushions made of silk. Despite this, he remains silent and plunges into debate on an issue whose occurrence is almost impossible. Even if the issue being debated, which is very unlikely to occur, were to occur, there are plenty of jurists to resolve it. Despite this, he debates. Then he claims that he has spiritually drawn closer to Allah because debate is a communal obligation.
He claims that he seeks Allah's pleasure through this debate.
Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked when enjoining good and forbidding evil would be abandoned, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: 'When flattery appears among your good people, immorality appears among your wicked, authority is given to your young, and jurisprudence becomes the property of your most despicable, then it will be abandoned.'162 3. The debater must be a mujtahid; he should be able to issue fatwas based on his own ijtihād, not merely in accordance with the Shāfiʿī, Ḥanafī, or other schools. If he sees that the Ḥanafī school is correct in a matter, he should abandon the Shāfiʿī school in that matter and issue a fatwa as he sees correct (as the Companions and great imams did).
If a person has not reached the level of ijtihād—which is the case for all debaters in our age—such people can only answer questions by quoting from the school of their own imām. Even if the opinion of their imām does not seem sound, it is not proper for them to depart from their imām's view. What benefit can there be in the debate of such a person? For the school of such a person is known, and he is not authorized to issue a ruling outside the fatwas of his school. Such a person, when faced with a difficult issue, should say, 'I hope that my imām has an answer to this issue. If not, since I do not have the ability to perform ijtihād independently in legal matters, I cannot answer this question.'
If the imām to whom he is attached has put forward two opinions on a matter, it is more appropriate for him to debate these opinions. For he may incline toward one of these two opinions. While debating, if he sees that the other side is stronger, he may benefit from it. Entering into debate about the correctness of the ruling he inclines toward is unnecessary and pointless.162 Ibn Mājah (with a sound chain)
Kitāb al-ʿIlm / Section IV
Almost all debaters abandon issues with two sides and plunge into matters with definite disputes so that they can talk at length and contend with their opponents. However, debate can be held on issues that occur frequently or are likely to arise at any moment. For the noble Companions often consulted and expressed their opinions on issues that arose frequently. But we do not see that today's debaters strive to issue fatwas on matters needed by the public or on issues that bring general calamity to the people. They only investigate matters that will bring them fame. For this reason, they cannot find the opportunity to focus on urgent matters, and then they say, 'This issue is one that the imāms have taken from definitive texts, or this issue can only be discussed in private.'
'This is not an issue to be debated in a gathering.' Let there be an issue that needs to be addressed, but because it has already been discussed, it is not addressed or dwelt upon… No effort is made to clarify its reality… Could there be a more absurd claim than this? They cannot say: 'We do not debate issues that do not bring us fame or allow us to speak at length. Issues that do not allow for long speeches do not concern us.' They know very well how strange a situation they would fall into if they said this. However, to make the truth known, one must speak briefly and reach the goal by the shortest route. Prolonging speech is never correct.
A debater should take pleasure in conducting his debate before as small a group as possible and should not enjoy having many people attend as listeners. For debating in private is more beneficial than debating before rulers and other notables. Because in private, the debater can collect his thoughts better, express himself more clearly, his perception is sharper, and his comprehension is higher. Debate before a crowd can lead debaters to ostentation (riyāʾ). For those who debate before a crowd persist in their errors to the end out of fear of being defeated. Whether they are right or wrong, they always try to prove themselves right.
Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn They try to make themselves appear right. The reason these debaters want to debate before a crowd is not to seek Allah's pleasure. For when these debaters are alone, they never debate the issues they debate in public. So much so that, often, when a friend asks them a question, they do not even answer. But when they are in a crowd, they try to shoot every arrow in their quiver at each other's chest so that they may be considered masters of speech! Debate should only be conducted to find and understand the truth. It is just like the situation of a person searching for his lost property. It does not matter who finds the lost property, whether himself or his friend; what matters is that the property is found.
Thus, a debater should see his interlocutor not as an adversary but as a helper. He should consider it a debt to thank his friend for informing him of the truth. Just as when a person who has lost his property is about to give up and return, and a friend comes and tells him that he should search for his lost property not on this road but on that one, he must thank him, not think of rebuking him, and show kindness to the one who guides him to his property… The consultation of the noble Companions, who warned each other in the name of truth, was just like this. A woman once objected to ʿUmar and showed him the right path. While delivering a sermon before the congregation, ʿUmar, after the woman's warning, said to the congregation: 'This woman has spoken the truth, and ʿUmar has erred.' A person asked ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him) a question: When ʿAlī answered, the questioner said, 'O Commander of the Faithful! Your answer is incorrect! In my opinion, the answer to this question can be such and such…' Thereupon, ʿAlī said, 'You are right, and I was mistaken,' admitting the man's correctness and thanking him for his warning, and continued: 'Above every possessor of knowledge is one more knowledgeable.'
When Ibn Masʿūd reminded Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī of his mistake, Abū Mūsā addressed the congregation: 'Do not ask me questions while this great scholar is among you.'