The Prophetic Approach to Moderation in Differences of Opinion and Rejection(A Research Analysis of the Conduct of Scholars in the Early Centuries of Islam)

اِختلافِ رائے اور اِنکار کے باب  میں اِعتدال پسندی  کا  نبوی  اُسلوب

Abstract

This article, titled ‘The Methodology of Moderation in Matters of Difference of Opinion and Rejection in the Prophetic Approach (A Research Review of the Practices of Early Islamic Scholars)’, investigates the Prophetic paradigm of moderation when navigating disagreements and rejection, with a particular focus on the practices of early Islamic luminaries. The study highlights that while Islam does not outright repudiate differences of opinion, it unequivocally condemns disputes fueled by bias, animosity, or deleterious sentiments. The Qur’an and hadith consistently advocate for temperance, even in acts of devotion, and caution against extremism in all its forms.

The article meticulously classifies differences of opinion into four distinct categories: those with definitive resolutions, those where the preponderance of evidence favours one view, those where both perspectives are equally valid, and those where predominant scholarly judgment inclines toward one stance. Early Muslim savants, including the Companions of the Prophet (may Allah be well pleased with them) exhibited remarkable equanimity in their intellectual and jurisprudential divergences, invariably anchoring their positions in the Qur’an and Sunna. They demonstrated intellectual suppleness, readily revising their stances when confronted with compelling evidence, and accorded due respect to dissenting opinions rooted in legitimate scholarly exertion (ijtihad).

Moreover, the paper elucidates numerous historical instances wherein early Muslim scholars exemplified profound respect for opposing viewpoints, refraining from imposing their interpretations even in contentious legal matters. The discourse emphasizes that critique should be constructive, geared toward the pursuit of truth rather than personal vendettas or acrimony.

A substantial segment of the article is devoted to the decorum of disagreement (ikhtilāf) and rejection (inkār) in contexts of legitimate scholarly divergence. The author cites myriad early authorities who contend that rejecting another’s view in such cases is unwarranted, advocating enforcement only in matters supported by unequivocal textual evidence or consensus.

In its conclusion, the paper advocates for the revitalization of this ethos of moderation and mutual respect within contemporary Muslim societies. It calls for enhanced scholarly consultation (shūra) to address modern challenges while preserving unity in fundamental Islamic tenets. Embracing this Prophetic methodology could prove instrumental in addressing the intellectual and societal dilemmas confronting Muslims today.