Knowledge and Ethical Conduct
explore the opinions of others is through diligent study and meticulous research. This is the standard by which one’s knowledge and opinions must be judged. This is why they were able to show so much respect to their colleagues no matter how seriously they disagreed on matter of Islamic Law. Just as their standard for matters of knowledge was grounded in research, their standard for ethical conduct was grounded in a sense of brotherhood, affection, and pure intentions.As for some of the scholars who came after the imams, they did not always actualise these two standards: quality of knowledge and conscientious moral conduct. On the one hand, you find scholars who were willing to fight and become belligerent on account of their disagreements. On the other, you find those who were modest and polite, but who did not base their tolerance of disagreement on a foundation of knowledge and rigorous standards of research.
This explains why the four imams spent most of their time engaged in study and teaching. Abū Hanīfah was, without dispute, the foremost legal scholar in Iraq in his day, while Mālik was the leading legal scholar for the whole of Western Arabia and one of the most learned in prophetic hadīth. Al-Shāfi`i was renowned for a wide range of disciplines. He was not only an expert in law, juristic theory, and prophetic hadīth, but he was also a leading authority in the Arabic language. Ahmad b. Hanbal was one of the world’s greatest hadīth scholars.
Abū Hanīfah was predominantly known for his legal knowledge and Ahmad for his knowledge and focus on prophetic hadīth traditions. Mālik and al-Shāfi`ī were also identified with the hadīth scholars, but possessed an understanding of legal nuances that surpassed most of their peers.
We can see how deeply al-Shāfi`ī regarded knowledge in that he used to say: “Seeking knowledge is better than offering voluntary prayers.”
Mālik once wrote to a colleague: “Seeking knowledge is nothing less than worship for those whose intentions are pure.”
The four imams in this way upheld the value of knowledge as well as that of moral conduct. Religious knowledge without moral conduct brings no benefit to the one who possesses it. It is the mere trappings of knowledge without substance. In religious matters, the most important knowledge is that of religious certainties, and the greatest of these are the moral certainties. The four imams agreed, as do all Muslims, that love and respect must be the basis of interaction with others, not envy and hatred. They furthermore agreed that shared faith demands a sense of brotherhood, and this brotherhood remains intact as long as that faith is intact. They also agreed that people’s rights are inviolable and that justice and ethical treatment must be upheld for all people.
Abū Mūsā Yūnus al-Saddī said:
I have never met anyone as sensible as al-Shāfi`ī. I once debated an issue with him, after which we went our separate ways. Later on, he came up to me, took me by the hand, and said: “O Abū Mūsā, isn’t it best for us to remain brothers, even though there is a matter we can’t agree on?”.
It is normal for older scholars to be taken aback by an opinion that they have never heard before. They might hastily reject it. Their anger and discomfort at the unfamiliar might make them want to distance themselves from the person who expressed the view. This was not the case with al-Shāfi`ī.
In this context, we can consider what Ahmad b. Hanbal said about the hostility that existed in Iraq between the jurists like himself who were devoted to prophetic hadīth and those who focused on legal reasoning, like the students of Abū Hanīfah: “We used to curse the school of legal reasoning and they used to curse us, and this remained the way things were until al-Shāfi`ī came along and brought us together.”
Even with all the contention that had existed between the two approaches to law in Iraq, they had never become so polarised that it sundered their essential Islamic unity. They never confused their disagreements on secondary legal matters with the clear tenets of faith. This is why they were all amicable to al-Shāfi`ī and his approach of reconciling the two tendencies in his own school of thought. He took what he had learned from the preeminent representative of the hadīth approach, Mālik and also from Abū Hanīfah’s student Abū Yūsuf. He availed himself of the experience of the scholars of Western Arabia as well as Iraq. Finally, when he set down his mature thought in Egypt, where he spent the later part of his life, he brought together all the various currents that had for so long divided the intellectual life of the various parts of the Muslim world.
This shows us how important it is for various intellectual schools to be receptive to one another, to endeavour sincerely to understand each other’s views. They need to welcome the chance to work together, even formulae new ideas together, and minimise the severity of their disagreements.
Sheikh Salman al-Oadah
Source: en.islamtoday.net
