Differences in Sunni Schools of Thought: History and Prayer Practices Explained

- Welcome back. Now we answer questions we've received from you our viewers. If you have a question visit our website quranspeaks.com.

Dr Shabir, this is the question about the Sunday Sunni of thought. What are the specific differences

and practices of each Sunni school of thought, and what is the history behind them, specifically praying practices?

What events led to these individual schools? - So there are four major schools of a Islamic jurisprudence

is what we call them within the Sunni realm. The first one in terms of the historical emergence is that of this Imam Abu Hanifa.

He was born about 80 years of his era which means several decades after the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

He lived in Iraq and he developed his school with many students there. And when I speak of a school,

I don't mean like a school building. I mean that there is a body of scholarship that he marches with teacher and student,

many students having their students and so on. So there's a way of thinking and way of summarizing all of the information

and distilling the the final rulings on issues that emerge, and that's called a school. That's running throughout history.

And following that there was a School of Imam Malik who was based in Medina in the place where the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him spent

the last years of his life. Imam Malik was born in the year '93. So 13 years younger than Imam Hanifa.

Now, if stick with these two for the moment, we will get to understand how differences emerged. So in Iraq, some people say,

well, because that was far from the scene of where the companions of the Prophet peace be upon them, mostly lived,

there was not that much information about the details of the prophet's practice. So there was more room for interpretation.

Because, you know, when when you have something reported from the prophet, you feel obliged to follow that and you feel reticent

to offer your own opinion on the matter. But in Iraq, they had little bit more of leverage this way, because they had less reports

and they exercise more opinion and they emphasize the Quranic texts. So if something was clearly derived

from the text of the Quran, even if somebody came and said, well, we have a report

from the prophet saying something different, they would prefer to go with what is clear from the Quran rather than to with what somebody reporting

because they have a suspicion that when people report things that the reports could change from one person to another, especially in the early days

when these reports were given by word of mouth rather than to be put into a writing or carved in stone. Now, for Imam Malik on the other hand,

he was right there in Medina, where many of the companions of the Prophet peace be upon them lived

with the prophet himself lived the last years of his life and where the practices of Islam were demonstrated for all and Sundry.

So for Imam Malik what was being done in Medina, the practices there, the way of praying

the details and so on, all of this must be real way of the prophet, peace be upon him.

And so he preferred that. So differences naturally arose because of the two different methods that were followed,

one in Iraq and other in Medina. - Did they ever interact at a very early time? - Yes, they did.

Of course, there was a lot of interaction between Muslims especially like those who are in Iraq would come to Mecca and Medina

to Mecca to perform the Hajj. To Medina to visit the mosque of the prophet, peace be upon him.

And so they're were aware of what is going on but they have a different lenses through which they are looking at the same information.

So from the lens of Imam Malik, it looks like whatever's done in Medina this was it. But from the lens of the Iraqis,

like they're not so much committed to the situation in Medina, they were a little bit freer to think more globally

in terms of the objectives behind things the spirit behind things and so on. And so they take a slightly more rational approach rather

than a traditional approach of saying, this is the tradition just follow it. So the two different approaches

you have two different ways emerging. Now, from the way of Imam Malik, following the tradition basically,

we have another leader scholar, Imam Ali mama Shafi who took this method, but he he wanted to emphasize more,

not just simply the generally non-practice of Medina but he wanted to make sure that somebody can attest to a specific practice being done

by the prophet peace be upon him himself. It's not just for him sufficient that a large number of people from that generation

that is close to the time of the prophet are following a particular thing or doing something in one way.

He wants to know is there a specific report that can be a tested and that could be traced all the way back

to the prophet Peace be upon him. For example, did the prophets say specifically do this. Or is there a report saying that he did specifically this.

So Imam Shafi could have this luxury of looking at the information this way, because at his time,

people have started to develop this into a science. So, a person born in that milio, such as Al Imam Shafi what would have the feeling

that we are dealing here with an exact science. You know, if we say that the is graded authentic then we have full confidence that it really is so.

Whereas a person born in an earlier time when the science was not so exact would not have that confidence.

So is Imam Shafi has that confidence. And so he emerges with a system of thought that is more clearly dependent on the specific reports,

rather than the general practice. Coming later the new Imam Shafi is Ahmad ibn Hanbal. And he becomes the eponym of what we might describe now

as the fourth school. And in his time the Hadith have even more blossomed to fruition.

And so he compiled a book of 30,000 Hadith. Whereas by comparison on the Imam Malik compiled a book that has only about 500 Hadith,

from the prophet peace be upon him himself, and then other reports from others. Ahmad ibn hanbal been humble has 30,000.

She can see the vast difference if we wanna know what did the prophet peace be upon him said on subjects from A to Z in Imam Malik Muwatta,

you wont' find so many Hadith dealing with the various subjects. But in Imam Ahmed's collection you find Hadith's galore.

So what difference does it make? It means that when you're armed with Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal had been humbled collection,

of 30,000 Hadiths, there's less room for opinions and for you to think about things

because you have specific instructions now almost on everything from A to Z. And so, the faith and the practice emerged

that way to become very literalistic. And some people took it even further than this. Dawud Ibn Hazm,

emerged with what is referred to as the Zahiri's School, and that took things even ultra literally. A lot of that literalism is there

in the Hanbali methodology as well, and it has to become in modern times actually somewhat fused with the Hanbali methodology.

And so we find that in some places like for example in Saudi Arabia where the Hanbali school has become the school by default that is known and practiced

and whose laws are implemented in the country. And there we find a more literalistic application of certain laws.

Whereas for example, in some of the parts of the world where you have the Hanafi school,

in practice you will find more of a sort of, liberal is not the right term but a more rational approach where people might be looking

at the objectives behind the law and the spirit behind things rather than the literal application.

- So what does this mean? You know, you've mentioned these four different schools. What does that mean

for the diversity of the practice of Islam? - It means that Muslims have to accept the diversity. And in fact Muslims have generally learned

to live with this diversity. Maybe the common people are surprised if they've only been accustomed to one thing

and then they go into another area and they find that people are practicing things to slightly differently. It'll be kind of odd for them.

But the scholars know of this diversity. They just have implemented one system in one area of the world

because that's easier to teach people. It's easier to teach the common folks one system than to tell them theoretically,

you know, it could be any one of these four systems. - So does it just affect, you know little things like the details of prayer

or does it affect wider theological issues as well? - The theological issues not so much although there are some theological issues

which are are scratched you can say by these different approaches and so on. But more so it's the practices.

And even with the practices it's not the core of the practice. So among these four schools for example,

all of them agree that we are to have five prayers. All of them agree that...

What they found or the obligatory components of the prayers are these much. Two rakat of fajr in the morning,

four for the afternoon prayer, four for the late afternoon, three for the prayer right after sunset

and four late at night. But then, around this we have other prayers like what are we to say about the Witr prayer?

How many rakats is that? Is it three? Or is it just any other odd number,

one to seven, for example. And does it have to be prayed this way or that way? And then what about the other prayers

which might be called Sumner for the Zuhr prayer for the afternoon Prayer. Is it two rakat before the fard

or is it four rakats before the fard? And so on, so we have some differences around the core. So there was a core that is agreed upon by all.

And then the differences around. - Does it matter which of these schools of thought a person follows?

- Well, generally there is an agreement among the scholars of these four schools that you can follow any one of these four

and on your rightly guided. So, even though it may so happen that in one school may rule something to be permissible,

let's say to eat. So one school says this food is permissible to eat but the other school says,

"No this is haram You can't eat that." So you might have two Muslim side by side and one is eating it because his school says

this is permitted. The other the one is avoiding it because his school says it is impermissible haram.

It is a sin to eat. But he while avoiding it for himself, he has to accept that his brother or sister in faith

is following a system. Here we are looking at the system of thought. It is a system of thought that guided

the followers of that school to a certain conclusion the conclusion could be wrong because you can't have both conclusions right.

This thing is halal and haram at the same time. Or God rule this to be halal for the Shafi's, but haram for for the Hanafi's.

No, it's a God rule to one thing. But we don't know what that one thing is. And two different opinions arose.

Some people said, it's this thing. And some people said, it's this thing. So we have to accept that in principle

because they're following a good methodology, they're just trying to find the right way. But they were looking at it through different lenses

and we have different lenses. And we can't have all of the same lenses just like we can't take the lenses from our own eyes

and put it in the other person's eye. We're gonna see things differently, and it was seen differently in one school,

faithfully they have arrived at this conclusion. So we leave them to their conclusion and we know that God is not gonna penalize them

for reaching that conclusion because they reached that conclusion through good scholarship. It just so happens that, you know

there are some things which are so obscure in the tradition that the best of our scholars are gonna arrive at two different opinions about it.

- So Dr.Shabir, one last question, is it possible for a Muslim to pick and choose between the schools of thought in terms of

the way they practice Islam? - Yeah. Well generally, for the common folks, the choices not available generally

because what happens in practice is that school becomes widespread in a certain area. I mean, before...

Let's think about before the schools became widespread. There were just these colours around. So one might go to Iraq

and finding Imam Hanifi teaching there. One might go to Medina and find that Imam Malik is teaching there.

And you asked me about interactions. So one of the primary students of the Imam Abu Hanifa, Mohammad bin Hassan Shaybani went to Medina

and he studied Imam Malik's book the Muwatta and he compiled his own edition of the Muwatta. So they know the same information there's students

of each other and so on. There is this kind of interaction but now some people may go

to Iraq and following Imam Abu Hanifa there. Some people who may be living in Medina they following Imam Malik.

It will be difficult for them in Medina to follow Imam Abu Hanifa because he's far away and they don't have the telephone

to call each other every day and find out what's the new thinking about new issues arising.

So people tend to follow the scholarship in their area. Now this scholarship becomes well entrenched in a certain area,

people who are born in that area naturally tend to follow that. So that's why you will find people

from the Enerpac sub-continent naturally they mostly follow the Hanafi School. People in Saudi Arabia mostly the Hanbali School

because that's what is prevalent there. So the common people do not generally have this kind of luxury following one or another-

- But do in Canada, right? Because they are- - In Canada are all mixed up. But I wanted to make the distinction

that the scholars have the responsibility to know what is right, and to follow what is right.

So if scholar may be convinced of a particular school and follow that, they may be convinced

that a particular school is more to the point but they may continue to abide by the school that is popularly followed in their area.

And then a good example of this was Shah Waliullah of Delhi, because he lived in Delhi,

he abided by the Hanafi School because that was widespread there. But by conviction, he thought

that the Shafii School is more to the point. But of course he didn't wanna confuse the common folks. Because the common folks are not gonna be able

to absorb two schools at once. It's enough to learn one with all of his details and to do it right.

Now, in our cosmopolitan situation. Here we are in the Toronto area with people from all around the world,

following wide variety of schools- - You grew in mosque and the person beside you might be praying differently.

- Yeah. - Person in front of you might be praying completely different.

- Yeah, so first we have to come to that position of tolerance to recognize that these are a variety of practices that are known

in Muslim scholarship, widely acclaimed, and acknowledged and verified to be the products of sound methodology.

So, they're all acceptable. But acceptable for the person who has been taught that way. We're not gonna do something without being taught.

We don't invent by ourselves. And we don't say, "Ah, that looks like something nice, let me just try that for a change."

Now you should be following sounds scholarship. You should be you know... Because ultimately, you wanna follow

what God and His messenger said You wanna follow what God said in the Quran, what the messenger depicted in his life.

And because common folks do not have the acumen to... I mean, not that we don't have the intelligence we do, but we have devoted our intelligence

to other areas of study. Somebody has become an accountant, somebody has become an engineer,

somebody has to become a medical doctor and they're experts in all of these fields. But there are experts also in the field

of interpreting the Quran, and getting a sense of the life example of the Prophet, Muhammad peace be upon him

and distilling all of that information into the finer points of Islamic Law and Practice. So we have to consult those people to know what

is the Islamic Law and Practice. So, so long as you're learning from a qualified teacher, then you're fine because you're doing what

that qualified teacher is distilling from God's book. And from the life example of the Prophet peace be upon him. So, we don't have the luxury

of mixing and matching in this way, but so the first level is the tolerance to accept that there is this variety

but the second level is to go deeper and to think about these differences. How they arose

and to realize that we can insist on these points because not only do we have to be tolerant for the other person who is doing something different,

but we also have to be flexible with our own tradition. Knowing that if these points are so obscure that scholars can not really be sure.

What is the point? Some arrive at at A and some arrive at not A at the same time.

And knowing that they cannot both be true, and that means we have a sort of gentlemanly agreement that says,

"Let's agree that you're gonna do A, and I'm gonna do not A, and we're both fine."

And so this is the kind of gentleman, the agreement that says, "Let's not argue the point,

let's just do our own thing." But it means that we cannot be sure either about A or about its opposite.

And so we cannot be sure and insist upon these practices. It means that we should have a greater degree of flexibility in the application

of Islamic law when it comes to these details because the details are not so far. - Thank you, Dr. Shabir.

That was really insightful and interesting. - You're welcome - I appreciate your thoughts.