Ikhtilaf and Consensus
\r\nIn the formative stages of Islamic jurisprudence during the first three centuries the scholars tend to excel in the degree of latitude and acceptance of ijtihad-oriented disagreement. The Companions have disagreed on matters of interpretation and it is even said that they had reached a consensus on this: the agreement to disagree. Their example also finds support among the leading authorities and ulama of the era of ijtihad. To accept the plurality of the schools of law is indicative of healthy ikhtilaf. Hence, for a scholar/imitator to claim total superiority of his school and take an over-critical and dismissive view of other schools is decidedly unsound and contrary to the original spirit of ikhtilaf.
\r\nIkhtilaf has played an evidently important role in the development of the rich legacy of fiqh and Shariah that will continue to provide a lasting source of influence. One can hardly overestimate the inspiring spirit of sound and principled disagreement in our own generation. Yet disagreement has a place in the legal and intellectual heritage of Muslims which should not be exaggerated. A legal order in society can simply not proceed on the basis of never-ending ikhtilaf. The value of ikhtilaf is therefore relative and not independent of conformity and consensus that must clearly be accepted as the stronger influences which demarcate the limits of acceptable ikhtilaf.
\r\nYet we also need to be cautious about over-indulgence in ikhtilaf. Muslim individuals and scholars could perhaps afford to encourage ikhtilaf more widely in certain periods of their history when they enjoyed the confidence that was generated by the superiority of their political power and then a rigorously productive scholarship. There is a great need today for Muslims to appreciate the value of unity and consensus while recognizing in the meantime that unity and consensus which emerge out of open deliberation and principled ikhtilaf are what deserve our best attention. Ikhtilaf and consensus are often inseparable even if they appear to be the opposite.
\r\nTo say that the Muslim community can totally eliminate disagreement and ikhtilaf over all questions is plainly unrealistic and has no historical precedent. The reality of living in a world where disagreements must inevitably exist is one which has dominated the greater part of Muslim history and it is no longer a matter of choice for the contemporary ummah. It must remain, by the same token, the responsibility of every generation of Muslims to seize the opportunities they may be endowed with, or which they have at their disposal, to pursue the quest for resolving disagreement within the ranks of the ummah, or else to find better ways of coming to terms with it.
\r\nCompiled From:
\r\n \"Shariah Law - An Introduction\" - Mohammad Hashim Kamali, pp. 117-121