Why Did The Sunni Schools Split Up?

What caused the split among the Sunni schools – اهل السنة و الجماعه?

Mainly because there are 2 distinct methodologies:

1- Literal (ACTING ON THE LETTER OF THE LAW (حرفية النص))
2- Metaphorical (ACTING ON THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW (روح النص))

Both methodologies are valid.

That’s why we have 4 Fiqh schools and 3 Aqidah schools.

I’m telling you this WITHOUT any sectarian bias.

These methodologies are not exclusive to Muslims – even the other religions split up like this. You will find literalists among Christians and Jews, and also a group that takes the metaphorical approach.

So this is human nature.

Some people will take the literal approach, while others will take the metaphorical approach.

And both of these approaches existed among the Sahaba in the time of the Prophet – he did not blame any of them.

Look at this example from companions, who took these two approaches:

——————————————————–

1- Imaam Bukhari narrated in his ‘Sahih’ (4119):

عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمَ الأَحْزَابِ ‏ “‏ لاَ يُصَلِّيَنَّ أَحَدٌ الْعَصْرَ إِلاَّ فِي بَنِي قُرَيْظَةَ ‏”‏‏.‏ فَأَدْرَكَ بَعْضُهُمُ الْعَصْرَ فِي الطَّرِيقِ، فَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ لاَ نُصَلِّي حَتَّى نَأْتِيَهَا‏.‏ وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَلْ نُصَلِّي، لَمْ يُرِدْ مِنَّا ذَلِكَ، فَذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلَمْ يُعَنِّفْ وَاحِدًا مِنْهُمْ‏.‏

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. Clans) the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “None of you Muslims) should offer the `Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza’s place.”
The `Asr prayer became due (and the time for ‘Asr was finishing).
Some companions (took the command litterally) and said, “We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza,”
While some others (looked at the meaning of his command) said, “No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet (ﷺ) did not mean that for us.” (i.e. the Prophet meant : hurry up).
Later on It was mentioned to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he did not rebuke any of the two groups.”

MEANING: ONE TOOK THE LITERAL WORDING, THE OTHER TOOK THE MEANING.

——————————————————–

2- Imaam Bukhari narrated in his ‘Sahih’ (1420):

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رضى الله عنها أَنَّ بَعْضَ، أَزْوَاجِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قُلْنَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَيُّنَا أَسْرَعُ بِكَ لُحُوقًا قَالَ ‏ “‏ أَطْوَلُكُنَّ يَدًا ‏”‏‏.‏ فَأَخَذُوا قَصَبَةً يَذْرَعُونَهَا، فَكَانَتْ سَوْدَةُ أَطْوَلَهُنَّ يَدًا، فَعَلِمْنَا بَعْدُ أَنَّمَا كَانَتْ طُولَ يَدِهَا الصَّدَقَةُ، وَكَانَتْ أَسْرَعَنَا لُحُوقًا بِهِ وَكَانَتْ تُحِبُّ الصَّدَقَةَ‏

“Some of the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) asked him, “Who amongst us will be the first to follow you (i.e. die after you)?”
He said, “Whoever has the longest hand.”
So they started measuring their hands with a stick and Sauda’s hand turned out to be the longest.
(BUT Zainab bint Jahsh died first of all in the caliphate of `Umar), so we came to know that the long hand was a symbol of practicing charity, so she was the first to follow the Prophet (ﷺ) and she used to love to practice charity.”

MEANING: THEY UNDERSTOOD IT LITERALLY, BUT IT WAS METAPHORICAL.

——————————————————–

At the time of the Sahaba , they did not split up in Aqidah like this – but the Muslim Ummah after them did.

Where it all started:

The early disputes between ahlalhadith & Abu Hanifah:

The ahlalhadith ‘acted on the letter of the law’, and Imam Abu Hanifah ‘acted on the spirit of the law’.

That’s why the ahlalhadith called the people of Kufah (Iraq) “ahl al-ray” (people of opinions), because Imam Abu Hanifah there was a RATIONALIST – focusing on the rational and meanings of the texts.

They accused Imam Abu Hanifah of going away from the texts and destroying religion – actually he wasn’t going away from the meaning of the text, he was only going away from the literal wordings of the text.

He looked at the meanings, not the letters, while they stuck to the text.

That’s how the Fiqh schools split up (and there were obviously other differences, like what constitutes evidence etc).

I’m not implying that the others were irrational. They just wanted to be on the safe side, so they remained with the literal words of the text.

In Aqidah: The Ash’aris & Maturidis took the metaphorical approach, while the Atharis took the literal approach.

These differences will always exist.

They are all valid (not all correct, but valid).

I personally am more inclined towards the approach of Imam Abu Hanifah, which is to look at the MEANINGS, and not the literal wordings.

For example, the Qur’an said:

وَأَعِدُّوا لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ

“And prepare for them whatever power and whatever garrisoned HORSES you can, to (spread) awe thereby into (the hearts) of the enemy of God and your enemy.” [Qur’an 8:60].

This doesn’t mean Muslim governments today should prepare horses against modern technology.

The meaning is: POWER.

The literal wording is: HORSES

That’s why it makes more sense to me to stick to the spirit of the law, instead of the letters.

Let’s accept & respect each other as ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah.

I’m not saying: Let’s agree.

We will never agree! These are distinct methodologies – both are valid.

I’m only saying: LETS AGREE TO DISAGREE.

We have bigger external threats, and we are quarrelling among ourselves.

Allaahu A’alam