The "Mustansiriyah" school. A formidable Islamic university of the Abbasid dynasty, although it was built just a couple decades before all the scholars killed by the Mongols. That led the way to Damascus and Cairo becoming the dominant centers of Islamic scholarship. Learn more about the university here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9

O Allah guide us all to success in what You love and are pleased with, and purify our intentions, making them pure for You and the Hereafter, devoid of ostentation. Ameen

This piece was written more like a discussion, as if I am sitting with the reader on opposite chairs. I originally wrote it as an e-mail to a frantic sister over a year ago. I’ve only edited and added some bits and pieces since then.

There are two main goals of this piece. The first and primary goal is to answer a few common questions I receive, and that is, “who is a scholar?” and regarding differences of opinion among scholars.

The second goal may only be relevant to a minority of readers. And that concerns an extreme erroneous understanding of Islamic scholarship promoted by the western Salafi cult. I won’t dance around the subject. And I’ll cover those issues on page two inshaAllah.

My motive for compiling and presenting this information is to alleviate some of the cultural errors that arise from misunderstand of the roles of scholars, imams, and everyone else. Although I’ve touched on some of these matters before, but in different light.

From the extreme behavior and consequences that result from misunderstanding “what makes a scholar” in Islam:

• Ignorantly elevating lay people to the station of a scholar. Often among Muslims, once someone gives a khutbah, writes a pamphlet or gives an Islam talk, they become a reference point. The profound ignorance of this cannot be overstated. We have a lot of work to do. Not only in understanding. We need to become scholars ourselves (or die trying) or raise a new generation of scholarship. Because we are beyond critical mass.
• Even assuming someone who quotes some hadeeth and tafseer, fiqh and or aqeedah is a scholar. Many imams and chaplains in the West are of this sort. They have not gone through any formal organized systemic programs – whether traditional or in university halls. They studied the goals of knowledge, the end product, but not the tools. Like someone who reads PhD dissertations in physics, and thinks they understand physics, but they never took high school physics nor any undergrad classes! Or they read some popular physics articles. They are bound to have gross misunderstandings of even fundamental issues, even if they understand some advanced issues.
• Equating great seminal scholars like the Four Imams with contemporary students of knowledge, or even thinkers and journalists. “They are scholars, and these are scholars, so just as they can make proclamations, so can these, and what makes following these different from following those?”
• As scholars have certain virtues and rights in the religion, denying them those scholarly rights as inheritors of the Prophets is sinful. Those who participate in maligning the inheritors of the prophets are sinful. I remember one of my teachers in Medinah tell a story of a group on Hajj. Some of them were speaking ill of a scholar while one kept silent. The quiet one had a dream. Someone came to him in the dream and said “as for your friends, all their deeds are in vain. As for you, your hajj is in vain.” Hence it is said, “the flesh of the scholars is poison.” Backbiting them is just a couple degrees lower than backbiting the Messenger of Allah himself.
• Claiming that someone has “abandoned the scholars” if they do not refer to a certain scholar or extremely limited group of scholars.
• Without knowing what scholars even do, people assume that if someone makes a mistake (in someone else’s eyes) this means they are not a scholar or could not possibly be a scholar. “He’s no scholar, he said such-and-such.”
• Fear of studying Islam out of wariness to cross the threshold and become a scholar. If the title “scholar” can so quickly be removed from someone, Islamic scholarship appears arbitrary or controlled in a mafia-like fashion with its own gatekeeping “cancel culture” cartel.

Related Terms [ألفاظ ذات الصلة]

Part of the confusion that erupts regarding “scholars” is that scholar is an English word. What is the Arabic equivalent? What is the Islamic equivalent? There are medical dictionaries just as there are fiqh dictionaries, aqeedah dictionaries, etc. Which dictionary would we even search to find the word “scholar”?

Making things more convoluted are the myriad of Arabic terms that are used. And sometimes you may see an event flyer with multiple speakers: one “Imam” another “Shaykh” another “Dr” another “Ustadh” another “Mufti” etc. Are these terms all related? Are they synonymous? Are they part of a known hierarchy, like priest, bishop, cardinal and pope!? Or is everyone just patting themselves on the back and inflating their knowledge?

The answer is that the terms mentioned above are more indicative of how they like to be referred to more than anything else. Those terms may be linked to how they first started taking a title or how others refer to them. Many people may not like to be called “shaykh” or “imam”, but if their name was on a flyer simply as “Chris Caras”, people may think, “how the hell is this convert guy speaking about Islam when there are so many qualified shaykhs out there!?” Hence, the titles. And it is also, as mentioned, important to support the tradition of revering the inheritors of the Prophet .

But let’s take a closer look at a few of the words thrown about most often:

`Aalim عالِم; pl: `ulamaa’ عُلَماء. Do note that this Arabic word has the same root as `ilm (knowledge). Thus, the word literally means “one who knows” or has knowledge. More recently they use the word `allaamah, which indicates a greater degree of knowing, a true expert and specialist whose job is thus. This is actually the word most often rendered into English as “scholar” whenever translated from the Arabic. However, it is a very vague word.

The Quran uses the word in a more pastoral sense, “those who know” (see: 30:22 and 35:28) and likewise, ibn Mas`ood said, “[true] knowledge is reverence.”

That doesn’t help us for our purposes. For our purposes, the Quran instead refers to “possessors of knowledge” (47:16) or the “people of the reminder” (21:7). Both those words indicate people connected to the revelation, students of the revelation essentially. But when you hear the word “ulema” (scholars) then it is plural of this word.

Shaykh: may mean elderly person; chief of a tribe or clan; or religious teacher/expert.

Ustaadh, literally teacher or professor. It may be given to a person colloquially if they are considered a great teacher and are known for teaching at a school, university, or institute, as opposed to being a masjid imam. For example, Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan. When I attended Medinah, the professors were known as Ustadh. And there was ustadh mushaarik (associate professor), ustadh musaa`id (assistant professor), etc.

Daa`iyah: [داعية] pl. du`aat [دعاة] or “caller” or “preacher”. Not so much a title but a description. This comes from the word used in the Quran for inviting people to Islam or giving heart-softeners to Muslims. It is equivalent to the term used in the time of the Salaf of “waa`iz” [واعظ] admonisher or “qassaas” [قاصّ / قصّاص] story-teller. It was understood that those individuals generally were not scholars. In Muslim history, one of the great scholars who was also an admonisher is AbdulRahman ibn al-Jawzi (rh).

There are other words, such as mawlana (our guardian), mulvi (shortened from mawlavi), and saab (short for saahib, or possessor of virtue and knowledge), etc. These are titles that students and laity may give to scholars and imams to pay respects – common to Indian culture. Common to Arabic culture may be “noble shaykh” [فضيلة الشيخ].

Note how in all these definitions I’m avoiding the word “scholar”. But look below…

Faqeeh: scholar of Islam who specializes in fiqh. In English they may be called a jurist.

Faqeeh or jurist is the most common word used for a specialist, because specialists of other fields are rare. For example, a muhaddith is a scholar of hadeeth. They study narrations, variations, the chains, the individuals, searching for errors to protect the Prophet’s Sunnah. They also actually obtain and collect their own chains of narration going back to the Prophet ﷺ. A mufassir is a scholar of Quranic exegesis. Usually the title is conferred upon someone who has written an original tafseer of the Quran or has dedicated their life to its study and teaching.

This is one of the reasons why simply referring to someone as a “scholar” full stop is almost always misleading – even if true. Nearly every scholar specializes in something, even if they are proficient in others—as they should be. Most scholars of a field should be able to answer intermediate questions outside their field, but within Islamic studies. But if they venture into the theoretical, then that is where even the scholars may make mistakes. A scholar with a PhD in fiqh may be uber-qualified in fiqh, but if their understanding of aqeedah is just four semesters they took as an undergrad, then they are probably not a scholar of that subject. Hence, there is a saying:

من تكلم في غير فنّه أتى بالعجائب

Whoever speaks outside their field brings oddities

I make these distinctions, because if you go even to a secular university, you will find a scholar of history – and even more specialized than that, Civil War history, British history, Russian history, Ming Dynasty, etc. There is a similar distinction in Islamic academics. And so, obviously, the history teacher at a local high school is not a scholar of history.

Now here’s a question: is the local imam closer to being a high school teacher, or closer to being a professor? In the Muslim world, maybe not even a high school teacher. In America, it depends on their education.

Muftis and their fatwas

Mufti: A faqeeh who gives fatwa, which is basically answering questions. Many times, the companions asked questions and Allah would acknowledge and answer them in the Quran saying:

يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ

Meaning: they seek fatwa from you

Fatwa is more commonly understood to mean a question about a specific person in their specific situation. And thus, a mufti is one who is qualified to answer such questions. Look below:

Questioner 1: Ya shaykh, is it haraam to skip prayers?

Shaykh:  Yes it’s haraam!!

That’s not a fatwa. It’s just a general question. You don’t have to be a mufti to answer that one.

Questioner 2: Shaykh, I’m a 13-year-old girl, and I am experiencing some bleeding. I heard I don’t have to pray, is that true?

Shaykh: if this is the cyclical dark menstrual bleeding, then that is correct, you do not pray these days nor do you make them up when the bleeding stops.

That’s a fatwa, because he told a specific person what they actually must do. Think of it like a physician or investment strategist or lawyer teaching general principles but with a disclaimer that you should not take this as “legal advice” or that you should consult a physician before taking a supplement or incorporating a new workout regimen, etc. That personalized expert advice is analogous to fatwa. Obviously, in a discussion with a shaykh, questions may go back and forth between the general and the specific. “Is abc allowed? Well then, can I do xyz?”

Is the answer of a mufti binding? Technically speaking, no. But from the etiquette of asking the question, the questioner is putting their trust in the mufti and wants to know the ruling of Allah. It is unbecoming to then go seek another answer from someone else. Furthermore, that is the assumption of the mufti as well.

The difference between a mufti and a qadi [قاضي] (Islamic judge), is that a qadi’s decrees are enforced, whereas a mufti’s are not. That same 13-year-old girl may decide to ask another mufti the same question, if she is not satisfied from the first.

There are books about the etiquettes of being a mufti and a mustafti, one who asks questions.^[1]Another topic for another article. ًًًًًًWhat makes a mufti different from any other shaykh is that he or she should have studied tanzeel al-manāṭ, matching the correct ruling to the real-world application. This requires advanced study of fiqh maxims – a topic in between fiqh and usul al-fiqh – and maqaasid, a branch of usul al-fiqh. That is, on top of the general fiqh of that subject matter, which could itself be fairly complex, especially if it is a quickly evolving subject, like medicine or finances, that consider a variety of circumstances.

Because telling people specifically what they must do is a sensitive matter, some countries regulate it with official fatwa hotlines, and scholars designated for this purpose. They may undergo special training, certification and licensing. In the Western world, Balaghah Institute (UK) has an ifta’ certification program. Even stateside, some institutions provide fatwa services by phone or chat. However, most questions that people ask are within a basic realm that most imams with a basic 4-year sharia degree should hopefully be able to answer.

Imam Malik famously said, “I did not give fatwa until seventy scholars of Medinah deemed me qualified.”

To further complicate things: Alim and Mufti in the Deobandi Dar al-Uloom tradition

In the Indo-Pak Deobandi tradition, the word alim may refer to completion of a specific 4-year program. And so it may be said, “have you completed your alim course?” Their additional 3-year program is called a “mufti course”. So those who have “Mufti” as their title have essentially completed a 7-year course, mostly revolving around Hanafi fiqh and usool.

In relation to each other

When I see a speaker or writer prefaced as “shaykh” or “ustadh” or “imam”… to me personally I don’t think much of it – they are my peers and have probably studied Islam formally for 4-8 years. Those terms are similar in indication and vagueness. I am more impressed if someone has “Dr.” in front of their name. It takes a long time, in the world of Islamic studies, to get a PhD, since a master’s is required first.

But then again, it depends on how they earned their master’s and their PhD! If it was a tahqeeq, old manuscript rendering, then this at least proves they are really good at reading someone else’s handwriting!

In Islamic history, most real scholars were in the “ivory tower” of academia and worked to produce future scholars and imams. Imam al-Ghazali was, for a good portion of his life, the rector of a university, and he devised their curriculum.

Let’s compare, today in the natural sciences, the vast majority of scientists and experts are totally unheard of by common people. Every year the Nobel Prize is given out to people who the public has never heard of, but the experts know very well. The only scientists that the public know are those who write/speak in popular science. Some of them are qualified experts and professors like Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. But others did not have the same qualifications. Bill Nye “the science guy” has an engineering degree. But through years of informal and self-taught studies and his dedication to informing the public about science, he has earned many “honorary degrees”. But he was never involved in actual *boundary-pushing-research*. Nor could he be a professor who spends much of their day reading at the very precipice of the known and unknown.

Today, I would liken many of those with “Dr” in front of their name to Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson. Those without, are more like Bill Nye. But take your serious technical questions to the doctors. And more specifically, the doctors of the field you have your specific questions for. I wouldn’t ask an expert about the Mughal Dynasty any questions about Peter the Great. However, if the Mughal professor was friends with the Russian history professor, he may circle back to me.

Should you be afraid of anyone who isn’t a doctor? It depends. If they understand where their knowledge begins and ends, then don’t be afraid. They may be less precise, but they probably also learn from the doctors. So if they’re good at conveying, then great. But if they answer any and every question, even way beyond their expertise, then do not approach them except within their expertise, or the more basic questions. Just like you shouldn’t ask a scientist about Islam.

The ISLAMIC definition of a scholar

It is said, “you cannot talk about Islam until you’ve studied Usul al-fiqh”. I agree. And the more, the merrier. Usul al-fiqh is, quite literally, the intellectual tools of the scholar that puts a person on track to become a scholar. I cannot emphasize that enough. The topics discussed in traditional usul al-fiqh are:

1 – Rulings

2 – Sources of rulings — this includes hadeeth science by the way

3 – Manners of extracting rulings from those sources

4 – Who is able to do that

The term and classification for that who in Usul al-Fiqh is mujtahid [مُجْتَهِد] which literally means hard worker/researcher, one who performs ijtihad.

Mujtahid = Qualified researcher: due to Arabic understanding, memorization, perusal and contemplation of the Book & Sunnah; knowledge of opinions and precedents; Arabic sciences; hadeeth sciences; and usul al-fiqh, qawaa`id fiqhiyyah and maqaasid sharia; and of course taqwa and ikhlas.

There are levels of mujtahids, just as there are levels of scholars. And so, some scholars are more scholarly than others. This is based on 1) their portion of those qualifying sciences, as well as 2) their own practical experience of performing research that is accepted by other scholars within the relevant fields.

So here are those levels:

• Mujtahid Mutlaq, unrestricted = Reached a great level in every science of Islam: tafseer, hadeeth authentication, Arabic, fiqh of worship and transaction, purification of the heart, etc. This kind of individual may not have existed for a millennium. Scholars debate on whether or not Abu Haneefah’s students reached this level, or whether or not ibn Taymiyyah reached this level. Some say it is impossible, because the mujtahid mutlaq should have derived usul al-fiqh directly from the scriptures, and that inevitably, now that such science has been well established, everyone after the great Imams is just using the usul that they discovered.

So this is the scholar who did not study Usul al-Fiqh. They made Usul al-fiqh. They are an expert in nearly every Islamic science, nearly every issue. We students study that there is a difference between baatil and faasid in contracts for example, but they are the first to discover that. They may have a specialty among their specialties, but they are super rounded, and they derived directly from the scriptures based on their understanding of Arabic, logic, authentication of hadeeth, past opinions, etc. Their consistent manners of using those tools would form the basis of their school. Those are the 4 Imams and a few of their predecessors and their contemporaries. Very few people since them have attained the rank. And it may be impossible. After all, you cannot rediscover the Pythagorean Theorem. If all you’re dealing with is triangles, then it’s over for those who come after. There may be new triangles, but they will all have 3 sides, and the equations will be the same, even if the new triangles have longer or shorter sides than have ever been seen before.

• Mujtahid [within a] Madhab = They may come up with new opinions for new issues based on the principles of the [mutlaq] founder. Inevitably today, all scholars fall in this category, whether they primarily follow the Usul terminology of the Hanafi tradition or the jumhūr tradition. If they are researching contemporary matters for greater fiqh bodies, they may frequently evoke principles and maxims from other madhabs as necessary for their fiqh research. I would consider Shaykh Qaradawi (rh) and many of the greatest scholars of today to have reached this level. It is difficult to say if there are any scholars of this level in America. But if there are, you may find them as members of AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) or the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA).

A fiqh madhab like Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali, and even Zahiri or ahl-Hadeeth, is all based on certain principles, derived from Quran and example of the Prophet ﷺ and how his companions handled scripture and rulings. The principles are fairly similar between the schools (excluding the short-sided Zahiri methodologies which could hardly be called a madhab today). Although some of the subtleties between schools are what made their opinions diverge. Specifically, how they reconcile between opposing evidence gives each school its own flavor.

For example, what if the Prophet ﷺ said one thing, but one of his companions said the exact opposite, even if it was the very companion who narrated the Prophet’s original words concerning that topic? What do you do?

Imam al-Shafi`ee might say, “the Prophet’s word takes precedence over anyone and everyone else.” Imam Abu Haneefah might say, “The companions heard and saw the Prophet ﷺ. If they did something different than what he once said, it is because they knew that the general ruling was different. Any previous instruction was only temporary or for a specific person or incident.” Imam Malik might say, “Let’s look to what the companions’ students collectively said and did and what they ultimately accepted as being standard”. Imam Ahmad might say, “We have a precedent in the Prophet so we will follow that, however the companion’s idea should not be discounted either.” As you can imagine, the 4 schools thus differed based on approaches like this. However, the general Muslim ummah, and Muslim scholars accepted all these methodological approaches. And so, following, deriving and reconciling based on the methodologies of any of the 4 Imams are thus orthodox.

Anyone who studies fiqh or Islam in general is studying it through a certain lens, whether they realize it or not. Most of those who claim to follow “the evidence” or hadeeth, are in fact, primarily using the principles of the Shafi`i school, or they are just following the latest thing they heard or read. Even anyone who says they “follow the Quran and Sunnah upon the understanding of the pious predecessors” may be unknowingly paying homage to the Hanafi or Maliki school as they too would say that whenever they differed from the direct words of the Prophet ﷺ, it is only because of how his companions, the best generation, understood and practiced.

• Mujtahid baab/mas’alah, Field/Chapter/Issue = Possesses skill, but only did great research within a single issue, subject, or field. E.g. bioethics, zakaat, attributes of Allah; mufassir, faqeeh, muhaddith. Many of the great scholars of the past wrote entire books about a single issue. For example, the ruling of raising the hands for takbeer throughout the prayer, or the ruling of anal sex between a married couple (just being honest), or about the status of the Prophet’s ﷺ parents in the Hereafter – Imam al-Suyuti wrote three books about that single topic(!). Most master’s degree and doctoral degree holders in fiqh are in this realm, by virtue of their degree and dissertation and the training it took to get there.

Today, and really for the last thousand years, if you say “scholar of Islam” it might be better to qualify it. As many *scholars* would say, there hasn’t been an all-round scholar who was a *scholar at everything* for that amount of time. Or there may be some, but they are not too famous. There may be scholars of hadith aka muhaddith, scholar of tafsir, scholar of fiqh called a faqih, etc. And within each of those there are specialties. A hadith scholar who, in reality, is really only a scholar of Sahih al-Bukhari, and if you asked him other questions about hadeeth (or anything else in Islam) he would have to research. He is at a bachelor’s or master’s level in general hadeeth, but a physician in Bukhari’s hadeeth specific. Similar to other sciences.

But if a person has continued researching in their spare time, then they may become a more rounded scholar, regardless of the original topic of their degrees. This is partially why older scholars could be a greater authority than younger ones. Think Yusuf Qaradawi (rh) who continued researching and writing in numerous fields long after completing his Ph.D. And so, like with surgery, there are surgeons who perform the same operation, day after day, and there are those who push boundaries, develop novel procedures, invent and patent new technology, and are bridging the gaps between theory and practice their entire career. I was told that the great shaykh Muhammad Ameen al-Shanqiti (rh) said, “you cannot become a scholar until you are reading at least 5 hours a day(!)”

If the mujtahids are the real scholars, what does that make everyone else?

Most scholars of Usul would say that anyone who is not a mujtahid, is a muqallid (follower, imitator) who follows the scholars without knowing their evidence.  Nearly all the Muslim world falls in this category and that’s okay.

Why does “taqleed” get such a bad rap?

A couple movers and shakers in the Islamic scholarly world half a century ago started referring to taqleed as “taqleed a`ma” or blind following, as a pejorative. They were criticizing other scholars who refused to go beyond their madhab and its mu`tamad trusted official positions. But due to these scholars often speaking and writing for the masses simultaneously, this created a great deal of confusion the Muslim world has still not fully recovered from.

Thus, many English speaking people actually think taqleed means blind following, while it actually simply means to follow or imitate, blindly or not. Blind following would be to follow anyone, but guided following is to follow a real scholar and is what the Quran commands Muslims to do.

There is a threshold of knowledge of Arabic, Usul of fiqh and hadeeth, scripture, and past opinions that a muqallid could acquire before they could possibly enter the spectrum of the mujtahids. This knowledge is encapsulated in and indicated by Usul-al-Fiqh. If a person has a good level of understanding of these fields, and then uses that knowledge to research one single issue on Islam, for example, the niqab, as being obligatory or merely recommended, and they demonstrate their understanding of all the evidences and arguments, and can properly use the tools (mostly logic, grammar, authentication and proper understanding and handling of past opinions, history, etc) to decide which opinion is most likely, or even create a third opinion being a synthesis of the other two, then they could possibly be considered a mujtahid of one single issue in Islam. But they would still need to have all the minimum qualifications of a mujtahid, which includes memorization and perusal of all the Book and Sunnah.

If they expand their research into all the aspects of clothing, they could eventually become a mujtahid of issues of clothing and grooming or issues of `awrah, for example. Maybe they even do a PhD of that topic. And so on, until they expand their knowledge into other fields, or they simply remain content to be a follower in other fields.

Does one have to PRODUCE research to be a mujtahid scholar?

Beyond the categories of mujtahid already mentioned, it is disputed whether any other category exists, or if anyone in such a theoretical category could be called a “mujtahid” in any real sense.

• Mujtahid of tarjeeh or Murajjih (many daa’iyah) = chooser of opinions from the scholars, within or beyond a single school. They know the principles very well, but will not venture or research to rule on new issues. But they use the principles of understanding to choose the appropriate opinion within their madhab or perhaps even beyond.
• Muttabi` [مُتَّبِع] Some scholars like al-Shawkani said there are 3 types of people: the mujtahid, the muqallid, and then the “muttabi” or the one who knows and understands the evidence of the mujtahid that they follow. This is a subtle invention.

I would consider myself in this third gray area on a few matters. If I had time to research more, I would love to become a mujtahid in something, on top of the research I had the chance to do while pursuing my master’s. But there are some subject matters where I would consider myself a complete muqallid, especially financial matters. As an imam, I don’t have the time to read through the research. But because I recognize and respect the scholars who make those determinations, I’ll follow it and convey to my congregation.

So now, after all that, who is the scholar?

If by scholar, you mean mujtahid, then these are the researchers who produce research. And, I believe this is the most appropriate definition. And these individuals contribute to research and fatwa councils, AMJA and FCNA stateside, or are professors or have founded Islamic Universities here in America. If you want names, take Salaah al-Sawi, Hatem al-Haj, Waleed al-Meneese, Yasir Qadhi, Main al-Qudah, Bilal Philips, and many others – Allah preserve them all. As for the scholars abroad, then they are the professors over there and members of fatwa and research councils over there. Most have doctorate degrees, because universities are best at training proper research methodology. A select few may not, but do extensive reading and are recognized by their peers and teach in very traditional settings and are known among their madhahib.

But if by scholars you mean `alim/ulamaa’, then perhaps we could go by the linguistic definition of “those who know” and extend this to anyone who reads and studies, even if they are not actively producing research, but would be capable if they chose to research. Many masjid imams fall into this category – as long as they know what they don’t know – and thus join in the ranks of the muttabi or murajjiḥ. And their names are numerous alhamdulillah.

But unfortunately, there aren’t enough of either. Moral of the story, there is still great truth to the saying, “become a scholar, and if you can’t, become a student, and if you can’t, love the scholars, and if you can’t, at least do not hate them.”

Why scholars disagree, and who to follow when they do

Scholars of the formative era like the Four Imams differed on issues for a variety of valid reasons. Scholars past and present have highlighted the cause of those differences.

For example,

• Authenticity of a hadeeth.
• Indication of scripture, ayah or hadeeth. Such as its grammar or the precise definition of its vocabulary.
• Relevance and intention of a scripture, e.g. did the Prophet ﷺ intend a certain injunction to be one for the Muslims of that time and moment, or for all Muslims and all times? Or for certain Muslims at some times? And even it was for all Muslims at all times and all places, was it a command of obligation or a command of recommendation or to let them know it was permissible?
• How to handle an apparent contradiction with another scripture.

When scripture is noticeably silent about something, then the scholars may differ over what is the closest scripture or principle that covers the issue in question.

Were one to study the issues they differed over, without knowing who is behind each statement, you would have great respect for all Four Imams and realize why it is very difficult to confidently claim that one position is right and the others wrong or “without evidence”.

As for scholars today, they differ for different reasons.

With issues of the past, they will differ based on who they follow and believe most right.

With contemporary issues, researchers will typically go outside their primary “home madhab” and look to the whole scholarly legacy to find if any scholars of the past touched upon the present issue in any way, near or far, even hypothetically. Quite often, there are good examples. Those precedents, when found, are the beautiful moments every scholar longs for. To be able to present it to other scholars to give the masses a precedent of the past and to see how Islamic scholarly legacy maintains its relevance is priceless alhamdulillah. There were many examples of this regarding pandemic rules.

But in absence of those precedents, they will perform true ijtihad, just as the Four Imams did, but using the intellectual evidences, such as qiyas and istihsan. They may also consider qawaid and maqasid, if you can call them “evidences” and that’s a point of contention.

Because of this, scholars may differ. Which one should you then follow? If it’s a personal issue, and it’s “all the same”, then follow the scholar who seems to have done more research on the issue or seems more objective and pious on the issue and in general. If however, one scholar’s judgement would put you into some hardship, while another’s is relatively easy to apply, then you should pray to Allah over it and ask Allah for guidance to what is best. The more conservative route may be the theoretically safer one, but the easier route may be the most sustainable, if it is a chronic issue. And if you are part of the 1% Muslim minority in America, preserve your identity, but give yourself a break.

Imam al-Shaatibi said, “The fatwa of the mujtahids in relation to regular Muslims, are like the evidences in relation to the mujtahids.”

What issues are subject to ijitihad?

This is extremely important, and unfortunately so many are confused, and you would not know it if you did not study Usul al-Fiqh. This is why much “dawah” has been mishandled so erroneously. Many who studied Islam and returned to the US specialized (if you can call it that) in hadeeth or aqeedah but fell vastly short in fiqh and Usul al-fiqh – the very tools of Islamic scholarship. A very sad and regrettable mistake, and an unfortunate side effect of the “culture of daleel” and “culture of tarjeeh” that essentially discredits all other VALID precedented opinions.

Ponder the following words by prolific classical era scholar ibn `Aqeel (d. 513):

A matter of ijtihad is a matter where certain principled evidence-based differing is allowed, tolerated, and respected, or at least it’s supposed to be. The one who performs this and takes their job seriously will be rewarded whether they are right or wrong. Those who follow the qualified are excused. There is room for the qualified to use the knowledge tools to either a) choose between opinions of predecessors (if available) or b) issue a new ruling (if unavailable, or all “predecessors” are still alive).

• The authenticity of many hadeeth texts are matters of ijtihad. However, hadeeth authentication is more of a concrete science. Scholars usually only differ when one has done more research than the others. For example, a narrator who is strong except when narrating from the carriers of Basra because he may have been ill when he visited Basra a thousand years ago! Or when a hadeeth scholar believes a name is one narrator, but in reality, it is a common name, and the researcher has to decide “which Muhammad Abdullah is it!?” for example. Hadeeth authentication is an expansive science, but a science none the less. Which is partially why it is assumed that if someone is a hadeeth specialist, it is nigh impossible for them to excel in other fields, because of the great time demand on their life. And that makes you appreciate Imam Ahmad more, although he did have a great boost with his teacher al-Shafi` being the founder of Usul al-Fiqh and teaching him thus.
• Any matter of fiqh from the past where difference of opinion is fixed, scholars today can choose between the available opinions. Usually though that will be pre-packaged based on their madhab because one opinion goes with the Usul of their madhab. Some critical thinking scholars may opt to “combine” opinions or reach a “middle ground” and harmonize between when and how one ruling might be applicable and when another may be.
• Scriptural commentary. It’s possible for scholars today to extract new benefits from the revelation. But they must, of course, use the proper tools and “have evidence”, and not demolish the understanding of the past. And in all honestly, there is not likely much new discovered this way, only very fine details and gems. A lot of the “scientific evidence” genre has been either underwhelming or misleading.
  • Go ahead and extend this to translation! Telling the world what the Quran or Prophet’s Sunnah, or even a past scholar intends is no light matter.
• Finding the ruling for new issues. From cryptocurrency to sex dolls, and everything in between in the ever-evolving world of food, medicine, finances, entertainment, etc. And even how new things might affect worship, such as praying in an airplane (sure that’s an old one but I am still asked about it), zakat, etc.
  • This means, if a bunch of scholars or scholarly bodies differ on whether, for example, an asthma inhaler breaks the fast, the sheer fact that they are differing shows that the matter is not so crystal clear as to be a matter of consensus where the other group is “going against the Quran and Sunnah”. Because they’re both using the Book and Sunnah and the principles of fiqh and usul, essentially.
• Applying an old ruling to modern scenarios. Just as a judge works to decide whether a marriage should be invalidated or not, for example. Does the shoe fit? This is the work of muftis, tanzeel al-manaat.
• When a qadi decides a case, he is performing ijtihad. Sometimes I have had issues of divorce where there was never a mahr in the marriage and so I will have to decide one if the couple could not.
• Issues of leadership and community strategy. In politics, is this a matter where the head of state has legitimate Islamic reason to make deals with an enemy or not? In masjid leadership, should we close the masjid when a virus is spreading? In dawah, should we sit on a panel with a Zionist org that wants to present about how Muslims helped Jews in the Holocaust? Etcetera, etcetera. These decisions should be guided by Islamic scholars. However, it’s very possible that they could differ. When scholars and leaders differ, it’s okay!!! It’s like moonsighting, just go with your local community and don’t make a big deal of it.

If a matter is fundamental to the religion, Allah will guide the qualified scholars to agree to it. When they do not agree, then one opinion is not the fundamental opinion while the other is heresy. That is preposterous and that is how the Christians differed and split into sects, because there was no consensus they could fall back on.

Matters beyond ijtihad

Other issues beyond this that are not closely related to the Quran and Sunnah and Usul al-fiqh and traditional Sharia issues may simply be “statements” and “thoughts” and “reflections” and “social commentary”. Agree or disagree. For example, “the most pressing issue of the ummah today is tarbiyah: properly raising Muslim children.” That’s a common statement that many imams might make. Another scholar might say, “I disagree. I think the most pressing issue is the Ummah’s ignorance of Arabic and lost connection from the Quran.” Or, “The greatest scholar today is Sh ___________”

Statements are just that: opinions and reflections. As long as one’s opinion doesn’t go against something clear and established from the Sharia. Opinions from scholars are trusted to be relatively informed and observing proper etiquette. But scholars are humans at the end of the day. Many scholars wrote diaries or articles reflecting on the state of the ummah. Their observations are very poignant, but such observations should not be confused with scholarship – but they are merely a product of knowledge and observation. And so their observations are better than the thoughts of those devoid of Islamic knowledge.

Statements can sometimes be a fitnah for people because of who said it. Especially if there is a cult of personality around that charismatic individual. Followers may take that statement and even rally around it as if it were law. “Rabee` al-Madkhali is the carrier of the banner of al-jarh wa al-ta`deel in this era.” And we see the great tribulation caused by that statement.

As Imam Malik used to say, “everyone can be taken from or rejected from except the Messenger ﷺ.”

When should I follow a living scholar vs a deceased one?

Even if you are following a living one, you may be following a deceased one through him or her.

Ultimately with regard to fatawa, if you have read fatawa from deceased scholars, even from the classical or formative eras like the Four Imams, if you believe their words apply to your situation, then you may follow them. But if you doubt or want to make sure, consult.

For contemporary matters, there may be no choice but to follow the living.

Should I follow my local shaykh OR the scholars in Muslim lands?

Anyone who knows me well on this, knows that I believe very strongly, that anyone who really wants to study Islam, should study abroad in the most rigorous and humble environment they can find, afford and be patient with for 5-10 years. Be far away from the daily distractions of the latest social media scandal. See what’s left of community generosity and chivalry and adab in the Muslim lands. Sit side by side with students from Nigeria, Mauritania, Saudia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan and Turkey. Learn from their experiences and history and “best practices”.

That’s for studying Islam.

As for seeking fatwa and guidance on specific issues for specific people, then those most intimately familiar with the situation of the questioner are the best to answer them. As long as they are qualified in iftaa’, giving fatwa, as a mufti, in that subject matter, or can at least do the research, or contact the qualified specialists when they do not know. Because the situations of American Muslims tend to be very unique, they are best answered by scholars who have resided in America for years or decades.

Unfortunately, I have even had letter exchanges back and forth with broke inmates arguing with me over whether or not they owe zakaat. They do not own the nisaab to be liable to pay zakat, yet they are offering zakat because of a question-and-answer book from “the scholars” that someone had given them. Books and lessons made for one audience and distributed to a different audience can be very harmful, and many of the Salafi teachers in the West are guilty of this. For one brother especially, it clicked when I told him:

“Regarding books, again it depends on the intent of the author, and their qualifications, the needs of the student, their ability and the background of each. If Einstein gave a physics lecture to a bunch of college Physics 101 students, it may be suitable for beginners of college physics. But the same lecture may be misunderstood or wasted if given to a grade school science class. A lecture is one thing, but a well-rounded curriculum designed for middle school students is better. Even though Einstein is a scholar of physics.”

Those who refuse to consult local scholars put themselves in dangerous hardship. Ibnul-Qayyim (rh) wrote (I`lām, 3/66):

ومن أفتى الناس بمجرد المنقول في الكتب على اختلاف عرفهم وعوائدهم وأزمنتهم وأمكنتهم وأحوالهم وقرائن أحوالهم فقد ضل وأضل. وكانت جنايته على الدين أعظم من جناية من طبب الناس كلهم على اختلاف بلادهم وعوائدهم وأزمنتهم وطبائعهم بما في كتاب من كتب الطب على أبدانهم. بل هذا الطبيب الجاهل وهذا المفتي الجاهل أضر ما على أديان الناس وأبدانهم والله المستعان

“And whoever issues fatwa to the people by simply conveying what they saw in books, regardless of the peoples’ varying customs and cultures and habits and eras and places and their situations and related factors, has strayed and led others astray. And their crime against the faith is greater than the crime of someone who tries to practice medicine, diagnosing and prescribing for everyone in their bodies, regardless of their differing lands, cultures, age, and nature, in accordance with what may be in a single book of medicine. But rather, this ignorant physician and this ignorant mufti are the most harmful upon the people in their faiths and their bodies. And Allah’s Help alone is sought.”

I recall hearing a great shaykh here in America who asked not to be named speak about sitting with Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen. He asked many questions, and over and over, the shaykh said,

هذا يُرجَع فيه لأهل بلده

That matter is referred back to the [scholars] of their land.

Sh Yasir Qadhi also once told a story about shaykh Ali al-Qarahdaghi, arguably the world’s foremost expert on Islamic finance issues (along with shaykh Muhammad Taqi Uthmani of Pakistan). Shaykh Ali visited America and he said, “I have been here for 24 hours, and I have already changed my opinions about many things that I said just yesterday.” Referring to how his understanding of the peoples’ circumstances called for great flexibility and more innovative approaches to their dilemmas.

Sh Tahir Wyatt told a story about how several scholars of Medinah visited Philadelphia (which is a Sunni-Salafi stronghold) and then the scholars said, “this is not a land where the front lines are between Sunnah and bid`ah, but between faith and disbelief.”

Some words of some scholars that people get through a telephone call or a text, I have my doubts they would say them if they knew who their real audiences were. Allah knows best. When there is a Telelink call from America, do they know that they may be speaking to a room of laity? It’s possible that in most cases they do, which is why many words are simplified and kept to fundamentals without going to great depth. But if they actually lived here, I believe they would tell the duaat and students of knowledge to leave off criticism.

The point is, someone on the other side of the world in a completely different society cannot possibly comprehend the minute happenings here in America until they live and see it themselves, and it really takes a faqeeh to appreciate that.

Mistakes of scholars, speakers, etc…

First of all, what do I mean by “mistake”? I mean words that go against everything that all scholars throughout history have agreed and disagreed upon. As for saying something that has precedent, that’s not a mistake, that’s just the tradition they follow. You may not agree to it or think it best in general or at this time in specific, but it is hard to argue with the legacy in matters of ijtihad.

Scholars are human and will make mistakes. The more a person researches an issue and qualifies their conclusions, the fewer mistakes they’ll make. But still, no one is infallible. And when people do not have a carefully crafted script in front of them then they are more likely to misremember something, or accidentally say “all” instead of “most” or something along those lines. If we “cancel” those individuals out, then no one would be spared. No one.

Imams and scholars are asked questions all the time. They may start speaking and begin entering dangerous waters. They may hold themselves back and reign themselves in, or they may say a little too much.

But great scholars throughout history have taken views that went way against the established majority even when they performed ijtihad. Imams al-Tabari, ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Hazm, and many among the Salaf. Some of those opinions are worth consideration and are gaining great traction, but others may better remain buried in books to test the sincere. In America, there is a problem because it seems like there are just too many “far out [شاذّ] opinions”. They go against principles or against a possible consensus. But they are being resurrected and disseminated, maybe against the original scholar’s intent or “spirit” – think ibn Hazm and music. This is a cause for concern, such opinions do need to be considered very carefully before propagating to the masses, much less acting upon.

Regarding the search for the scholars and the “perfect teachers” you can trust not to make any mistakes or teach you bad religion…

One thing about da`wah and teaching is that it is like leading prayer. If someone makes a mistake reciting the Quran in prayer, you correct them during the prayer. Or even after the prayer, ask them to recite the passage again to verify with the mushaf. You don’t pull out a gun and shoot them saying, “they butchered the words of the Lord of the Worlds! That’s apostasy!” Allah is more forgiving and forbearing than that. Speaking about Islam is certainly a weighty endeavor. But reciting the words of Allah and leading people in their most important worship activity of the moment is even more sensitive. Yet still, we can correct people when they make a mistake. And even if no one corrected them, the prayer would, in most cases, still be correct! That is how generous Allah is.

Duaat will make mistakes. Imams will too. So do translators and writers — such as myself. It’s good and important to correct people. But to do so in an expose` format and refutation leads to a culture of people giving up the ability to do dawah, and to believe again that Islam is harsh and too hard, and that to be ignorant is better.

In 2022, nearly everyone who has sampled multiple translations of the Quran will have mostly critical words for the translation of Drs Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali — the Quran Printing Complex translation. But I consider Dr Khan’s story, being guided by a dream of helping out the Prophet and then told that he would do a great service for Islam. Let’s remember that a few disagreeable choices in translation or methodology may be drowned in the overall great benefit of their work. I extend the same generosity to the many duaat who explain Islam to the masses — whether to a non-Muslim audience like Yusuf Estes and Zakir Naik — or to Muslims themselves like Siraj Wahhaj. Imagine the multitudes of individuals these people will meet who will enter Paradise after initially being inspired by the Message through them.

If, instead of [character] assassinating speakers who make a mistake, we gently correct them, the world would be a better place. And even if they don’t accept the correction, subhanAllah, there is a genre of literature about “zallat al-Aalim” (the slippings of scholars). This is to the point that it is considered a Sunnah of Allah that scholars will make gross mistakes. And some of those mistakes might even be real headscratchers. Those “what the hell did he just say?” moments are their zallaat, their slips from the path. But yet, even in those, they may have some evidence that would otherwise be admissible. So beware belittling scholars. The fact that they make such errors could be a demonstration of their sincerity in trying to find the truth without conforming. I will not speculate about intentions, as we should assume the best and ask Allah to forgive us for the worst.

These zallaat could occur from specialists as they try to traverse new waters, but more often from those who are general “bachelors level” in a bunch of fields, but not an expert in what they are talking about at the time they make their slip up. As ibn Hajr used to say “whoever speaks outside their field brings oddities.”

No scholar is infallible. Everyone makes mistakes, especially in matters of ijtihad in politics, personalities, fatwa, etc. When you limit your understanding to an extremely small group of scholars or even a single one, then their mistakes become greater problems. If you look at a greater sampling, then the mistake of one means little and gets drowned out. Also, because they are more, there is more synergy, and so they make fewer mistakes because there is greater collaboration, and not so much pressure on one single scholar or two! This is another reason why I greatly respect fatwa bodies, councils and organizations. If they issue decrees, it will be based on the general agreement of a great many well-qualified scholars. That leads to confidence, which is why following fatawa from known fiqh bodies is the safest option by far.

But when there is just one, the unchecked mistake of one scholar — or speaker — could end up starting a new sect or hizb, as has happened in the past.

When you read the biography of a shaykh, read it more critically. “PhD in aqeedah? Okay, so I won’t ask him about fiqh then”. They’ll speak about fiqh and have a good working knowledge of it but that is not their specialty. And vice versa. But again, maybe they do extensive reading.

With that being said, sh Tahir Wyatt may be one of the most knowledgeable people in America about aqeedah. The scholars of AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) are hands-down the best fuqaha in America. I have no problem saying that NAK is one of the most knowledgeable about tafsir in America. Same with Yasir Qadhi concerning seerah and many other matters. But be discerning if they speak outside their specialty.

I think the best way to teach scholars and imams when they err would be the same way that Hasan and Husain taught the old man who made wudhu incorrectly. “O elder, which of us do you think makes ablution better?” And the old man said, “I believe you both do and I have erred, thank you for teaching me.” But for Allah’s sake, don’t shoot anyone, nor character assassinate them.

As for popular speakers… go ahead and benefit from them. But just realize, if they say something that sounds a little off, forward it to a sincere objective expert. Not someone who will immediately try to discredit just because they haven’t heard it before. Simple as that.

And when you ask a question of an imam or shaykh, you are free to ask, “is there a difference of opinion in this issue?” That is when you will really learn about where their knowledge begins or ends.

More on da`wah: callers, speakers

Part of the problem is that really unqualified people have been speaking about Islam for a while now. When I say really unqualified, I mean people that listen to one lecture, misunderstand even the big general ideas, and then try to teach it to others, mix up all their “facts”, and when they’re asked about something or corrected, they double down on their errors. I can’t count how many times I gave a khutbah and someone afterwards said, “great khutbah I really liked when you said, …” and they then say something that is not even remotely what I said or meant.

They are ruwaibiḍah and unfit to speak about the deen. They probably do not look the part either, and more than likely never studied anything in any Islamic sciences seminary. Their qualification is simply that they are a Muslim and the Prophet ﷺ said “convey from me, even if one ayah.” Many people who spoke about Islam in America in the 80’s and 90’s and even early 2000’s could fit that bill, like masjid leadership that refuse to hire an imam. But in all fairness, they may have done a service to Islam, conveying it with passion. But a lot of words and pamphlets they left behind contain big errors. But something is better than nothing. But the community is sinful for not hiring or becoming scholars.

As for the folks who have studied formally (in a university or an organized traditional halaqah setting for several years) and informally (research and “phone their shaikh”) over several years, and they have presumably learned how to research issues, they may or may not be real scholars in anything. They may be muttabi`un (followers of scholars, learning and understanding their evidences). But that is more than enough to convey the knowledge with wisdom to those beyond.

Concluding Remarks and Most Important Takeaways

There is no list or database that names all the scholars or even the scholars of a certain land or even America. Nor any database that lists the “scholars of tafseer” or “scholars of Islamic finance”. There may be attempts, but there are too many people who do research and learning all by themselves or behind the scenes with research organizations and no one knows about them.

• Islamic Scholarship is not black and white. It is of levels, and the scholars alive today all vastly occupy these gray areas.
• A scholar is a scholar of what they have researched, to the extant that they’ve researched it and collaborated with others in it. Simple as that.
• The ijtihad of the lay Muslim is to decide which scholar(s) to learn from, or, in the absence of scholars, which imams are most scholarly in their methodology, connecting the common Muslims to legitimate precedents.
• There are people who may not be academic researchers and scholars, even if they have the knowledge tools to work in a university and become a scholar. However, they bridge the gap between regular Muslims and the researchers and bring the cutting edge fatawa on animal slaughter or palliative care to the rest of us. Duaat who popularize the religion play a valuable role in society. They, like imams, also help lay Muslims out with their situations.
• Everyone makes mistakes, whether in speaking and writing, or in their personal behavior. No one is on top of their game 100% of the time. Everyone has weak moments. Whether they go off on a tangent or give in to a temptation or even make a bad ijtihad entering new shores. Do you want to be judged by your worst words or actions? Those who throw them under the bus further make the religion look unforgiving, and may be at risk of insincerity, trying to knock down others so that they are the last one standing.

There is another page to this article, and that concerns the extremes that Western Salafiyyah went to with respect to their scholars.