(Part 49)
The Ninth Topic:
Jurisprudence and Fulfilling the Legal Needs of the Societies
The Second Speech: Disagreement on Legislating Rulings
The continuation
Third Reason:
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
«القضَات ثلاث وَاحِد فِي الجنة وَاثنَانِ فِي النَّارِ فَأَمَّا الَّذِي فِي الجَنَّ فَرَجل عَرَفَ الحقَّ فَقَضَي بِهِ»
“Judges are of three types: one will be in Paradise and two will be in Hell. The one who will be in Paradise is the man who knew the truth and judged according to it…” (Al-Azdi Al-Sijistani, n.d., 3/324).
Translation: Judges are divided into three categories. The first group is from the people of Paradise, and the second groups are from the people of Hell. The first group from Paradise are those who recognized the truth and judged accordingly. Those who knew the truth but judged against it are from Hell, which is the second group.
In situations where the truth in scholarly disagreement is uncertain, this presents a serious issue.
The Fourth Reason:
There is consensus among the Ummah (Muslim community) that judges are not obligated to follow the opinion of a single scholar. This consensus is reported by scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and others. However, the claim of consensus on this issue is not definitive, since many great and trustworthy scholars of the Ummah only consider this valid if all judges are mujtahids (qualified to perform ijtihād). Moreover, they have ruled in favor of the permissibility of codifying jurisprudential rulings under certain conditions.
The Fifth Reason:
Codifying jurisprudential rulings in the form of modern legislation involves human input and therefore cannot be considered as the ruling of Allah.
The Sixth Reason:
Codifying and enforcing jurisprudential rulings upon judges negatively impacts Islamic jurisprudence and its dynamism. Eventually, it may lead to the stagnation of the scholarly wealth of the Ummah and a general disregard for it (Nāyil & Ṣāfī, 2019, pp. 38–39).