Jurisprudential Differences and Conformity: A Comparative Analysis of the Arguments of Imam Sha’rani and Shah Wali Ullah

Saeed Ahmad , Ata Ur Rehman

Abstract

It is not possible for every person to get the solution of such issues not discussed clearly in Qur’an and Sunnah. That is why Holy Qur’an directs to ask these issues from the persons in authority (jurists). Muhammad (PBUH) not only permitted for Ijtihad but also appreciated the Ijtihad of jurist companions. According to Prophet (PBUH), The jurist who commits error there is one fold reward and two fold who makes just decision. As Prophet (PBUH) is the last messenger, Allah has blessed the Muslim Ummah by such Jurists (Mujtahidins) in every age that prevented the religion with their preaching and reformative works. Imam Abdul Wahab Sha’rani and Shah Wali Ullah are among such persons, who selected by Allah for the reformation and renaissance of Islam. In this write up, arguments of Imam Sha’rani and Shah Wali Ullah have discussed comparatively and analytically for the struggle to create jurisprudential conformity. This jurisprudential conformity is necessary to create unanimity in Muslim societies, to solve present sectarian issues, development of mutual respect and eradication of narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Today, world has become global village and journeys of years are being travelled in moments. Then the actual effort for creating a common Islamic Jurisprudence may initiate. This great achievement may be in three ways. Firstly, there should be guiding principles for the conformity among the jurisprudential schools of thoughts. Secondly, Arguments of different schools of thoughts should analyze according to Holy Qur’an, Sunnah and Consensus (Ijma). The argument in agreement with them should be preferred and adopted. Thirdly, according to preferred argument, there should be effort for making a collective Jurisprudence.