Today the worst enemies of Islam exist in multitude of guises.They dont attack Islam directly,but adopt a very sinister tactic by casting doubt about the validity of Islam.According to these pundits,the realm of Islam is so broad that we are allowed to have 'differences of opinion' even in matters of absolute certainty.As such one popular line of reasoning used by these pundits is that 'different scholars have given different explanations about this subject and therefore we can adopt whatever opinion we want'

Regarding the opinion of scholars,the fact that they used different wording to explain a reality does not mean they have reached different conclusions.One would be hard pressed to identify a definition
which had an absolute consensus. Would one conclude these (and all) matters are doubtful and speculative? Obviously not. Some examples are highlighted below though the argument could similarly be applied to many others.

Definition of the Quran

The definition of the term, Quran, according to the Hanafi linguist Jurjani in his book on technical definitions is “revelation to the Messenger compiled in the Musaahif and transmitted through tawatur means without doubt”.

According to Sharawi it is “speech of God, revealed to the final Prophet in the Arabic language, worship when recited, compiled in the Uthman mushaf and transmitted via tawatur (decisive) means”,

According to Aamidi “The word of Allah is revealed to his slave Muhammad in Arabic. It is a miracle (Ijaaz) in even the shortest surah, it is written down and narrated to us through tawatur, through which we worship Allah by reading it, it starts with surah al-Fatiha and ends with al-Naas”.

If the definitions are compared, it is apparent there are a number of differences, including “speech of God”, “in the Arabic language” and “worship when recited”. If the reasoning of the modern pundits were
applied in this case, one would conclude that there are massive differences in the definition of Quran being the speech of God or in Arabic - as these points are disputed hence the Quran must be zanni (speculative). However, the jurists (as well as all Muslims) did not dispute these matters and agreed they are decisive (qati) due to the evidence - difference in selection of the words of the Quran are irrelevant.There is a well known usooli principle which makes this very point: "There is no objection to definitions in that they do not contradict the Sharia - for importance is not attached to the words but the meanings"

Similarly,the definition of 'Muslim' and 'kaafir' have been agreed upon by the scholars,but using different wordings.If there can be a 'difference of opinion' on such vital topics,the question of 'who is a Muslim' would become a meaningless discussion.

Related

Archive

Series of Thoughts (Dhivehi)