The Roots of
Sunni-Shia
Differences in Fiqh
by
Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi
It is often alleged by the protagonists of Sunni-Shii unity that differences between the two schools are not more grave or serious than the differences that exist within the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Sunni-Shii differences should therefore be treated with the same tolerance and acceptance as Hanafi-Shafii differences, and it is in the spirit of this proposed "mutual tolerance" that the advocates of unity speak of the Shii Jafari school of jurisprudence as nothing more than a "fifth madhhab".
It is therefore only normal for the average Sunni lay person who has come into contact with advocates of Sunni-Shii unity to wonder about, or even be taken in, by such a claim. How serious are the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah really? Could they ever be reconciled? If not, could there at least be an amicable agreement to disagree, just like the Hanafis disagree with the Shafiis, or the Malikis with the Hanbalis? It is these questions that this article sets out to answer.
Full reconciliation between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Ithna Ashari Jafari Shiah is not merely elusive, it is simply an impossibility. Anyone who knows the reality of the issues that separate the Shi`ah from the Ahl as-Sunnah is bound to agree. Nothing sums up the truth of the situation better than the words of Hamid Algaran ardent admirer of Khomeini and the revolution, who describes Sunnism and Shiism as "two parallel lines that cannot meet".1 The endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah is therefore a wasted effort. The next best option is thus mutual tolerance and acceptance.
In order to test the viability of tolerance and acceptance between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah we will have to look more closely at the issues that separate the one from the other. These issues can be categorised into two groups:
1. fundamental differences,
which include articles of faith, and all such issues that could be termed "differences in principle", that by their nature give rise to differences in secondary matters;
2. secondary differences,
i.e. difference in matters of jurisprudence, like the way salah is performed, or that marriage and divorce take place, etc..
Each of the fundamental issues of difference would require a separate study to see how they affect compatibility between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. In this article it is our intention to look more closely at the type of difference that is usually dismissed as "secondary", and thus "unimportant". Are differences in fiqh between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah really so insignificant that we can jusitifiably turn a blind eye when we encounter them?
There can be no doubt that this question is anathema to the propagators of Shiism amongst the Ahl as-Sunnah, as well as to those who have fallen prey to their propaganda. Yet, if it is truth we seek, we cannot allow the preferences of such obviously biased persons to deter us. The "unity" such people strive to achieve, and which they accuse others of trying to destroy, is a unity forged in ignorance. How much do we really know about the Shiah? We have taken them on face value, and on grounds of what we have thus learnt about them we proceed to create unity. The naivety of such a position in a matter of far reaching religious implications is far too obvious. A unity founded upon ignorance is a very precarious unity indeed. Like a mirage, it seems very real when seen from afar, but as soon as you approach it, it slips out of existence.
There are two levels at which one can look at the differences in jurisprudence between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. The first is the level of external appearance. When the differences in fiqh are inspected at this level they do not seem any more alien than the differences that exist between the various schools of Sunni jurisprudence. In fact, in many, or even most cases one will find the Shii position to be conformity with at least one of the four Sunni madhahib. This is illustrated in the following three examples:
1. In the salah, the jalsat al-istirahah is held to be sunnah by the Shiah. In this they concur with the view of the Shafii madhhab.2
2. In marriage the majority of Shii jurists hold the view that khalwah, i.e. valid seclusion, has no effect on the mahr (dowry) nor upon any other aspect of the marital contract. In this they are once again agreement with the Shafiis, but differ from the other three schools.3
3. If the husband is unable to pay the mahr the wife is not entitled to divorce according to the Shii and the Hanafi schools. The Malikis, the Shafiis and the Hanbalis all have different views.4
It is on this level that most people view the differences that exist between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. Even certain `ulama of the Ahl as-Sunnah, looking at the matter on this level, have been known
