Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Can Two Opposing Opinions Be Valid?

  • from Part II - Islamic Law
  • Emad Hamdeh
  • Book:
    Salafism and Traditionalism
    Published online:
    08 March 2021
    Print publication:
    18 March 2021, pp 99-128

  • Summary

    As with most legal systems, Islamic law leaves many legal questions unresolved and issues are open for jurists to make judgments using their intellectual efforts. This results in multiple approaches and legal opinions (ikhtilāf). This chapter analyzes the opposing approaches toward Islamic law between Salafis and Traditionalists to explain why they differ about the validity of ijmāʿ and acceptance of ikhtilāf. I argue that at the core of their different approaches toward ijmāʿ and ikhtilāf are their divergent attitudes toward certainty in Islamic law. The Salafi belief in the ability to attain definite knowledge (ʿilm) in legal matters impacted their attitude on the validity of ikhtilāf. The Salafi notion of certainty in Islamic law led them to reject the validity of legal pluralism and therefore rebuke Traditionalists for following the madhhabs.