Because Ijtihad deals in the branch of worship by way of investigating the intention of Allah Almighty, then no one of the scholars could possess any personal opinion of which his followers can consider a religion�!

One of those followers gave an excellent response that I admired him for.
He was asked: Do you follow the words of Abi Hanifah (one of the four major scholars in Islam)?
He said No, I follow the speech of Allah and his messenger pbuh as understood by Abu Hanifah�!

This response is an honest description to the nature of following since Abi Hanifah and other scholars do not follow themselves.

We in our turn do not verify legislative following as it is common nowadays in Islamic countries but we merely mention this point of view.

This Ijtihad in the laws of worship has its causes and consequences. The text that there is no argument in its verification, people might have different views in understanding it in accordance to the mental nature of the interpreter or according to the lingual nature of the words.

In addition, the Prophet�s traces have different values among scholars from the direction of the narration they came through; what one might consider correct another may not.

Follows this apparently a difference in rules that might have a long range.

For example, Is the leadership of a woman for others in Salat acceptable or not?
Some see to prohibit that. Others see to allow it and the rest allow a woman to lead other women in Salat.

This difference is not giving preponderance to a specific philosophy rather it is an out weighing for what is found correct in the opinion of a working scholar who foud that it is a Sunna of the Prophet pbuh.

Judgments of scholars in a lot of issues would differ for this reason.

We noticed adversity in regard to the evaluation of the narrated Su�nnen (plural of Sunna). We shouldn�t be frightened by this multiplicity if it were built on respectable scientific origins in evaluating narrators and studying them and consequently accepting narration or refusing it.

It is better to affirm here a fact that explains the position the whole nation has from Sunna.
Prof. Muhammad Taqi Al-Qimmi the pioneer in calling for closeness between Islamic doctrines said:

�A Shie�ei is not different from a Sun�ni in regards to following the Sunna of the Prophet pbuh rather all Muslims agree that it is the second source of Shari�ah. There is no disagreement whatsoever among Muslims that the Prophet�s words and actions are a Sunna that must be followed and taken.�

�But there is a difference between those who were present at time of the message and heard from the prophet pbuh and those who knew of the Ahadeeth through other means.�

�From this point forward came the issue of verifying from the correctness of the narration and points of view varied ever since.
I mean that the difference is in the way of narration and not in the Sunna and this is what happened between Sunna and Shie�ah in certain occasions.

The conflict is minor (an expression used by scholars of logic. It is like there is a measuring from the first form to be articulated as follows:

This is the speech of the Prophet pbuh. The speech of the Prophet is an obligation to be followed, this is the obligation of the followers�
The second sentence which is the greatest introduction is taken for granted by all sects, but the difference is in the minor introduction on considering the narrated speech of the Prophet as an obligation or not?

There is no argument on following what the Prophet pbuh came with. The argument is in areas of difference on the narrated trace: did it come from the Prophet pbuh or not?�
And in the same way difference arouse from evaluating the narrators and in estimating their relation to the Prophet pbuh, difference rose in interpreting the fixed text.

Prof. �Mohammad Jawad Maghnia� has put a well written research in explaining this topic when he explained the words of Allah: O ye who believe! When ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful. 5:6

He said: �I don�t know of any of the verses of rules that had a lot of say about it by different doctrines and even different sayings in a single doctrine other than this one.�

They differed on who could make Taiam�mum (using sand to perform ablution in times of no water): is it allowed for the sick or traveler only or to anyone who can�t find water even if he was not sick or travelling?

And is the contact with women mentioned means sexual intercourse or is it whatever the hand touches?

Is water mentioned meant in its general meaning or does it include any kind of water?

Is the sand-mentioned soil only or any kind of sand, dirt, dust, or rock?

Is the face mentioned the whole face or some of it?

Is the hand mentioned means only the hand or does it include the arm too?

1- Abu Hanifah said: the traveler and the sick who couldn�t find water should make Taiam�mum but as for those not travelling or sick they are not allowed to do so even if they can�t find water and no Slat is required from them.
(the book of �Al-Mughni� by Ibn Qudamah 1, page 243, third edition and the book of �Bidaiat Al-Mujtahid� by Ibn Rushd chapter 1, page 63, the edition reprinted year 1935).
As for the evidence taken by Abu Hanifah, he took the apparent meaning of the verse where it showed that not finding water is no excuse to allow Taiam�mum but set the condition of travelling or getting sick: But if ye are ill, or on a journey�

The rest of the schools of thought said: the one who can�t find water should make Taiam�mum and pray whether he was resident, traveler, healthy or sick since narration of Hadeeth from the Prophet pbuh came with that and the Hadeeth is considered an interpreter and explainer of the Book.

They explained the mentioning of travel in the way of the common and when the description is taken on the common its evidence doesn�t apply on anything but the thing described.

But even if what was told of Abu Hanifah is correct then the condition of the traveler and the sick would be worse than the healthy resident since Taiam�mum and Salat is obliged on them but not on him.

2- Al-Shafi�ee understanding of �or ye have been in contact with women�� the general meaning covers even the touching by hand but they specified it with the foreign woman without a screen between them.

The Imamiah said:
What is meant by contact in the verse is intercourse because Arabs call intercourse contact because through contact intercourse evolves in the same way they call the sky rain.

3- The Hanafi school of thought said: Ablution is allowed with used water because the meaning of and ye find no water�any water whether used or pure and then those who can�t find pure water but have a used one are not considered not having water.

The rest of the schools of thought said: the meaning of Water is meant pure water because if you asked a Caf� owner to bring you water he would bring water not coffee or juice.

4- The Hanafiah (those who follow the Hanafi school of thought) and a group of the Imamiah said:
What is meant by earth in the verse soil, sand, and rocks and not metals.

The Shafie�iah (those who follow the Shafie�ee school of thought) said: It means sand and soil only but not rocks.

The Hanabilah (those who follow the Hanbali school of thought) said, and some Imamiah said It is only sand.

The Malikiah (those who follow the Maliki school of thought) said earth includes soil, sand, rock, snow and minerals if they were not moved from their places excluding Gold, silver and jewels.

5- the four scholars said: What is meant by Face is all the face exactly like in Wudu (ablution). The Imamiah said: what is meant is part of the face not all of it because the preposition didn�t came before faces�and wash your faces� whereas the Taiam�mum verse said and rub therewith your faces�and this with is used to refer to some part not all of it.

6- the four scholars said: what is meant by the hands: the hands to the elbows and so this limit should be in Taiam�mum the same as it is in Wudu. The Imamiah said, the hands are the ones that only carry the fingers and this is the general meaning understood from the word Hand. Because when you say I done something with my own hands we tend to think of the part that carries the fingers and nothing else.

Ibn Rushd said in his book �Bidaiat Al- Mujtahid� chapter 9 page 66: � the hand in Arabs speech has three meanings; the fore hand which is the most common, the fore hand and the arm, and the fore hand and the arm and shoulders.�

In the same way these examples tell us of the disagreements among schools of thought but they still remain verbal ones not concrete and in the branches not the origins of religion. They also tell us of the flexibility Islamic Shari�ah has and its wide range for Ijtihad and making things easy in addition to the benefits these differences contribute to language and religion.

* * *

Can you find in any of these schools one that is more correct than the other? No, they are all equal in value, no matter to how much appealing one of them might seem to a particular person.

And you in looking at these opinions are between two theories:

You can consider them all correct and that correctness in these matters is many but they all lead to what Allah intended from them.
You can consider only one of them to be correct without determining which one of them exactly and that these opinions are a result of hard work and Ijtihad and all of them will get good rewards for searching for the correct one. Those who made a mistake would get only one good reward for their efforts while those who got the right opinion would have a double reward.

Whether it was this or that there is no way to determine which one of them has the absolute truth. The early scholars where the first to discover this so they refused to claim that one of them has the truth or the right to commit others to what he thinks is true.

When Al- Mansour (one of the Muslim Caliphs) told Malik (one of the four major scholars):
I intend to order with your books that you gathered to be copied and to be sent to every Muslim City and then order them to work by them and nothing else.
Malik replied, Oh Prince of believers don�t do that. People have listened to other opinions and they heard a lot of Hadeeths and they narrated a lot of narration and each group followed what those who before them followed and they came with from what others differed about so let people with what each city choose for itself.

* * *

In my opinion I say that most of the things that were discussed by the different schools of thought are all correct and that they were all done by the prophet or told by him in various places and occasions.

Since he pbuh has prayed with his hands held on his chest and released.
He raised his hands before bowing and after at times and didn�t at other times.
He too agreed on repeating the call for Salat in Azan once or twice�etc.

It would be a joy if we can make a comparative study and give a broader view to obstacles that got hard to solve in times when less tolerance, ignorance and disappointment prevail.

* * *

There are origins with which there is no difference about and believers have no disagreements on.
And believe me if we were sincere to Allah by abiding to these foundations Allah would have spared us the disagreements that came after.
And I like what Prof. Muhammad Taqi Al-Qimmi said in the foundation of nearing among schools of thought:
�One might ask, what are these origins that you make them the main limit between Muslims and others?
So I would mention some of them as an example.

We all believe in Allah as our Lord and with Muhammad pbuh a prophet and Messenger.

We all believe in the Quran as our Holy book and in Kaaba as house of pilgrimage and direction.

That Islam is built on five pillars and that there is no religion after it and no Prophet is after our prophet pbuh. We all believe that what the Prophet pbuh came with is the truth; the judgement day, resurrection, reward and punishment, Paradise and Hell are all truths�etc.

And whatever we differ about then we turn it to Allah and his messenger to judge about. This means that we are agreed upon the method of disagreement and you�ll find no body from us say:
This is an order by Allah or his Prophet but we are not committed to it and say by it.

You won�t find any that would say Allah and his messenger have ordered us to believe in something but still we don�t.
There is no Muslim who can deny any of the known facts of religion.

Rather those who have disagreements say:
Allah ordered this and his messenger but that wasn�t, or that this is a place for Ijtihad and that is not.
The difference is in proving whether Allah and his messenger has ordered something or not, while agreeing that following and obeying them is a must on every Muslim and that Allah�s Shari�ah should be taken from the book of Allah and the Sunna of his Prophet pbuh.