Shared Responsibility

When the hadiths were collected, it became evident that there were many differences among them. At that point, people began asking: Which narration should be followed, and which should not? At the time, the initial view was that these different narrations had come from the companions themselves. And since all companions were considered worthy of being followed, how could one say: accept this companion’s narration and reject that one? Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sairafi reports that he asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal, “If the Companions of the Prophet of Islam differed on an issue, is it permissible for us to reflect and decide which of their views is correct?” He replied, “It is not permissible to deliberate between the companions of the Prophet of Islam.” Al-Sairafi then asked, “Then whose opinion should be followed?” Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, “You may follow whichever of them you wish.” (Jami‘ Bayan al- ‘Ilm wa Fadlihi by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr: 1705) This statement by Ahmad ibn Hanbal is, in itself, quite sound—because we cannot declare one Companion correct and another incorrect. For us, every Companion is worthy of being followed. However, this response does not provide a scholarly explanation for why this approach is valid. After that, there is another view held by a number of jurists. For instance, Malik bin Anas was asked what should be done when there are differences among the Companions. He replied, “Some are incorrect and some are correct, so