Exposing Islam

⚖️ Not So Divine After All: Where the Four Sunni Schools of Sharia Law Disagree

The four Sunni madhhabs—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali—are often presented as harmonious branches of a unified legal system. In reality, they diverge on everything from how to pray to what invalidates a marriage. These contradictions expose the human, interpretive, and politically conditioned nature of Sharia, undermining the claim that it’s divinely fixed.

🧱 1. Foundational Legal Sources

Category	Hanafi	Maliki	Shafi’i	Hanbali
Qur’an	Primary source	Primary source	Primary source	Primary source
Sunnah/Hadith	Secondary to Qur’an	Strong preference for Madinan practice	Emphasis on authentic hadith	Strictest adherence to hadith
Qiyās (Analogy)	Extensive use	Moderate use	Central method	Limited, prefers textual proof
Ijmāʿ (Consensus)	Later consensus preferred	Consensus of Medina prioritized	Accepts scholarly consensus	Accepts only early consensus
Custom/ʿUrf	Accepted	Accepted	Limited role	Often rejected
Public Interest (Maṣlaḥa)	Rare use	Strong role	Limited role	Generally avoided

🙏 2. Acts of Worship (ʿIbādāt)

Prayer (Ṣalāh)

Hanafi: Raises hands only at the start (takbir al-ihram); says "Ameen" silently.
Shafi’i: Raises hands at each movement; says "Ameen" aloud in congregational prayer.
Maliki: Hands at the side (not folded); emphasizes calmness.
Hanbali: Similar to Shafi’i but often with stricter postures.

Ablution (Wudu)

Hanafi: Touching a woman doesn't nullify wudu.
Shafi’i: Any skin contact with a woman breaks wudu, regardless of lust.
Maliki: Touching a woman doesn’t break wudu unless sexual desire is involved.
Hanbali: Similar to Maliki, with stricter views on nullifiers.

Fasting

Disagreements: On what breaks the fast unintentionally, or whether injections count.

👪 3. Family and Gender Law

Marriage Validity

Hanafi: A woman can marry without a guardian (walī).
Others: Require the guardian’s consent for validity.

Triple Divorce

Hanafi: Saying “talaq” three times in one sitting counts as three—irrevocable.
Hanbali: Same as Hanafi.
Shafi’i/Maliki: Similar, though there’s more nuance.

Women's Legal Testimony

Hanafi: In financial matters, two women = one man; not accepted in criminal cases.
Maliki: Women’s testimony accepted in some civil areas, not criminal.
Shafi’i: Similar limits on women’s testimony.
Hanbali: Most restrictive—generally rejects women’s testimony in serious matters.

💼 4. Criminal and Hudud Law

Theft Punishment (Amputation)

Maliki: Harshest enforcement; small value threshold.
Hanafi: Higher value threshold and strict proof requirements.
Shafi’i: Moderate; similar to Hanbali.
Hanbali: Harsh and literal; few excuses accepted.

Apostasy (Ridda)

All Schools: Mandate death for adult male apostates.
Differences: Some variation in punishment for women and how repentance is handled.

🏛 5. Governance and Politics

Obedience to Rulers

Hanbali: Strict obedience, even to tyrants.
Hanafi: Historically flexible, aligned with caliphal systems.
Shafi’i: Less political, but eventually absorbed pro-caliphate doctrines.
Maliki: Early resistance to tyranny (e.g., Ibn al-Qasim), later co-opted.

🧠 6. Legal Reasoning and Innovation

Topic	Hanafi	Maliki	Shafi’i	Hanbali
Role of Reason	High (prefers opinion where texts silent)	Balanced	Limits reasoning to hadith logic	Minimal—prefers literalism
Independent Ijtihād	Historically strong but closed later	Closed early	Closed after Shafi’i	Suspicious of innovation

⚠️ 7. Contradictions with Qur’an or Hadith

Stoning for Adultery: All schools uphold it via hadith—even though the Qur’an prescribes lashes (Qur’an 24:2).
Drinking Punishment: All schools enforce 40–80 lashes—but the Qur’an doesn’t specify a fixed penalty (Qur’an 5:90–91).
Slavery Rules: All maintain legal infrastructure for slavery and concubinage, despite ethical conflicts with modern norms.

📚 Conclusion: One Divine Law? Or Four Human Constructions?

The existence of four rival schools—each claiming to derive rulings from the same revelation—destroys the illusion of a singular, divine legal system. What we see instead is:

Regional and political influence shaping legal thought.
Contradictions in core rituals, ethics, and punishments.
Disagreement on how to even interpret “consensus.”

If Sharia were purely divine, there wouldn’t be this level of divergence on fundamentals like prayer, divorce, or crime. The schools of jurisprudence are not proof of Islamic unity—they are evidence of its interpretive fragmentation.