Hazara Islamicus (Jan 2021)
Talfīq: Juristic differences and the determination of a balanced view
Abstract
The research focused on the opinion of Muslim Jurists regarding the permissibility of Talfīq and proposed a balanced view thereof. In the context of Talfīq, there are two broad categories of Muslim Jurists – Proponents and Opponents. According to the advocates, Talfīq is permissible in the light of few conditions, including concoction of the same religion, alignment with consensus (Ijmāʿ), the obedience of court of law, absence of personal motives, quality of opinion, knowledge of both religions, and the existence of hardship. On the other hand, the opponents of Talfīq termed it as “illegal” on the basis of violation of consensus (Ijmāʿ), conversion of a Ḥarām into Ḥalāl, preference of personal motives, adoption of an inferior opinion and molding of religion according to one’s own wishes. An analysis of the views of both sides shows that although Talfīq is not allowed in absolute terms, however, it can be utilized in the light of few conditions. These conditions dictate that the Talfīq is allowed if it does not violate the principles of Islāmic Sharīʿah, Ḥalāl and Ḥarām, Farḍ and Wājibāt, and the rights of Allāh and His slaves. Moreover, the matters which are settled by the court of law also do not fall under the domain of Talfīq. Similarly, in order to justify the condition of consensus (Ijmāʿ), it is important that the Talfīq should only be carried out among those (two or three) opinions upon which the Muslim Jurists have agreed upon. However, in this context, it is not necessary to opt for a higher viewpoint, rather, one can also adopt an inferior notion.
