compiled by Abul-Layth Ibn ‘Ata
In Al-Ihkām, Imām Al-Āmidī states that to the Shāfi’ī’s fardh and wājib are identical categories, whereas the Hanafī’s maintain that they are different. [See Al-Ihkām 1:139]
A famous story occurs in the Al-Badā’i` As-Sanā’i` fit-tartīb ash-sharā’i` as well as Muhammad ibn Muhammad Murtadhā Az-Zabīdī’s, “Tāj”,
“Yūsuf ibn Khālid As-Simtī told Abū Hanifah that he was a kāfir for saying witr was wājib, thinking by that he meant it was the same as fardh. Abu Hanīfah stated, “You can’t scare me with your takfīr, since I know that the difference between Fardh and Wājib is like the difference between the heavens and the earth (al farq bayn al wājib wal-fardh ka farq mā bayn as-samā’ wal-ardh).”[Tāj 5:66, and Badā’i` - Beirut: Dār Al Kitāb Al-‘Arabi, 1402/1982 print pages 1:271]
Interestingly, however, some Hanafīs (an incredibly small minority) did not make a distinction between the two. Ibn Humām and his commentator Ibn Bādshāh did not make this distinction Tayasīr At-Tahrīr 2:184ff. However, do not forget that Ibn Humām lived in the Shāfi’ī dominated Alexandria, Egypt.
Imām Bazdawī Al-Hanafī states in his Kanz Al-Usūl,
“The farā’idh (obligatory acts) in the law are stipulated and so not admit of increase or decrease, that is, they are maqtū’ah (definitive), established by an indicant about which there is no lack of clarity (shubhah – doubt), like faith, Salāh, Zakāh, Hajj…The wājib in the law is a name for what is lazima (incumbent) upon us by an indicant about which there is some lack-of-clarity (shubhah), such as tahārah when making tawāf around the ka’bah…”[Kanz Al Usūl 2:301]
Imām Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad As-Sarakhsī in his Usūl states,
“Fardh is a word for a thing stipulated by revealed law (muqaddar shar’an) which does not admit of increase or decrease (lā yahtamilu az-ziyādah wan-nuqsān). It is maqtū’ (definitive) because it is established by proof that compels definite knowledge – from the Book and Sunnah, or Ijmā’…It is called Maktūbah (lit. written or transcribed) because it is written for us in the preserved tablet.A clarification of this category [is found in consideration of] fathe in Allah ta’alā, As-Salāh, Zakāh, Siyām, and Hajj. At-Tasdīq bil Qalb (affirmation with the heart) and Iqrār bil Lisān (declaration with the tongue), subsequent to knowledge is a definitively established obligation (fardun maqtū’un bihi)…
Wājib is what must be fulfilled (al-adā’) according to the shara’ or not done…That which devolves upn a person to do by its being linked to him though its indicant does not compel knowledge in an absolute manner is called Wājib…Fardh and Wājib both are required, but the fardhī effect is greater.”
[Usūl, 1:110-111]
As for the Shāfi’īs, Imām Az-Zarkāshī states,
“The wājib is the very act of the one-made-responsible, and obligation (ījāb) is the demand that arises in the self (At-Talab al qā’im bin-nafs).”
He also states in Bahr (1:77), “The predecessors said, ‘The Wājib is what one is punished for not doing.’”
He quotes Ibn Daqīq Al-‘Eid as stating, “It is the linking of punishment to the neglect of an act.”
Qadhī Husayn states, “The Wājib is that for the neglect of which he fears punishment.”
Abū Is-hāq Ash-Shirāzī states, “The hanafī distinction is an error, because the technique of nominalization (tarīq al asmā’) is to look to the shar’, to language, and to usage; and there is nothing of this distinction between what is established by an unqualified indicant or an ijtihādī indicant in them.” [See his Luma’]
Bazdāwī in response to the Shāfi’ī criticism states, “How can you dispute that the indicants are of two sorts…If the Dalīl differs, it cannot be denied that the hukm differs.” [See kanz]
Al-Ansārī also argues, “All nusūs (texts) were definitive in the time of the Rasūl (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam) and supposition only came to be afterwards. In addition, ‘it is obvious that in the speech of the Legislator, use of iftirādh is only for ilzām (incumbency) and nothing else.” [1:58]
Imām Al Bājī Al Mālikī in Kitāb Al Hudūd states,
“Some of our collegues (i.e. Mālikīs) say that with regard to wājib, though in defaulting on it there is punishment, its rank is below the rank of fardh…Qādī Abu Muhammad held in some of his statements that the wājib is what is a sin to leave but one needn’t make it up (qadā’). Whereas fardh is what is yalzam (incumbent) and leaving it is a sin, one must make it up.”
As for the Hanbalīs, then Ibn Taymiyyah says,
“Ibn ‘Aqīl reports: The fardh is what is incumbent (lazim) on the basis of the Qur’ān, and the wājib is what is from the sunnah. This is the most obvious (thāhir) sense of what Imām Ahmad said in most of his texts. Ibn Shāqila says this…In an account from Al Athram, Ahmad said: “ I don’t say fardh except for what is in the Book of Allah”…And Ahmad said in the account of Ibn Sāwud and Ibn Ibrahīm “Al-Madhmadha (rinsing of the mouth) and al-istinshāq (snuffing the water) are not called fardh, nothing is called fardh except what is in Kitābullah.” It was transmitted similarly from him by Al-Marudhī: He was asked about the Sadaqah of the fast breaking – was it fardh or not? He said, “I wouldn’t dare to say that is fard”, he said, “one is prevent from using the name fardh by his declaring its obligatoriness…”Al-Qādhī Abū Ya’lā said: “The obvious sense of this distinction between fardh and wājib is that the fardh is an expression of the wājib that is of a higher level; it is the knowing of Allah ta’alā (hiya Ma’rifatullah). The fardhs are those things which are established by super-abundance (istifādhah) and plural transmission. The wājib is that which is not a fardh, and is an expression of what is of a lower level. It is that which is established by means of ijtihād-and it is permitted by a [counter-] ijtihād to not do such things as al-madhmadha and istinshāq, and the sadaqah of fast breaking –or what is established for the mukallif upon himself without God’s making it obligatory, such as oaths…It is related from Abu Ya’alā by Abdullah and Abū Hārith that he said, “everything connected with Salāh is a fardh.” But (says ibn Taymiyyah), it is obvious that the tasbīh in rukū’ and Sujūd, and the takbīr other than the takbīratul Ihrām and saying sami’a Allahu li man hamida’ and the first tasha-hud and such things which are wājib, since they are established by means of a method which permits of ijtihād, are called fardh. Thus, the fardh and wājib are equivalent.” [See Al-Musawwadah 50-51]
In the sharh of the Musawwadah by Muhammad Muhyid Dīn Abdul-Hamīd he states,
“It should also be noted that Ibn ‘Aqīl stated, “The fardh is what is established by a Nass (text) or a definitive indicant (dalīl qāti’).” [This quote is found in the original manuscript of Al-Wādhih 1:fol 7b.]
Anyhow, Fakhr Ad-Dīn Ar-Rāzī, a Mutakallim Shāfi’ī, states about this difference between the madh-habs, “A flimsy difference (farq dha’īf)” and “Sheer arbitrariness (tahakkuman mahdan)”. [See Mahsūl 1/1:121]
Al-Ansārī states in his Sharh Musallam Ath-Thubūt, “It is no more than a problem of nomenclature.”