Print Page | Close Window

The Layman Has No Madhab.

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10130
Printed Date: 27 August 2014 at 5:53am


Topic: The Layman Has No Madhab.
Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Subject: The Layman Has No Madhab.
Date Posted: 25 August 2007 at 2:26pm

Assalamu alaikum

 

I struggled whether this will go under the topic of picking up Madhab or not. I concluded it is better to have a new topic. The writer debated the background of the topic in very informative way. You may not agree with him everything he wrote but he said it all in very convincing way.

 

See how some madhab fanatics went extreme to defend their madhab without prove from Quran and sunnah let alone four madhabs founders. The whole city was burned to ashes, marriage was banned or endangered and destructive words were used to make madhab whole deen.  

 

May Allah reward the writer khair. Enjoy it

_____________________________________

 

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi¡¦i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi¡¦i - said: ¡§The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi¡¦i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him¡¨

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: ¡§What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.¡¨

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i says in his al-Tahqiqat, ¡§The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu¡¦ al-rukhas).¡¨

Mulla ¡¥Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi¡¦i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.¡¨

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger ƒâ did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.¡¨

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ¡¥Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: ¡§It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.¡¨

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu¡¦, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, saying: ¡§It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion¡¨. Al-Mardawi comments: ¡§And this is the correct opinion¡¨.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: ¡§A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab¡K¡¨

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger ƒâ oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.¡¨

Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah¡¦s and His Messenger¡¦s ƒâ Shari¡¦ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says¡¨ - to his words - ¡§For one to follow someone¡¦s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar¡¦i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar¡¦ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger ƒâ have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.¡¨

He also says: ¡§There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi¡¦i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.¡¨

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ¡¥the migrant for Umm Qais¡¦, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet ƒâ said: ¡§Indeed actions are based on intentions¡K¡¨. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger ƒâ.

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah¡¦s ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:
By ¡¥devising opinions¡¦ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi¡¦i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi¡¦is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini¡¦s book ¡§¡¦Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq¡¨.

Following allowances (Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas) is for a person to ¡§pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself¡¨, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: ¡§If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut¡¦ah), he would be considered a Fasiq¡¨. Sulayman al-Taimi said: ¡§If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you¡¨.

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi¡¦is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: ¡§Ibn ¡¥Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma¡¦) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others¡¨. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ¡¥Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: ¡§Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i) which would absolve one of their Shar¡¦i responsibility.¡¨

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

Point of Benefit:
Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: ¡§It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it¡¨; or that of Malik: ¡§I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it¡¨; or that of al-Shafi¡¦i: ¡§If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ƒâ then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah ƒâ and leave what I said¡¨; or that of Ahmad: ¡§Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi¡¦i, nor al-Awza¡¦i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took¡¨.

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ¡¥Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus¡¦ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ¡¥Uthman ibn Sa¡¦id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur¡¦ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.¡¨

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu¡¦ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu¡¦ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I¡¦lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam¡K 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

__________________
Ibn al-Jawzi on the Ash'arites:¡¥The heretics claim; i) there is no god in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur¡¦an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave;¡¥your three shameful facets¡¦¡¦

 

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331

 

_______________________________________________

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims



Replies:
Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 25 August 2007 at 2:32pm
Read the full text from the link.
________________________________
 
The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab:
This is a minority opinion from the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis, and a weak opinion, unworthy of being followed, due to the following reasons:

a) There is absolutely no evidence from the sources of Islam - the Qur¡¦an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma¡¦) and analogy (qiyas) - nor a statement from one of the four Imams in support of this position.

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger ƒâ to oblige the people with that.¡¨

b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of ¡¥blocking the means¡¦ (Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i) for the layman to pick and choose whatever he likes from opinions, and thereby, freeing himself from Shari¡¦ responsibilities, resulting in chaos. However, the one who looks at this issue justly, realises that this is merely a case of extending Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i beyond that which is necessary, like for one to prohibit the growing of grapes, in case people use it to make wine. Moreover, the Hanafis and Shafi¡¦is - if they do not deny its use altogether - are extremely lenient in applying this principle, so how can they use this as a support for their position. On the other hand, most of those who do not oblige the layman, with that which Allah did not oblige him, explicitly forbid a layman from seeking and following allowances. Moreover, following allowances is as much applicable to a Mujtahid as it is to a layman, as is apparent from the opinion of al-Qadhi Abu Ya¡¦la (see footnote #52) and therefore, obliging the layman alone with adherence to a Madhab is not a solution to the problem.

c) This opinion necessitates that a person may only ask a Mufti of his own Madhab, even if the Mufti of a different Madhab is more knowledgeable and pious, and the truth lies with him. This also makes unnecessary restrictions on the Mustafti and causes him unnecessary hardship.

Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§Sticking to a Madhab necessitates obedience of other than the Prophet ƒâ in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma¡¦).¡¨

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§This opinion necessitates the prohibition of asking the scholars of Madhabs different to his, as it equally necessitates the prohibition of adhering to a Madhab similar to, or better than, that of his Imam, as well as other things that this approach entails, the invalidity of which points to the invalidity of the opinion itself. In fact, it necessitates that if he sees a text from the Messenger of Allah ƒâ or an opinion of the four Caliphs, aiding someone other than his Imam, that he should abandon the text and the opinions of the Companions, and give precedence to the one to whom he attributes himself.¡¨

d) Those who oblige the layman with Taqleed of a Madhab say that he must make Ijtihad in choosing a Madhab and then follow it. Moreover, Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi from the Shafi¡¦is and Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbalis say that the layman should not simply pick and choose a Madhab as he wishes, nor should he incline to the Madhab of his fore fathers. Undoubtedly, this opinion obliges something on a layman which he is unable to accomplish, since, for a layman to be capable of comparing between Madhabs requires him to possess knowledge of the principles of each Madhab, as well as some background information on its founder, his companions, some of the major books, and generally how close each of the Madhabs are to the revelation, and this, as is apparent, is obliging the Muqallid with that which is far beyond his capacity. Moreover, a layman must also look at the Madhab predominantly followed in his land; for if a layman decides to make Taqleed of the Hanbali Madhab, because he believes it closest to the truth, whilst he is a resident in a country which is predominantly Hanafi, then his ¡¥Ijtihad¡¦ in finding the most suitable Madhab will be pointless. Surely, the difficulty and inappropriateness of this methodology is only too obvious, as well as it being a divergence from what the layman is required to learn from the basics of the five pillars, to that which is of no benefit to him in this world or the next.

e) From the evil consequences of obliging the layman to compare between Madhabs is the spread of sectarianism and fanaticism in adherence to a Madhab. One cannot but notice sectarianism amongst the scholars who oblige the layman to make Taqleed of one of the Madhabs. Hence, Ibn al-Salah al-Shafi¡¦i, while discussing this issue, claims to simplify the process of choosing the right Madhab, by arguing that because al-Shafi¡¦i came after the great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik and others, he was able to look into their opinions, compare and evaluate, nor was he followed by someone else of his calibre; therefore, it follows that his Madhab is more worthy of being followed. Then came al-Nawawi, who summarised the work of Ibn al-Salah and included it in his Majmu¡¦, using Ibn al-Salah¡¦s argument in preferring the Shafi¡¦i Madhab. Then came Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, who relied much on Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi¡¦s work, except that he replaced ¡¥al-Shafi¡¦i¡¦ with ¡¥Ahmad ibn Hanbal¡¦, and further refuted the Shafi¡¦is in their preference of the Shafi¡¦i Madhab over other Madhabs, arguing that since Ahmad was the last of the Imams, he was able to investigate into the opinions of Abu Hanifah, Malik as well as al-Shafi¡¦i, and then compare and evaluate them; and since there is none after Ahmad of his calibre, it follows that Ahmad¡¦s Madhab is the most worthy of being followed!

Whereas the truth, as Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiya said, is that: ¡§Most of the people speak out of conjecture and what the hearts desire, for they do not know the reality of the levels of Imams and Sheikhs, nor do they intend to follow the truth completely; rather, everyone¡¦s heart desires that he favours the one he follows, and so he prefers him (over other Imams) based on conjecture, even if he has no proof for that. Sometimes, it may even lead to quarrelling, fighting and disunity, which is something Allah and His Messenger ƒâ prohibited.¡¨

Indeed, it led to wars amongst the Hanafis and the Shafi¡¦is in Asfahan that resulted in the burning and destruction of the city as reported in Mu¡¦jam al-Buldan 1/209. Hanafis and Shafi¡¦is are known for their rivalry throughout Islamic history. It was their fanaticism, which lead some of Hanafis to say: ¡§It is allowed for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi¡¦i woman, but it is not allowed for a Shafi¡¦i to marry a Hanafi woman. We regard them to be like the people of the Book¡¨. Another fanatic, who was a Hanafi, saw in a dream that the Shafi¡¦is will enter paradise before the Hanafis, so he became a Shafi¡¦i. Even Imams such as al-Juwaini, wrote a book insulting the Hanafi Madhab and obliging everyone to follow the Shafi¡¦i Madhab, which al-Kawthari - the ¡§Abu Hanifah fanatic¡¨ ¡V rebutted, insulting the Shafi¡¦i Madhab; indeed, in some books, he went further than that and would even cast doubt on his lineage (as he did in his Ta¡¦neeb), while the Prophet explicitly considered such behaviour to be from the acts of Jahiliyah!

Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: ¡§If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi¡¦is¡¨. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that ¡¥Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah¡¦s grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: ¡§You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven¡¨!

Amongst the signs of such fanaticism in the ranks of the Shafi¡¦is is what al-Nawawi reported from al-Isfara¡¦ini, that a Shafi¡¦i may not pray behind a Hanafi, due to the Hanafis not fulfilling the conditions of Wudu as affirmed by the Shafi¡¦is. Another Shafi¡¦i, al-Subki, claims that Allah told him to adhere to the Madhab of al-Shafi¡¦i in his dream.

Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab.

If this is the condition of the learned men amongst the jurists, then what is expected of the layman? Therefore, if the principle of Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i is to be applied, then surely it is more worthy of being applied here, in order to prevent internal conflicts between Madhabs and for the promotion of unity.

f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person¡¦s attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab?

Ibn al-Humam says in his Tahrir (as reported by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§¡Kmajority of the Muqallids say: I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi¡¦i, while having no knowledge about the path of his Imam, hence, he does not become so by merely a claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or an author; he does not become as such, by merely a claim, whilst he is far distant from the life of his Imam. Therefore, how can such attribution be valid, by merely a claim, and futile speech without any meaning?!¡¨

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§A layman cannot have a Madhab even if he adheres to one, for the layman has no Madhab. This is because the Madhab is only for the one who has some insight and a way of deducing rulings, who also has insight into Madhabs befitting his level, or the one who studies a book in the applied Fiqh of that Madhab, and knows the verdicts of his Imam and his sayings. As for the one who has not accomplished any of that, yet says: I am a Shafi¡¦i or a Hanbali, or other than that, then he does not become that merely by his claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or a grammarian, or an author, he does not become one merely by a claim.

What makes it clearer is that the one, who says he is Shafi¡¦i or a Maliki, or a Hanafi, actually claims that he is the follower of that Imam, adhering to his way. This can only be true for him if he were to tread his path in knowledge, understanding and deduction. As for one who is ignorant and distant from the life of the Imam, his knowledge and his path, how can his attribution to him be correct, with merely a claim, and futile speech in every sense?¡¨

Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab¡¦s Position:
There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book ¡¥al-Radd ¡¥ala Man Ittaba¡¦a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba¡¦ah¡¦ (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion.

Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a ¡§Mujtahid¡¨ in his Dha¡¦il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion.

(See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu¡¦ah 20/161, Mawsu¡¦at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I¡¦lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)
__________________
Ibn al-Jawzi on the Ash'arites:¡¥The heretics claim; i) there is no god in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur¡¦an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave;¡¥your three shameful facets¡¦¡¦
 
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331
 


-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 26 August 2007 at 1:34am

As Salamu Alaikum

Masha Allah

Salams



-------------
“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 26 August 2007 at 5:24am

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

The person who compiled and combined these has created a context for them that isnt correct, if a wahhabi asked the question should i adhere to a madhhab and then someone quotes for him,

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: ¡§What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.¡¨

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i says in his al-Tahqiqat, ¡§The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu¡¦ al-rukhas).¡¨

Mulla ¡¥Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi¡¦i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.¡¨

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger ƒâ did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.¡¨


a person then assumes well now these Ulama are saying dont follow a madhhab.

If a person who follows a madhhab askes the same question "should i adhere to a madhab" and then he is given the exact same quotes they are interpreted as no you dont need to stick to one madhhab you can take rullings from other madhhabs. A very big difference in understanding the very same quotes. The person who compiled them understood them how he desired, not what they where actually saying.

History itself tells US the Khalifah of the muslims, who every muslim is obliged to follow, followed a madhhab and each and every single islamic state from the first to the last had an official madhhab, the last khalifah the ottoman's official madhhab was the Hanafi madhhab. So can any person ever imagine these scholars actually saying no dont follow a madhhab go follow what ever and who ever you like. Common sence should kick in and a light bulb should flick on inside every persons mind saying to them "wait there is something wrong with the interpretation, translation, whatever is just isnt realistic that every Ulamah he quoted follows a madhhab and they are all being made out to say no dont follow one".

Is the author accusing them of hypocrisy, if they all felt adhering to a madhhab was the most sound islamic path as they chose it for themselves why would they tell the general public no dont follow the path they took but to follow any tom dick or harry and that is a sounder position.

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: “What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.”

This is an answer given to the Question do i need to stick to the rulings of one madhhab or can i take rulings from another, a very common question asked by people who do adhere to a madhhab.

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i says in his al-Tahqiqat, “The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu’ al-rukhas).”

Ibn Qawan al shafii, his last name indicates he adhered to the shafii madhhab and like imam nawawi he was also saying you can choose from which ever Ulama you like. The translation and the out of context quote makes it appear as if he is saying follow anyone.

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi’i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.”

From his name we know he was a hanafi, and he is correct the obligation is to follow ahl al dhikr which is a reference to the Quranic verse translated as "ask those who know if you dont" this is the only obligation impressed upon us by allah and no scholar of any madhhab has ever claimed otherwise. what the Ulama have said is that by extention since ALL the Ulama or ahl al dhikr do follow a madhhab then we to are obliged to follow there path.

No doubt at the time of this quote long beffore Muhammad ibn abdul wahhab was born there where no other groups to follow [unless you count mutazili and other heretics] but the 4 madhhabs so to even interprate this to mean "dont follow any madhhab" is ignorant.

here is a biography of the shaykh, he was well grounded in the traditional Islamic sciences.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-8339.h tml

The article is basically some Quotes from classical ulama with the opinions of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Qayim al Jawzi both of which are not followed by any scholars except for a small group. there entitled to there opinion but it is wrong to make it seem by misquoting scholars that the majority opinion is the same as theres. Anyone can put a few quotes together and add some unrelated commentary and give the illusion of an actual legal opinion.


Regarding the above, from a real shaykh unlike myself.


Imam Shah Waliullah on madhabs
Answered by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani, SunniPath Academy Teacher

Brothers, I have read your understanding and that of many ulema who very strongly hold to taqleed of a specific madhab. Yet, the book by Imam Shah Waliullah (Insaaf Fi Bayan Sabab Al Ikhtiklaaf) states very clearly how a layman is not obliged or required to follow a specific madhab. It has quotations from ulmea of the likes of Imam Nawawi and Ibn Salah who clearly state when it is allowed to follow a different madhab, The book does not even mention the concept of talfeeq. Imam Shah Waliullah also (based partly on the saying of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) states how wrong it is to say that the prayer of a follower is only valid if the prayer of the Imam is valid according to the madhab of the follower. With the numerous quotations from various ulema found in the book, why is this not accepted or even mentioned? I understand the danger in interpreting the quran by someone not knowledgable enough to do so, but at the same time, is it also not correct to accept the differences between the mujtahideen and for a lay man (like myself who has only learnt how difficult it is to critisize by far most understandings of the mujtahideen) to ask any of the knowledgable or mujtahideen? Are taking the easy way out and interpreting the Quran by people not qualified are the only issues that have caused the emergence of taqleed?

Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah,

I pray that this finds you well, and in the best of health and spirits. May Allah grant you all good and success in this life and the next.

It is important to understand a few concepts:

(1) We don''t follow individual scholars, but rather the scholarly methodology of Sunni scholarship.

(2) Shah Waliullah went through phases in life. His work al-Insaf is earlier than other writings (such as `Iqd al-Jeed) that are much closer to the mainstream majority understanding on matters of following qualified scholarship in certain critical issues.

(3) The position of the majority of Islamic scholarship is that the responsibility of one morally responsible is to follow a sound position of a true mujtahid imam for each of their actions. It is not specifically obligatory to stick to one madhhab for all one''s actions--as long as one doesn''t merely follow one''s whims or engage in mixing between the positions of mujtahids in a way not valid according to either (talfiq--because this entails non-fulfillment of the Divine Command to follow one of the scholars of understanding).

If you search the SunniPath QA (http://qa.sunnipath.com) for: following another madhhab, you''ll find a number of answers related to this, as well as an explanation of the Indian scholars'' stating otherwise.

(4) Taqlid--following qualified scholarship--is a duty according to the consensus (ijma`) of Islamic scholarship. Shah Waliullah didn''t argue against it in al-Insaf, by any means.

We have to distinguish between (a) the agreed-upon obligation of following qualified scholarship (taqlid), and (b) the position of many classical scholars and most Indian ulema that it is personally obligatory to follow one madhhab in all one''s affairs (taqlid shakhsi), except when there is genuine hardship.

[See: Related QA, top right]

And Allah alone gives success.

Faraz Rabbani




-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 27 August 2007 at 5:49am

As Salamu Alaikum

 

Masha Allah another good point of view.

 

Brother Rami mentions that:

 

“The person who compiled and combined these has created a context for them that isnt correct,”

 

in my opinion the same rules applies to his post as well it all depends on who is asking whom and their level of understanding of the Deen.

 

As Muslims all we need to do is follow the teachings as per the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah. Unless we are blessed with great insight, knowledge and understanding of the Arabic language, the history and the circumstances surrounding the revelation of the Glorious Qur'an, the only logical step is to refer follow one of the Madhhabs or as one member stated study all four Madhhabs.

 

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala states in the Glorious Qur'an to follow and obey His Final Messenger (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) and then to ask the people of knowledge if we do not know.

 

There is no statement in either the Glorious Qur'an or the Sunnah which states that we must adhere to one of the four Madhhabs. One the contrary we have evidence that we must beware of dividing ourselves into sects.

 

Here is another warning from the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam)

 

Do not seek knowledge to compete with the scholars, nor to argue with the foolish people, nor to gain control of gatherings; for whoever does that - the Fire, the Fire!" [an authentic

Hadith collected by Ibn Maajah, Ibn Hibbaan, and Al-Bayhaqee]

 

May Allah make us from those who call to good and to make us knowledgeable about our religion, and I ask Him to grant us success when we care calling others to Him. Indeed He is able to grant that and He is All-Powerful over that. Ameen!

 

Wa Alaikum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

 

 



-------------
“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 27 August 2007 at 6:42am
Bi ismillahir rahmani raheem

wa alaikum assalam

in my opinion the same rules applies to his post as well it all depends on who is asking whom and their level of understanding of the Deen.


Sister i havnt compiled any ahdith and interpreted them in a strange way, can you point this out in my post.


In fact at the end of my post i Quote the sunni view regarding this matter according to shaykh Faraz Rabani who clearly states there is an ijma on the matter of following one of the mujtahids of islam.

i am informing you of the Islamic position not something from my self which is what the person who compiled that post did, this is why this logic applies to him and not what i wrote, lastly all the scholars he quotes are speaking from the position of following a madhhab thus there own words must interpreted in that context which is what i did, think about that carefully sister.

As Muslims all we need to do is follow the teachings as per the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah.


according to whos understanding sister that is the key question, have you read the following.. forum_posts.asp?TID=10128&PN=1" title="Bi ismillahi rahmani raheemassalamu alaikumFiqh al-Shafi`i or Fiqh al-Sunna? Posted by" target="_self - Fiqh al-Shafi`i or Fiqh al-Sunna? .


Only a person who doesnt understand arabic and is simply imitating the arabic language in there speach will say we should simply follow the Qutran and sunnah, do the quran and sunnah speak to you? do you ask them a question and they reply no so then sister "according to who" is what we should be asking ourselfes.

There is no statement in either the Glorious Qur'an or the Sunnah which states that we must adhere to one of the four Madhhabs. One the contrary we have evidence that we must beware of dividing ourselves into sects.

This is false logic, like the muslim who says the sunnah is not wajib only what is wajib in it is wajib and nothing more. Ok fine that is true but there is a reason for the sunnah a benefit in it similarly there is a benefit and a reason why you should adhere to one and not mix and match this is so you dont confuse your self but as i said this is not wajib upon a person. As shayklh faraz rabani said "
We don''t follow individual scholars, but rather the scholarly methodology of Sunni scholarship."

regarding your comment about sects, sister i would advise you to properly learn what is considered a sect in islam you have simply brought a new interpretation to the word. Sunni's as a whole are one group or sect shia are another no scholar in the histroy of islam ever understood the four madhhabs to be 4 sects. if you have read some misguided article about making groups i would suggest reading that article again with any shaykh you trust knows the arabic language and ask them if there definitions of a sect and there basic assumptions are correct .

The Uluma say wahhabi's are a sect in sunni islam not diferent from it and thus also part of the saved group.

we must adhere to one of the four Madhhabs.

this is also a double edged sword, there is no wajib to adhere to any one of them but there is a wajib to adhere to rullings only from them.

you may like to take shaykh Rabani's advice and look up "
following another madhhab" at sunnipath to see the different positions that exist in this ummah regarding this matter.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 27 August 2007 at 11:47am

As Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

Brother Rami I think you misunderstood my post. I know you did not compile Hadith and interpret them in a strange way.

 

What Brother Abu Mujahid posted is one view and what you posted is another. In my opinion both views although different are correct. You said The person who compiled and combined these has created a context for them that isnt correct, if a wahhabi asked a question……and I meant the same rule will apply to it if a sunni asked a question………refering to your post, that is the only point I was trying to make. I was not attacking your comments or your post. If fact I said: “Masha Allah another opinion………” maybe you don’t know the meaning of Masha Allah. 

  

Brother I have said that the only logical step will be to follow a Madhhab or study them all. Why the do the quran and sunnah speak to you?

 

Regarding the sects, yes brother Rami you are correct the Madhhabs were never a sect but unfortunately today the situation is different. The Sunnis are divided into sects and the same with Shia they have their sects too. You don’t hear people say that I am a Sunni Muslim anymore. They don't even say they are Muslims. No today people say I am Hanafi, Shafie or Salafie. How sad? Today people ask me to which Sunni sect do I belong.

 

Everyone knows that it is Wajib to follow the rulings as presented by scholars who base their rulings on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah and the four Imams are on the top of the list. Don’t today’s scholars refer to the scholars of yesteryears? This has always being the case throughout history. One generation refering to the generations before them.

 

You know brother Rami you read my response completely out of text. Before you use statements like “false logic” and “double-edge swords” I advise you to lighten up a bit and you should take a deep breathe.

 

I don’t need to go to the sites you mentioned. There are thousands of sites criticising the Sunni scholars and how they are deviated just as there are thousands of sites criticising the Wahhabi or Salafi scholars and calling them extremist.

 

Btw just for your information brother Rami, I hold all scholars in high esteem.

 

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our shortcomings and bless us with useful knowledge. Ameen!

 

Wa Alaikum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu



-------------
“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 27 August 2007 at 1:00pm

Sister Alwarda,

Thanks for your insights. I couldn't say better to what Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma¡sumi):

"Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab"

Other Ulima from other school of thought has said similar stand. May Allah reward them all khair and jannah. 

Forcing people to follow one Madhab is not what Allah has asked us to do. The post and history shows the consequence of glorifying one madhab. Rami and others must be careful for calling people to adopt one madhab for good. Look what Imam Subki has said. You wonder why an Imam to such high ranking among ulima can say such wild claim. Its tassub mamqut for Madhab. Look what Ahanaf extremist has said about Khadar or Issa peace be upon them. Look the result of Iranian ruler who make whole Sunni country into Shia playground.

Some can urge these were fringe not the main stream of madhabs. But this sad reality is what is in the books of mut'akhiri madhabs.  

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 27 August 2007 at 11:21pm

 

 The first and second post by Abu Mujahid had many erroneous ideas as pointe dout by Rami. The posts are only discouraging any one to follow a scholar or Imam. If the mazhab makes a sect then what about ahle Hadith who talk too much against the mazahib?? Are they not a sect??

Al Wardah has rightly said that we should follow Allah and His messenger. But the problem arises in the approach. Is there any intermediary (teacher) or not?? I am sure that there is no harm if some one relies on an Imam and follows in his footsteps, it makes things easy for him.

 That matter concerns the Muqallid. Why those who do not have any Imam should object to that?? They can mind their own business. If asked, "Who is your Imam?" they reply, "Our Imam is the prophet himself". That is a clever way of saying thing.

Alwardah may please add something to the formula of good guided life. Try to understand about the Sunnah that it first constitutes the actual practice of the Holy prophet and not his words or books of Hadith. The words (sayings found in the books of Hadith) come after the practice of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s.  Thanks.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 28 August 2007 at 6:44am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

What Brother Abu Mujahid posted is one view and what you posted is another. In my opinion both views although different are correct.

Can you outline how this is possible at all?

You cant believe la illaha illah llah and la illaha illah shiva at the same time one is correct while the other isnt, the conclusions and arguments made by combining them is false so i dont think it is possible that both arguments are equaly correct.

and I meant the same rule will apply to it if a sunni asked a question………refering to your post, that is the only point

I understood that, and i pointed out that this is wrong becouse you have the made up context and you have the original and intended context one is conjecture the other original is fact and not subjective.

There has to be a proper context, you cant say both are equally correct.

I was not attacking your comments or your post. If fact I said: “Masha Allah another opinion………” maybe you don’t know the meaning of Masha Allah.

If you say something wrong, like what you said about sects in islam and i correct it with the right understanding according to the ijma of sunni scholars how am i attcking you sister?

My reply was not an attack, you perceived it as such.

Brother I have said that the only logical step will be to follow a Madhhab or study them all. Why the do the quran and sunnah speak to you?

sorry that was funny the way you put it.

look at what i quoted beffore that comment "

As Muslims all we need to do is follow the teachings as per the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah."

If you read the link i provided which is a basic explanation of the language you are using by a qualified shaykh then you will understand the intended meaning of those words.

but unfortunately today the situation is different. The Sunnis are divided into sects and the same with Shia they have their sects too. You don’t hear people say that I am a Sunni Muslim anymore. They don't even say they are Muslims. No today people say I am Hanafi, Shafie or Salafie. How sad? Today people ask me to which Sunni sect do I belong.

no it isnt you are dead wrong on this. the proof is the original article look at the names of the shaykhs, al shafii, al hanafi, they used to clearly define which madhhab they followed, how many people do you know today will legally put there madhhab in there last name as is the tradition of all past scholars. You only perceive a devision based on madhhabs and even if it was real Islam is based on ilm not gossip or feelings we dont change the ENTIRE definition of a word based on what YOU perceive as a person. It is rather insulting to here someone label people a sect when clearly they are not.

If you even understood the word properly you would never say Sunni's are a sect and this is according to the defanition of the word, sorry for the sturn words but there is no your opinion and my opinion on this point just wrong understanding.

Lastely are salafi's a sect the same way shia are a sect....no so why are they even being mentioned in the same grouping.

You know brother Rami you read my response completely out of text. Before you use statements like “false logic” and “double-edge swords” I advise you to lighten up a bit and you should take a deep breathe.


Youre right on that sister.


I don’t need to go to the sites you mentioned. There are thousands of sites criticising the Sunni scholars and how they are deviated just as there are thousands of sites criticising the Wahhabi or Salafi scholars and calling them extremist.


well if you had bothered to even go you will see salafis are not mentioned and the topics have mostly nothing to do with them, what i was trying to get you to see was these same quotes or ones similar to them being used in the correct context by real scholars. If you dont want to even see that then how can you judge properly on anything.


forum_posts.asp?TID=10128&PN=1" title="Bi ismillahi rahmani raheemassalamu alaikumFiqh al-Shafi`i or Fiqh al-Sunna? Posted by" target="_self - Fiqh al-Shafi`i or Fiqh al-Sunna?


At least click on this and stare at the screen for 10 seconds to see it isnt what you think!


Btw just for your information brother Rami, I hold all scholars in high esteem.


It wasnt a question of respect since you havnt disrespected any scholars in the past like others have.

 

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our shortcomings and bless us with useful knowledge. Ameen!


Ameen.



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Alwardah
Date Posted: 29 August 2007 at 12:40am

As Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu Brother Rami

 

To imply that I was saying Allah and shiva are one just because I say that we don’t need to follow any Madhhab and at the same time we need to refer to scholars ……. Audho Billahe minash Shaitanir-Rajim!

 

What surprised me most is that you say both are not equally correct yet in almost all issues of fiqh we have different opinions and we are told all are correct. (here I am referring to the 4 Madhhabs). You just added to my confusion. Actually I am not confused as I have adapted my own way of seeking knowledge. Alhamdulillah! I know I don’t have to refer to scholars on each and every issue and I also know the importance of referring to scholars.

 

Let me give you an example: If a person died, he left ¼ of his estate to a charitable organisation, and he is survived by a wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters. We don’t need to refer to any scholar on this issue as the full division of inheritance is found in Surah An-Nisa’ (4). However if there is a problem, like any step-daughters (his wife’s daughters thru another marriage) step-brothers or step-mother etc then yes we need to refer to the Sunnah and by extension to the scholars and maybe we will need to get a Fatawa before dividing the estate.

 

Let’s say someone, a sister, is studying the Hadith and reads this Hadith:

 

Narrated by Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf (Radhi Allahu Anhu): That in the year he performed Hajj, he heard Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, who was on the pulpit and was taking a tuft of hair from one of his guards, saying, "Where are your religious learned men? I heard Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) forbidding this (false hair) and saying, 'The children of Israel were destroyed when their women started using this.'"

 

Narrated Abu Hurairah (Radhi Allahu Anhu): The Prophet said, "Allah has cursed the lady who artificially lengthens (her or someone else's) hair and the one who gets her hair lengthened and the One who tattoos (herself or someone else) and the one who gets herself tattooed" (Al-Bukhari)

 

This sister uses false hair so does she need to see what the scholars of fiqh are saying about this or stop doing it immediately to prevent Allah’s curse upon her. I would stop immediately without referring to any scholar as we are already told that the most authentic book on Ahadith is Sahih Bukhari.

 

Just two simple examples to show that we can make decisions based on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah without referring to scholars for a ruling.

 

Regarding the word Sect, this word is understood differently today and that is what I tried to explain. You know in some countries if a Shafie married a Hanafi the Imams call this marriage Zina - not acceptable from an Islamic prospective. During my travels I have come across many brothers and sisters who faced this type of problem. Their parents will not let them marry anyone who is not from their Madhhab. This, brother Rami, is the real world - not what you and I would like it to be. Everything looks great in print but in reality life is very different. To be able to communicate with the masses we need to understand these terms according to their understanding. Maybe I quoted that Hadith incorrectly, so what are the 73 sects that the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) refers to. Maybe the Arabic word is translated incorrectly as sect. Allah knows best.

 

Well brother Rami, I don’t have anything more to add.

 

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from our whims and desires and keep our feet firm on His Siratul-Mustaqeem. Ameen!

 

Wa Alaikum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

 



-------------
“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 31 August 2007 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Abu Mujahid

Assalamu alaikum

I struggled whether this will go under the topic of picking up Madhab or not. I concluded it is better to have a new topic. The writer debated the background of the topic in very informative way. You may not agree with him everything he wrote but he said it all in very convincing way.

 

See how some madhab fanatics went extreme to defend their madhab without prove from Quran and sunnah let alone four madhabs founders. The whole city was burned to ashes, marriage was banned or endangered and destructive words were used to make madhab whole deen.  

May Allah reward the writer khair. Enjoy it

_____________________________________

 

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi¡¦i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi¡¦i - said: ¡§The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi¡¦i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him¡¨

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: ¡§What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.¡¨

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i says in his al-Tahqiqat, ¡§The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu¡¦ al-rukhas).¡¨

Mulla ¡¥Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi¡¦i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.¡¨

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger ƒâ did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.¡¨

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ¡¥Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: ¡§It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.¡¨

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu¡¦, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, saying: ¡§It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion¡¨. Al-Mardawi comments: ¡§And this is the correct opinion¡¨.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: ¡§A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab¡K¡¨

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger ƒâ oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.¡¨

Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah¡¦s and His Messenger¡¦s ƒâ Shari¡¦ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says¡¨ - to his words - ¡§For one to follow someone¡¦s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar¡¦i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar¡¦ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger ƒâ have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.¡¨

He also says: ¡§There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi¡¦i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.¡¨

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ¡¥the migrant for Umm Qais¡¦, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet ƒâ said: ¡§Indeed actions are based on intentions¡K¡¨. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger ƒâ.

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah¡¦s ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:
By ¡¥devising opinions¡¦ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi¡¦i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi¡¦is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini¡¦s book ¡§¡¦Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq¡¨.

Following allowances (Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas) is for a person to ¡§pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself¡¨, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: ¡§If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut¡¦ah), he would be considered a Fasiq¡¨. Sulayman al-Taimi said: ¡§If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you¡¨.

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi¡¦is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: ¡§Ibn ¡¥Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma¡¦) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others¡¨. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ¡¥Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: ¡§Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i) which would absolve one of their Shar¡¦i responsibility.¡¨

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

Point of Benefit:
Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: ¡§It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it¡¨; or that of Malik: ¡§I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it¡¨; or that of al-Shafi¡¦i: ¡§If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ƒâ then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah ƒâ and leave what I said¡¨; or that of Ahmad: ¡§Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi¡¦i, nor al-Awza¡¦i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took¡¨.

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ¡¥Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus¡¦ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ¡¥Uthman ibn Sa¡¦id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur¡¦ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.¡¨

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu¡¦ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu¡¦ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I¡¦lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam¡K 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

__________________
Ibn al-Jawzi on the Ash'arites:¡¥The heretics claim; i) there is no god in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur¡¦an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave;¡¥your three shameful facets¡¦¡¦

 

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331

 

_______________________________________________

Abu Mujahid

These two pieces are nothing more than the usual "wahabi" drivel which over emphasizes the use of comments from Ibn Taymiyyan and his (not a big surprise) student. The over infatuation and over preoccupation of these two characters is central to the wahbabi thesis. So now, according to this unknown author, Muslims who are "laymen", should follow something other than the only established methods for jurisprudence, which leaves, not surprisingly, the “wahabi” ideals as the "other thing". It is like a “bait and switch” fraud put forth by bad businesses. The wahabis advertise to the unsuspecting that they do not need to follow a madhhab, which, alludes to the weary that we are able to follow nothing (nafs), but when the layman figures out that he cannot reasonably traverse the wilderness of primary tetxts through “ijtihad by naafs” (the advertised product given as bait), the "nothing other than the established madhhabs" become switched with the pseudo methodology of the “wahabis”. Even their clerics need followers. This piece wreaks of the usual “bait and switch” routine, and what makes it even worse is that the entire thesis of the “unknown author” (in terms of scholarship or any authority) is all on the grounds of what Ibn Taymiyyah and his student have to say (as if there is any big surprise). The author also attempts to use a “truth as a means to teach a falsehood”, which refers to the use of quotes from certain ulema and present them out of context from their actual meanings and then allow these quotes to allude to his fallacious conclusion.

The huge gaping fallacy in the argument is a non sequitur, large and dubious. The author tries to assert that a layman does not have to follow a madhhab, but uses evidence to show that we do not have to follow any “particular” madhhab. Not following a madhhab is not the same as not following any particular madhhab. In other words, the quotes from the great ulema do not tell us to follow a particular madhhab, but this does not conclude that we not follow any madhhab. Although no Sunni scholar will tell you that you can never use a ruling from another madhhab that is not from the madhhab you follow, this fact remains silent in this juvenile piece as the author “alludes” to an untrue idea about “following a madhhab”.

 



-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/



Print Page | Close Window