Madhabs: Taqleed and Ittibaa.

[Danish Al Hyderabadee]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahamtullahi Wa Barakatuh

The Taqleed and Ittiba thread is here! (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=1331#post1331)

My advice to everyone, leave this board and go to forums.IslamAwakening.com, its a lot better and much more beneficial. Allah Knows Best
.
The article is reproduced below.

Abuz Zubair says:

as-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Most of the people I have come across have gone to extremes with regards to this issue. Those who oblige every layman to adhere to a Madhab, and those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad.

I read into this issue deeply last year while studying the manners of seeking Fatwa as dealt with by the early and latter and scholars, and what I paste below is just a small section of my study, which I hope proves beneficial to us all, InshaaAllah.

==========================================

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 himâ€*

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.â€*

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).â€*

Mulla â€کAli 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.â€*

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.â€*

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as â€کAbdul-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.â€*

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 opinionâ€*. Al-Mardawi comments: “And this is the correct opinionâ€*.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: “A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab…â€*

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

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  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 saysâ€* - 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  have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.â€*

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.â€*

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 â€کthe migrant for Umm Qais’, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet  said: “Indeed actions are based on intentions…â€*. 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 .

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.

[B]Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:[/B]
By â€کdevising 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-Talfiqâ€*.

Following allowances (Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas) is for a person to “pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himselfâ€*, 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 Fasiqâ€*. Sulayman al-Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in youâ€*.

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 â€کAbdil-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 othersâ€*. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn â€کAbdil-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.â€*

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.

[B]Point of Benefit:[/B]
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 itâ€*; 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 itâ€*; or that of al-Shafi’i: “If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah  then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah  and leave what I saidâ€*; 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 tookâ€*.

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 â€کUbaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus’ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), â€کUthman 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.â€*

(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… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

[Danish Al Hyderabadee]

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  to oblige the people with that.â€*

b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of â€کblocking 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  in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma’).â€*

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  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.â€*

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 â€کIjtihad’ 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 â€کal-Shafi’i’ with â€کAhmad 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  prohibited.â€*

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 Bookâ€*. 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 fanaticâ€* – 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’isâ€*. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that â€کIsa - 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 forgivenâ€*!

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): “…majority 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?!â€*

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?â€*

Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab’s Position:
There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book â€کal-Radd â€کala 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 “Mujtahidâ€* 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)

[Danish Al Hyderabadee]

Allah Knows Best

[Darth Vador]

Jazzak Allaahu Khairan!

May Allah reward you for this article-and I would advise you as well Danish to not come to this forum. I really have no desire at all to know any of the characters who post here in person-and for those that I do know personally--sigh, May Allah guide us all.

My husband speaks so highly of you, Ma sha Allah and I know you to be a good brother very involved in "real" da'wah work so don't waste your time nor allow yourself to fall into the traps of Shayton.


Ma Salaama

[al-Harrani]

My sincere apologies brother Danish for disagreeing with you here (I hope you don’t mind! As you have done unforgettable favours for me!)

I like this IN forums and I think most of the brothers and sisters here (including the admins/mods) are cool, MashaaAllah. There is a sense of community and brotherhood here. IN slogan ‘unite and conquer’ I think is a brilliant idea. Yes, you always get posters who should think twice before posting. But you get these sorts of posters everywhere. Perhaps, I am one of them (renowned for pouring out my burning lava on my opponents!)

What I want to emphasise here is that we are all brothers and sisters. I often thought of writing a post just to express my love for the cool Muslims here, but never got round to. Honestly, if it wasn’t for my love and care for the Muslims here, I wouldn’t have bothered signing up to correct certain misconceptions.

I also think the message we should be giving amongst Muslims is that of unity, brotherhood and cooperation, even if they be Ash’ari heretics. The cool people of this forum are normal Muslims – most of them on their fitra – and therefore even more deserving of our love and affection. Although, unity and cooperation do not overlap with the obligation of commanding the good and forbidding evil.

In fact, bro Danish, I think there should be more good brothers like you in these forums!

Love you all for Allah’s sake.

wasalam

[Neon Knight]

I think this should be merged with the other thread; it would be cool if the discussion is kept in one thread.

Akhee Abuz Zubair (al-harrani) I've read this article of yours before, however I'm getting slightly confused about a couple of issues.

Your article says madhab is not necessary for layman but what about "taqleed"? Essentially we all make taqleed don't we? And how do you respond to the arguement that madhab IS necessary upon the layman?

(can mods merge this with the other thread, please, barak Allahufeekum)


Darth Vador- Why are you advising people to not come to this forum? Atleast it's not like some other forums where a thread gets locked or a person gets banned just for a diverging opinion!.

[sasjamal]

Abu Zubair,

I am sure you are aware that many of us when we first got into the relgion were glued to your site - and looked up to you a LOT (we still do) - and learned a lot from the services you had going back them. Your work has been an inspiration for so many things I did. (for good/worse)

You have no idea how much your words mean to me. And even better, you kinda just came in and saw IN for what i hoped to do with it when it first came to fruit .

[al-Harrani]

Your article says madhab is not necessary for layman but what about "taqleed"? Essentially we all make taqleed don't we? And how do you respond to the arguement that madhab IS necessary upon the layman?

Before we concede that yes taqlid is essential for the layman, it is important that we remember certain universal principles.

1) It is obligatory to refer to Allah and His Messenger in every legal dispute.

2) It is Ijma' of the Muslims that none is to be made a rival to Allah in His worship, and likewise, none is to be made a rival to the Prophet. Obliging the layman to adhere to all the halal and haram rulings of a particular person besides the Prophet is contrary to the Ijma' of the Muslims.

3) Ideally, a Muslim is to search for the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger on a particular issue, by referring directly to the sources of Islam, i.e. the Quran and the Sunnah. Hence, if one is qualified enough to approach the two sacred sources of Islam independently, but he still 'clings to the earth' as al-Suyuti says, and opts for taqlid, then he is sinful according to vast majority of the scholars from the four schools, who have agreed that a mujtahid (even if he be in one issue) is forbidden from making taqlid, and that he must make ijtihad to discover the ruling of Allah and His Messenger.

These are the universal principles that we all/should agree on and understand that seeking the ruling from Allah's book and His Messenger's Sunnah is the Asl, whereas making taqlid is akin to eating unlawful food in absence of that which is lawful. Like a person who has no choice but to make tayammum in absence of water.

Then comes the question of the layman, for most of the commoners do not have the required tools/qualifications to approach the sacred texts independently – in most of the fiqhi issues (and not all). For such people, it is permissible (and not wajib) to make taqlid of a qualified mufti, irrespective of whichever Madhab he is from.

The reason why we say it is permissible and not wajib is because it is possible that a layman may endeavor to acquire sufficient knowledge with respect a very small fiqhi issue, in which case he would be a mujtahid and not a muqallid. Meaning, it would become permissible for him to leave of taqlid in that particular minor issue. However, this rarely happens with laymen, but usually happens with students of knowledge as they progress in their studies.

However, if a person does not have the tools for ijtihad in a particular issue, nor does he have the ability/time to acquire them, then it is wajib for him to ask those who know and simply make taqleed of them. In this particular case we can say that taqleed is wajib.

When we say that taqleed is wajib, we are referring to the taqleed of the mufti and not any particular madhab, for all the various reasons I mentioned in the article; the summary of which is that only a minority from the four schools oblige the layman to adhere to a Madhab, for which they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the book, the sunnah or qiyas, nor a single statement from any of the four Imams. The only argument that have is sadd al-dhara’i (blocking the means) which itself is disputed over amongst the Malikis+Hanbalis and Hanafis+Shafi’is, even though practically they all agree on the principle. The argument is still very weak and it causes more hardship on the layman and makes the deen more difficult. Not to mention that it involves obliging someone with something that neither Allah nor His Messenger obliged him with.

[al-Harrani]

JazakumAllahu Khairan for your warm comments. I love you for Allah's sake, dear bro.

[Neon Knight]

Jzak Allahukhair akhee AZ for the contribution.

How does a layman become a "mujtahid" in one issue? Is that even possible without knowing arabic or having enough knowledge of quran and sunnah? Wouldn't it be just simpler to take it from a scholar?

Also, as for not following madhaahib; isn't it true all the madhaahib have their own developed usool so if you just go around picking and choosing that may actually be wrong?

(I know I may be asking for too much, but it would be cool if you could quote the ulema of salaf etc...in favor of what you say, jzakAllahu khair.)

[al-Harrani]

How does a layman become a "mujtahid" in one issue? Is that even possible without knowing arabic or having enough knowledge of quran and sunnah? Wouldn't it be just simpler to take it from a scholar?

This depends on another issue:

Is Ijtihad divisible? Meaning, does one have to be an expert in all Islamic sciences to be a Mujtahid? Or is it possible for one to be a mujtahid in a few issues? According to the majority, the latter is true. An example they give is that a person (provided he knows enough Arabic to read and understand) can become a mujtahid in fara’idh (fixed shares of inheritance mentioned in the Quran) since they are rigidly fixed, and not subject to different interpretation or even abrogation in most cases. The scholars here argue that if one studies the fara’idh, he can give fatwas in this particular subject.

Other issues (and in fact most) are not as clear cut as fara’idh, and hence, the person is required to know usul al-fiqh, Arabic, Mustalah, etc to a reasonable level before he can even begin to endeavor in finding out Allah’s ruling.

Of course, when the scholars discuss these issues, they discuss them theoretically, such that there discussions become timeless sets of universal principles. If we were to look at our reality, then it does seem impossible for most of us westerners to master the fara’idh, even though they are so clearly detailed in sura al-nisa.

The other thing we should also beware of is not to become over confident by learning a little, and begin to practice ijtihad by reading this book on salah, or that book on zakah in English! Remember, the Salaf would endeavor to avoid the position of issuing fatwas. Imam Malik said that he did not begin to pass fatwas until many of his teachers testified that he is qualified to give a fatwa.

Also, as for not following madhaahib; isn't it true all the madhaahib have their own developed usool so if you just go around picking and choosing that may actually be wrong?

The difference between the madhahib in usul al-fiqh is not as great as that in fiqh. Often Hanbali scholars teach Shafi’i books on Usul. Just as Fiqh is subject to debate, Usul al-fiqh is also subject to debate. There are also different levels of ijtihad. There is a mujtahid who may be a muqallid of the usul of his madhab, while a mujtahid in fiqh. While there may be a mujtahid who may make ijtihad in some aspects of usul al-fiqh and depart from his madhab. After all, this has always been the job of the usulis, that is to debate and question everything they are taught objectively. The natural result of that is that the scholars differ from the founder of the madhab, be it in usul or furu’. And hence the ikhtiyarat of the scholars where they depart from their school, be it in Usul or furu’.

As far as picking and choosing is concerned, then it can be lawful and unlawful.

It is lawful because the fatwa of a mufti does not become binding on the layman, except in certain situations. Therefore, he is free to go to the next mufti and ask him the same question. There are then guidelines as to what to do when he gets contradicting fatwas, which is a rather long discussion. However, he is only allowed to do that so long as he is not following his desires and seeking allowances and lenient rulings. It can only be lawful for the one who hears one fatwa, and his heart does not feel comfortable, so he asks the next mufti, until he feels that the answer he received is perhaps closer to the hukm of Allah. This is in accordance with the Hadeeth of the Prophet: ‘Consult your heart! Even if they repeatedly give you fatwas!’

It becomes unlawful when the person deliberately sets out seeking allowances and lenient opinions, and such a person is considered a fasiq according to Imam Ahmad.

I would quote scholars but due to Ramadan, and therefore lack of time, I am typing this from the top of my head. InshaaAllah when we begin the lessons on the etiquettes of seeking fatwa, all the relevant quotes will be provided.

With respect to laymen following the madhabs, I have provided all the quotes in the article already. barakAlllahu feekum

[Danish Al Hyderabadee]

My sincere apologies brother Danish for disagreeing with you here (I hope you don’t mind! As you have done unforgettable favours for me!)

I like this IN forums and I think most of the brothers and sisters here (including the admins/mods) are cool, MashaaAllah. There is a sense of community and brotherhood here. IN slogan ‘unite and conquer’ I think is a brilliant idea. Yes, you always get posters who should think twice before posting. But you get these sorts of posters everywhere. Perhaps, I am one of them (renowned for pouring out my burning lava on my opponents!)

What I want to emphasise here is that we are all brothers and sisters. I often thought of writing a post just to express my love for the cool Muslims here, but never got round to. Honestly, if it wasn’t for my love and care for the Muslims here, I wouldn’t have bothered signing up to correct certain misconceptions.

I also think the message we should be giving amongst Muslims is that of unity, brotherhood and cooperation, even if they be Ash’ari heretics. The cool people of this forum are normal Muslims – most of them on their fitra – and therefore even more deserving of our love and affection. Although, unity and cooperation do not overlap with the obligation of commanding the good and forbidding evil.

In fact, bro Danish, I think there should be more good brothers like you in these forums!

Love you all for Allah’s sake.

wasalam

JazakAllahu Khayran bro......you and Sr. Darth Vader are too nice!

I wish there was a way for me to put admin(s) on my ignore list...too bad thats probably not possible.....I dont think there has been a person that I have met that I haven't gotten along with(including sufis,asharis, rafidis)....I would think twice before even being seen in real life with certain admins on these forums.


Allah Knows Best

[sasjamal]

Your interpretatin of islam is sick - the scholars you support and love - are the ones who stand behind the rulers as they make a mockery of islam and punish its adherents - yet your only to happy to be seen with them and would kiss their feet if you had an opportunity.

I call peolpe donkeys- and it sickens you.

You need to get your priorities right.

Salafis like you make me sick.

[sasjamal]

I take that back - it is too distressing to me to treat any salafi with the respect of actually explaining to them - what it is that I hate about them.

Go on with your Salafi ways.

[sasjamal]

ok sorry, im sorry about that to - thats mean -

sorry

Sas