PDA

View Full Version : Following a single Madhhab



Abz2000
11-30-2015, 06:13 PM
:sl:
Did they (ra) not work to unite the people of their respective regions onto a common format, and did the rulers of such regions (ra) not implement their opinions as law for the sake of uniformity and order?

Have we not moved on to a global stage after "al mulkan 'aaddah" where we need to rectify certain differences based upon Quran and sunnah so that we fulfill the Prophet pbuh's command to return to the foundation of Quran and Sunnah when there is Ikhtilaaf and settle differences based upon it, while leaving less problematic differences to choice?

Allah knows best but it seems weird that two people are praying together towards the same Qiblah and one's wudhu breaks while the other's remains - for exactly the same act in exactly the same condition.

Allah knows best, but there is much to ponder upon.

Thumma takoonu khilaafatan 'alaa manhaaj an-nabuwwah.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ZeeshanParvez
12-01-2015, 08:58 AM
I am assuming Mufti Muhammad Sajaad is from the Hanafi fiqh which holds Taqleed of a Madhab obligatory.

The Shaafi and Hanbali schools do not hold the same view. They recommend following a Madhab, but it is by no means obligatory.
Reply

ZeeshanParvez
12-05-2015, 10:07 AM
Originally Posted by Ridwaan Ravat
[...continued]

8. Other schools were never meticulously codified and refined as were the opinions of the four Imams. Thus it is a red herring to say why only follow these four and not the*madhhab*of say, Thawri or Tabari etc.
It is not a red hearing but a very valid point raised by the likes of Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him). It is a point which often leaves the Madhabis speechless because the fact of the matter is that we have had many Madhabs in Islamic history which is an undeniable fact.

9. If Salafism was the way of this Ummah throughout its history, why would Sunni scholars continuously condemn it as a dangerous deviation?
Unfortunately, you only seem to quote the scholars who side with you in the matter. Additionally, the condemnation from the scholars on the Salafis is usually not one of Fiqh as much as it is regarding their Aqeedah which is in sharp opposition to the Ash'ari and Maturidi Aqeedahs.
For example, the great scholar Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) wrote a book against them called: Refutation Of Those Who Follow Other Than The Four Schools

(Ar-radd `ala man ittaba ghayr al-madhahib al-arba`a).
See. You only quote the scholars who agree with your view point. Perhaps a little research on the subject of لا مذهب العامي will help you see what others scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah have said about the subject.
Reply

ZeeshanParvez
12-06-2015, 02:53 AM
Let's take Ibn Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-'allaamah Shaikh Al-Shaafi who is better known as and referred to as Al-Qaadi Husain by Al-Nawawi in his المجموع شرح المهذب who narrates two positions in respect to the question
العامي هل له مذهب أم لا

The layman, does he have a Madhab or not?
لا مذهب له ; لأن المذهب لعارف الأدلة فعلى هذا له أن يستفتي من شاء من حنفي وشافعي وغيرهما

He has no Madhab. Because the Madhab is for the one who recognizes the evidence(s) [and the layman does not have this knowledge], so he [the layman] can ask a Fatwaa from whom he wishes from among the Hanafi or Shaafi or others.



And if we are going to the follow the opinion of adhering to a Madhab then I think what Al-Nawawi says holds a lot of weight

قال النووي في مقدمة "المجموع" ما نصه: "ولما كان الشافعي قد تأخر عن هؤلاء الأئمة في العصر،‏ ونظر في مذاهبهم نحو نظرهم في مذاهب من قبلهم،‏ فسبرها وخبرها وانتقدها،‏ واختار أرجحها،‏ ووجد من قبله قد كفاه مؤنة التصوير والتأصيل،‏ فتفرغ للاختيار والترجيح،‏ والتكميل والتنقيح،‏ مع معرفته،‏ وبراعته في العلوم،‏ وترجحه في ذلك على من سبقه،‏ ثم لم يوجد بعده من بلغ محله في ذلك؛‏ كان مذهبه أولى المذاهب بالاتباع والتقليد،‏ وهذا -مع ما فيه من الإنصاف‏ والسلامة من القدح في أحد من الأئمة- جلي واضح،‏ إذا تأمله العامي قاده إلى اختيار مذهب الشافعي،‏ والتمذهب به


(Paraphrase of the above)

Since Imaam Al-Shaafi came after this Imaams in time and looked into their Madhabs like they looked into the Madhabs prior to them and he examined them closely, was fully acquainted with them, and showed the short comings in them and chose the most correct [opinion] in them..and he devoted himself to choosing [the most correct opinion] and the [finding] the most correct [opinion]....along with his knowledge and proficiency in the branches of knowledge...then there came no one who reached his level in that, his Madhab is the most worthy of being followed and made Taqleed of. And this along with that which is in it of 'Insaaf and safety from defamation of any of the previous illustrious Imaams is obvious. And when the layman contemplates this he will adopt the Madhab of Al-Shaafi and stick to it


So, you see Al-Nawawi makes an excellent point. Imaam Al-Shaafi looked at all the works of the Imaams before him and chose the most correct opinion. He was a man of excellence and since no one reached his level after him, it is best we follow his Madhab.

A very valid assessment of the situation by Al-Nawawi. Given the fact that we have a global village, getting Fatwaas for the Shaafi Madhab is not difficult either.


Reference(s):

المجموع شرح المهذب
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
ZeeshanParvez
12-06-2015, 03:25 AM
And now lets look at the Usool Al-Fiqh book of البحر المحيط written by بدر الدين بن محمد بهادر الزركشي
هل يجب على العامي التزام تقليد معين في كل واقعة

Is it necessary for the layman to make Taqleed of a particular [madhab] in every case?


فيه وجهان

In it are two views


قال إلكيا : يلزمه

'ilkiyaa said: It is necessary


وقال ابن برهان : لا ، ورجحه النووي في ( أوائل القضاء ) وهو الصحيح

And Ibn Burhaan said: No [it is not necessary] and Al-Nawawi preferred this opinion in أوائل القضاء and it is the correct opinion.



فإن الصحابة - رضوان الله عليهم - لم ينكروا على العامة تقليد بعضهم من غير تقليد

For indeed the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not criticize the masses when they followed some of them without making Talqeed [specific to only the one they followed]


وحكى الرافعي عن أبي الفتح الهراوي أحد أصحاب الإمام أن مذهب عامة أصحابنا أن العامي لا مذهب له

And Al-Raafi [who was Shaafi] has transmitted from أبي الفتح الهراوي who was one of the Companions of the Imaam that the Madhab of most of our Companions (Shaafi) is that the layman has no Madhab.



So, you see this is not a Salafi thing as some claim. Rather, we have had scholars from the Shaafi school and Hanbali school who have said that following only one Madhab is not necessary and some have also said that the layman has no Madhab.

Just thought the readers should know both sides.
Reply

ZeeshanParvez
12-06-2015, 03:41 AM
Finally if someone does decide to adopt a Madhab then the question is does he have to adopt all the views every time of the Madhab even if he finds another opinion to be stronger?

One of the views is that is is necessary but we have another view.
والثاني: يجوز، وهو الأصح في الرافعي

And the second view is that it is permissible and it is the most correct opinion in the sight of Al-Raafi
لأن الصحابة لم يوجبوا على العوام تعيين المجتهدين

This is because the Companions did not make it obligatory upon the masses to specify only one Mujtahid

For those who may not know. Al-Raafi is a major scholar of the Shaafi school of thought. The Shaafis take their rulings from that which is agreed upon between Al-Nawawi and Al-Raafi.

Thus, it is not the Salafis who say following only one Madhab is not obligatory but it has been a view among the Ahl Al-Sunnah. It is always best to mention all opinions to keep Ta'assub from creeping in.
Reply

ZeeshanParvez
12-06-2015, 08:00 AM
Originally Posted by Ridwaan Ravat
[...Continued]

3. The Hanbali scholar Imam ‘Ala al-Din al-Mardawi in his major Juristic compendium*Al-Insaf, cites the statement of the famous scholar Imam Al-Wazir ibn Hubaira (d. 560 AH):

“Consensus has been established upon*taqlīd*of one of the Four Schools and that the truth does not lie outside of them”

(Vol.11 p.169,Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah).

4. Imam Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi states in*Al-Bahr al-Muhit,

“There has been established a consensus amongst the Muslims that the truth is restricted to these (four) schools...

(vol.6 p.209).

It is important to note that the claim of Ijmaa of only following the four Madhabs by some scholars of the past is not a sound claim and there have been classical scholars who have denied such an Ijmaa ever took place. [1]


It is written in الفواكه الدواني
قال بعض المحققين: المعتمد أنه يجوز تقليد الأربعة، وكذا من عداهم ممن يحفظ مذهبه في تلك المسائل ودُوِّن حتى عُرفت شروطه وسائر معتبراته

Some of the Al-Muhaqqiqeen have said: The relied upon position is that it is permissible to make Taqleed of the four [Madhabs] and likewise those which are other than them of those Madhabs which have been preserved in respect to those matters and it has been recorded and its conditions and معتبرات are recognized

Simiarly the quotes below from the Hanafi text البحر الرائق
فصل: يجوز تقليد من شاء من المجتهدين وإن دونت المذاهب كاليوم، وله الانتقال من مذهبه لكن لا يتبع الرخص

and from the Shaafi scholar Ibn Hajar

وحاصل المعتمد من ذلك أنه يجوز تقليد كلٍّ من الأئمة الأربعة، وكذا من عداهم ممن حُفِظَ مذهبه في تلك المسألة ودُوِّنَ حتى عرفت شروطه وسائر معتبراته

Show that one is not only limited to following the four Madhabs.
Reply

azc
02-17-2016, 05:24 PM
^Demarcation is based on ability of ijtihad concerning adherence to a particular madhab whereby it's overtly construed by scholars that those who're endowed with uncanny acumen of ijtihad aren't bound to follow either madhab. If everybody is allowed to delve into Quran and ahadith without required abilities will change this deen as a toy to play with.
Reply

'abd al-hakeem
06-22-2016, 11:21 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
:sl:
Did they (ra) not work to unite the people of their respective regions onto a common format, and did the rulers of such regions (ra) not implement their opinions as law for the sake of uniformity and order?

Have we not moved on to a global stage after "al mulkan 'aaddah" where we need to rectify certain differences based upon Quran and sunnah so that we fulfill the Prophet pbuh's command to return to the foundation of Quran and Sunnah when there is Ikhtilaaf and settle differences based upon it, while leaving less problematic differences to choice?

Allah knows best but it seems weird that two people are praying together towards the same Qiblah and one's wudhu breaks while the other's remains - for exactly the same act in exactly the same condition.

Allah knows best, but there is much to ponder upon.

Thumma takoonu khilaafatan 'alaa manhaaj an-nabuwwah.
Now this is an interesting question...
Reply

AabiruSabeel
07-10-2016, 02:08 PM
Quoting from an old post by a brother,

The Strongest?


There are many reasons why a scholar may deem an opinion ‘the strongest.’ In fact there are so many reasons, that it is quite possible (and has happened) that one scholar will deem an opinion stronger based on one criterion, whilst another scholar will deem another opinion stronger based on another criterion. It helps to be aware of the fact that the basis of weighing an opinion is an in-depth compound process, the explanation of which goes beyond the scope of this article. However those interested may refer to any good books on Usūl al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence).


Based on this, it is a mistake of students to understand the statement of their sheikh when he says ‘this position is the strongest’ to mean ‘all other opinions are weak or invalid.’ Despite the obvious fallacy in this way of thinking, it also shows a lack of understanding of what it effectively means when a scholar makes such a pronouncement. They are simply exposing their understanding of which position they feel is strongest, their personal stance, which is subjective. It is important to limit their perception and findings as such and not inflate them and exaggerate it as if it is ‘the objectively strongest opinion,’ which in all honesty, none but Allāh knows. Indeed this is with all aspects of fiqh.


“The Strongest” – But Why?


When one finds scholars at odds with each other over which opinion in a given matter is the strongest, and this is common, it may help to enquire about the reason as to why a position is ‘the strongest’, if the scholar or student of knowledge has not already explained so. After several enquiries one will notice that differences of opinion hardly arise due to one side basing their legal understanding on a hadīth whilst the other bases it on whim or mere opinion, as is suggested in some circles. Instead it is the understanding or fahm of the text that leads to such differences. This fact should inform the attitude of the average Muslim or student of knowledge, and help avoid the attitude of a fanatic when approaching such matters. The assumption should be that a valid reason for divergence exists, and not that one side has made a mistake, for such an approach deprives the one who adopts it of valuable knowledge and thus slows down their development.


This is backed up by many examples from the lives of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them all) as well as in the discussions that took place between later jurists, for example the incident of praying salāt al-`Asr at Banī Quraidha[1].


The incident of praying Salat al-`Asr at Banī Quraidha


The Prophet ﷺ had sent a group of companions and instructed, “No one should pray salat al-`Asr except in (the vicinity of) Banī Quraidha.”


Banī Quraidha was a tribe living in Medina. The only problem was that the time for the `Asr prayers had almost expired before the group reached the vicinity of Banī Quradha. Thus, they found themselves divided into supporters of two different opinions, one group strongly believed that they should pray only once they had reached their destination, even if that meant they would miss the time of `Asr. The other group prayed on the way and thus prayed al-`Asr in its time, though seemingly at odds with the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction.


Both groups of companions in this case made an Ijtihād or an attempt to arrive at a sound decision within the confines of the revealed text and legislation. The rationale behind the first group was that the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction was clear in asking everybody to pray at Banī Qurayẓa upon arrival, thus they gave preference to the literal and specific command to the situation at hand superseding the other commands to pray `Asr on time.


The rationale of the second opinion, however, was that the Prophet’s ﷺ purpose (maqsid) of the order was to ask the group to hasten to Banī Qurayẓa before `Asr to pray punctually, rather than actually intending to postpone prayers until after its due time. Their reason for this was that they put into context this specific command within the context of other commandments concerning praying `Asr on time and thus preferred to take the view of what they believed was intended, for it was known very clearly that the prayers had fixed times.


The case was related to the Prophet ﷺ and he did not censure any of the parties. This meant that he approved both methods, for the Prophet ﷺ did not remain silent on falsehood. And thus his silent approvals are part of his Sunnah, and both parties were correct in their attempts to arrive at the truth.
However, did he also approve the result of their Ijtihād? This is disputed. And this dispute continued centuries later, when scholars came and commented on which opinion was ‘the strongest’. The famous scholar of the literalist school, Muḥammad ibn Ḥazmal-Ẓāhiri supported the group that prayed salat al-`Asr after they reached Banī Qurayẓa, as the Prophet ﷺ had said, and said this was the stronger opinion even if it was after midnight. This was in harmony with his literalist approach.


However the jurist Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya asserted that it was those who prayed on the way that were correct. Ibn al-Qayyim had a more holistic approach, and so his criteria of judging which opinion is stonger differed from Ibn Ḥazm (may Allāh shower both scholars with his mercy and grace).


Thus what the strongest position is at times depends on which scholar one learns from. It is important for adherents of both views to not take the statements of each scholar out of the realm of ‘human understanding’ (fiqh) no matter how convinced they may be, and endow them with ultimate divine status.
There is however an exception to this. Sometimes there are opinions, which are deemed aberrant (shādh) by the overwhelming majority of jurists. Such opinions are left to their respective scholars without being adopted in practice. Unfortunately however, even this concept of an opinion being shādh is also abused and used in a polemical manner to discredit the opinions of others, and therefore care must be taken to verify whether something being claimed as shādh, is actually so.


Lastly, though it may seem tempting at first to students of knowledge to be overly ambitious and pass judgements as to which opinion they find strong and which they do not, it is important to remember that such an endeavour is a strenuous process, which one who knows the severity of, will never belittle. We learn so that our chests may expand to accommodate more wisdom and jewels from our intellectual heritage, and so we can embody this higher understanding in our practice. It is not so that we become more restricted and confined to one set of opinions or another. And if our attitude and morals do not embody such learning, then the question needs to be asked, what is the point of our learning?
Reply

piXie
07-11-2016, 08:33 PM
:salamext:

Originally Posted by ibn-Adam
When one finds scholars at odds with each other over which opinion in a given matter is the strongest, and this is common, it may help to enquire about the reason as to why a position is ‘the strongest’, if the scholar or student of knowledge has not already explained so. After several enquiries one will notice that differences of opinion hardly arise due to one side basing their legal understanding on a hadīth whilst the other bases it on whim or mere opinion, as is suggested in some circles. Instead it is the understanding or fahm of the text that leads to such differences.
It can also be the absence of certain texts which may not have reached the Mujtahid.

The assumption should be that a valid reason for divergence exists, and not that one side has made a mistake, for such an approach deprives the one who adopts it of valuable knowledge and thus slows down their development.
I understand this and there are many differences of opinion which have strong evidences on both sides and not necessarily that a mistake has been made. But does this apply in all cases where there are differences in opinion and can't a Mujtahid make a mistake?
Reply

AabiruSabeel
07-11-2016, 09:04 PM
:wasalam:

Originally Posted by piXie
It can also be the absence of certain texts which may not have reached the Mujtahid.
A madhhab is not just the opinion of one Mujtahid. It is subsequently refined and codified by his students who themselves are scholars of Fiqh. A Madhhab is a methodology and set of principles that are used by a group of scholars of fiqh to derive rulings from Qur'an and Sunnah.

I was reading this article today http://muslimmatters.org/2007/07/03/.../#comment-3902 and I think it is worth quoting it here:

“what is the use of going to a “muqallid” scholar to find how prayer is done, when he would be reiterating what his madhab says. I want scholar who can go against his own madhab and say the other opinion in this particular case is more valid, based on evidences.”

We have to get out of the construct of everyone being either an absolute mujtahid or a layman muqallid who can’t evaluate any evidences. Not all issues will fall into this category. The typical example is when the Prophet (saw) told the Sahabah not to pray Asr until reaching Banu Quraydah. There is no dispute over what was said, or authenticity, but the Sahabah arrived at different conclusions based on their understanding of the same evidence. This is where we have our legacy of fiqh and ulemma, who have studied these issues and developed ways of approaching them.

Scholars of the madhhab developed the madhhab over time. For example, ibn Taymiyyah disagreed with the actual rulings of say Imam Ahmed, but he is still a Hanbali. In the Shafi’ee madhhab, an-Nawawi had some different opinions. So its unfair to paint all scholars who were brought up in a madhhab as being just blind followers of one imam’s opinions.

Abu Yusuf studied with Abu Hanifah, then went and studied with another scholar and changed half of his opinions.

Additionally, taking the example of salah – let me give you 2 examples. When to raise the hands when rising from tashahhud to the 3rd rak’ah – do you raise them before standing or after? What about where to put your hands after ruku’? In these situations its not a question of hadith availability or strength, but on usool and interpretation of the texts. In this situation I would much rather prefer to follow the legacy of fiqh established by our imams over the centuries rather than a modern scholar reinventing the wheel by opening Bukhari and creating his own usool.

I understand the position discussed against absolute taqleed, but if you read my post, that is not what I am referring to when I talk about following a madhhab.


Is it only me who is seeing the difference between following an alive scholar who have access to all hadiths compiled than following a scholar who passed centuries ago and had not had access to compiled hadith? Is it just me who is trying to differentiate between following and blind following?

I mentioned blind following in that there’s two extremes – its quoted in abu ameerah’s comment 

The thing is, when you follow a scholar who had access to compiled hadith – you are still making taqleed to some degree. Say for example, Shaykh Abdullah evaluates all the hadith on a specific issue, and says this opinion is the strongest. Just because we might be aware of the daleel doesn’t necessarily mean we’re following the evidences because in the end we’re still following that particular scholar’s understanding and approach.

Besides, I think its unfair to paint all the classical scholars with the brush of ‘they didn’t have access to hadith’ when Imams like Imam Ahmed had over 1 million hadith memorized. Sorry, but I just don’t think that someone in our time now, even if they study all the hadith books and memorize them it would be difficult to ever reach the level of understanding of Imam Ahmed in fiqh OR hadeeth.

If following madhab is so important, how come Quran and Sunnah does not mention that we need to follow madhab, and infact only one of these 4 madhabs?

And the post didn’t say its wajib or anything like that. If you look at what Shaykh Yasir posted for example, its recommended to the students of knowledge to study a madhhab. Also I gave a few examples of this in my post too, about asking an imam that you trust despite what madhhab he follows. In fact, I’m not sure anyone on here has said its completely binding on everyone to affiliate themselves as Hanafi or Shafiee, etc.

Another important point to keep in mind is that people are at different levels. Some people are not at the level, nor do they care to follow the daleel, some people will simply come and ask if something is halal or haram, and then khalas. Are they now sinful for performing taqleed? Someone is a student of knowledge, then they should study a madhhab and get a grounding and move forward. If they don’t then they will just be starting out where scholars like Imam Abu Hanifah started out, and I doubt that anyone now could do as good a job. I highly recommend listening to under the shade of scrolls that I linked to in my post.

This is one of my main beefs on this topic – it is hard to try to discuss this issue without us going back to our preconceived notions that we have, or going back to previous experiences we’ve had. We need to come up with a gameplan to understand each other and move forward.


And the comment by Sh. Yasir Qadhi, http://muslimmatters.org/2007/07/03/.../#comment-3885

The vast majority of our scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, came from madhabs and never advise the masses to abandon madhabs. Hence your shock at discovering that Sh. Ibn Uthaymin (and Ibn Baz, and almost ALL the scholars of Islam) actually encouraged following a madhab. I remember once, in my first semester at the University of Madinah, Sh. Ibn Uthaymin came to the University and gave a beautiful lecture (it was the first time I met him). In it, he said, “I advise you all to follow a madhab…” And this advice was being given to us students of knowledge, not just laymen on the streets!! It was one of many hundreds of eye-openers that I myself was exposed to over the years of study that I did there.

Indeed, the more knowledge one gains, the less stubborn and hard-headed he becomes about one position being absolutely right to the exclusion of all others.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-14-2013, 12:15 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 06:26 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 08:46 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 09:37 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2007, 07:09 AM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!