Thanks for making my post less credible.Next time please read my message and try to understand.I will write it many times again,i hope you can understand it or at least read it.
I tend to be more salafi,But i never call myself salafi. I tend to be more salafi,But i never call myself salafi. I tend to be more salafi,But i never call myself salafi. I tend to be more salafi,But i never call myself salafi. I tend to be more salafi,But i never call myself salafi. But i never call myself salafi.But i never call myself salafi.But i never call myself salafi.
I think i already said that i dont call myself salafi,so how did i join the salafi according to you?
And where did i say scholars like Hanafi Shafi etc are not good enough? I didnt mention any of them.For every case i get the opinions of all madhabs and follow the one my heart feels its right.Let me tell you again that i dont associate myself with any group before you make me *join another group*
I am sorry I misunderstood you brother.
I now realize that is was my own lack of knowledge for my mean post.
I never understood how one can pick and choose different opinions from each madhab and still not be guilty of doing Talfiq.
I understand now that it is possible under certain circumstances...and that is how you can stay neutral without joining a certain madhab.
That is however way beyond my level of knowledge.
I would not be able to distuinguish which opinion of which madhab is based on stronger evidence for a certain topic, and therefore I would be guilty of doing Talfiq pretty quickly.
So for me, it is much safer to join one of the madhabs and keep it that way.
I now realize that is was my own lack of knowledge for my mean post.
I never understood how one can pick and choose different opinions from each madhab and still not be guilty of doing Talfiq.
I understand now that it is possible under certain circumstances...and that is how you can stay neutral without joining a certain madhab.
That is however way beyond my level of knowledge.
I would not be able to distuinguish which opinion of which madhab is based on stronger evidence for a certain topic, and therefore I would be guilty of doing Talfiq pretty quickly.
So for me, it is much safer to join one of the madhabs and keep it that way.
Talfiq is when you fuse two opinions together.But if they are on different cases,it makes no sense doing talfiq.
Ill give you an example for all of this so you can understand my point of view.And dont need to apologise or anything,we all have lack of knowledge and we all misunderstand each other sometimes.Its okay,sorry for making a mean reply too.
Now for example according to shafi your wudu is broken if you touch a female,including your own mother.
According to hanafi this does not break your wudu.
According to Shafi you can eat shrimps
But according to Hanafi you cant eat shrimps.
Now if i believe touching a woman,especially mother or sister if i had it wouldnt break my wudu.And i believe i can eat shrimps.This is what my heart believes.So in the first case i follow the hanafi but in the second case i follow the shafi. If i were to say i am hanafi then i would have to be forced to not eat shrimps despite believing they are permissable,and if i were shafi i would have to take wudu from the begining if i touched my mother.There are tons of cases like this.
For me is nonlogical following one school of thought blindly.I dont know any of the famous scholars to advise this.And moreover following a madhab blindly brings nothing but fitnah.You can see everywhere on internet muslims arguing about madhabs,members of one madhab rejecting to pray behind an imam who has another madhab,and what i have seen myself in real life salafis and hanbalis arguing so much that they would not even say salam to each other,and ended up with a salafi guy being beaten in the masjid.I had friends from both sides and the hate they had for each other was amazing.They hated each other more than kafirs.
Talfiq is when you fuse two opinions together.But if they are on different cases,it makes no sense doing talfiq.Ill give you an example for all of this so you can understand my point of view.And dont need to apologise or anything,we all have lack of knowledge and we all misunderstand each other sometimes.Its okay,sorry for making a mean reply too.Now for example according to shafi your wudu is broken if you touch a female,including your own mother.According to hanafi this does not break your wudu.According to Shafi you can eat shrimpsBut according to Hanafi you cant eat shrimps.Now if i believe touching a woman,especially mother or sister if i had it wouldnt break my wudu.And i believe i can eat shrimps.This is what my heart believes.So in the first case i follow the hanafi but in the second case i follow the shafi. If i were to say i am hanafi then i would have to be forced to not eat shrimps despite believing they are permissable,and if i were shafi i would have to take wudu from the begining if i touched my mother.There are tons of cases like this.For me is nonlogical following one school of thought blindly.I dont know any of the famous scholars to advise this.And moreover following a madhab blindly brings nothing but fitnah.You can see everywhere on internet muslims arguing about madhabs,members of one madhab rejecting to pray behind an imam who has another madhab,and what i have seen myself in real life salafis and hanbalis arguing so much that they would not even say salam to each other,and ended up with a salafi guy being beaten in the masjid.I had friends from both sides and the hate they had for each other was amazing.They hated each other more than kafirs.
Thanks for taking the patience to explain it to me brother. So far I understood.
But now comes the confusing part:
(I am absolutely not attacking you, so please do not be mad at me...but) Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Lets suppose in this example:
Person A wants to make it extra convenient for himself so he picks out the easiest of the opinions:
touching mother doesn't break wudu and eating schrimps are allowed.
Person B wants to take the secure road, so he picks out the most difficult road:
Touching mother breaks wudu and eating schrimps are not allowed
Person C compares the evidences of whether touching mother breaks wudu and whether eating schrimps is allowed or not and comes to the conclusion:
touching mother doesn't break wudu and eating schrimps is not allowed
Now in these cases:
- Aren't both person A and person B doing Talfiq because they both pick and choose the rulings they want
- How can person C be sure to make an objective decision between different evidences because in the most cases the opinions would be approximately equally strong and both come from equally reliable and much respected scholars. So person C tries to choose the rulings with best evidences among the madhabs, but does not have the needed knowledge to do that objectively.
- So, indirectly...person C ends up with also doing Talfiq because he still picks and chooses what his heart wants.
Again, please do not be mad at me...I just want to understand...
Thanks for taking the patience to explain it to me brother. So far I understood.
But now comes the confusing part:
(I am absolutely not attacking you, so please do not be mad at me...but) Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Lets suppose in this example:
Person A wants to make it extra convenient for himself so he picks out the easiest of the opinions:
touching mother doesn't break wudu and eating schrimps are allowed.
Person B wants to take the secure road, so he picks out the most difficult road:
Touching mother breaks wudu and eating schrimps are not allowed
Person C compares the evidences of whether touching mother breaks wudu and whether eating schrimps is allowed or not and comes to the conclusion:
touching mother doesn't break wudu and eating schrimps is not allowed
Now in these cases:
- Aren't both person A and person B doing Talfiq because they both pick and choose the rulings they want
- How can person C be sure to make an objective decision between different evidences because in the most cases the opinions would be approximately equally strong and both come from equally reliable and much respected scholars. So person C tries to choose the rulings with best evidences among the madhabs, but does not have the needed knowledge to do that objectively.
- So, indirectly...person C ends up with also doing Talfiq because he still picks and chooses what his heart wants.
Again, please do not be mad at me...I just want to understand...
Salam alaikum
I wont be mad at you lol.We are here to learn and discuss so opposing each other in respectful way its alright.Dont worry,you can always say what you feel and think.
Now i wont reply to the situation you explained because it seems a bit complicated to give the best solution to that so i will give you another example to make it simple to understand.
Talfiq is fussion of two opinions.Meaning merging what one madhab says and what another madhab says and thus creating your own ruling which is different from all madhabs.
Merging shrimps and wudhu makes no sense because shrimps and wudhu are not related in any way.
But when do we make talfiq?
When it comes to one case.For example Wudhu.
Hanafi says that blood being spilled breaks the wudhu,and touching the wife doesnt break wudhu.
Shafi says blood being spilled doesnt break wudhu,but touching the wife breaks wudhu.
Now if you will either follow hanafi or shafi. If you says blood being spilled doesnt break wudhu (shafi) and touching the wife doesnt break wudhu either (hanafi) then this is talfiq,because you are merging two opinions for the same case,and your conclusion doesnt match any madhab.
But eating shrimps is another different case. So if we were to talk about sea food,and you want to eat all kind of sea food as this is what you believe more from the evidences,then you can follow shafi which allows eating of all sea food.And you can follow hanafi when it comes to wudhu because you believe touching your wife doesnt break wudhu.And then when it comes to prayer and the way you pray,you can follow another madhab as prayer,shrimps and wudhu are not connected to each other.
You get what i mean? You can switch because they are different cases,same with every other case.But if we were to follow one madhab blindly,then we would go agaisnt our beliefs and we would be uncomfortable and would make religion harder,not to mention the fitnah that is happening because of following madhabs blindly and proudly labeling themselves with them.That is why i am against groups and i dont follow any madhab.Allahu Alem though.
Last edited by Revert alYunani; 01-26-2021 at 04:23 PM.
How do I know which is the correct Islam? How do I know if I am on the correct path? So many different paths claim to be the truth?
Brother, there can be more then on path to reach on destination
You must had to sure if you are using the right path that it, and right path is clear, just make sure to your best that you are following Allah and His prophet Muhammad Salalhualiwasalam and might be for some thing you find more then one paths and both are correct ,
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
manofIslam liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks