:salamext:
I'm not offended.
Ok so do you believe it is obligatory to follow a madhhab?
Salam
I know of some brothers, who are not even worthy of being classed students of knowledge, and yet they are doing ijtihaad themselves! subhanallah they think if a hadith is in bukhari, it is automtaically stronger. If they have one hadith in muslim, one in bukhari, they will take the bukhari one.
For people like that, and people like me, I believe yes we should follow a madhab and it is fard upon us, as we are not at the level of doing ijtihaad. Also I tend to follow the majority of our 'ulema, based on the hadith of the prophet, "Stick to the majority, and you shall never stray" And the vast vast majority of scholars say do taqleed. The African ulema, majority say taqleed, the middle eastern ones, and the indo-pakistan definitely are pro-taqleed.
Sister, to be honest, even scholars like Sheikh Bin Baaz and Uthamayn, they are hanbali, but they do not do complete taqleed, and openly say it should not be done, so ther followers also do not to complete taqleed, and their fiqh is mostly hanbali, but the muslims who listen to the likes of sheikh bin baaz and uthamayn, (May Allah Be Pleased with them both, and May Allah give jannah to them both also), they are inadverdantly doing taqleed of them. just because they back their fatwas up with quran and hadith means it is not taqleed? Ofg course not, the scholars who do taqleed of the 4 imaams themselves have their evidences and proofs
Don't forget there are different levels to taqleed. Every scholar does not automatically just start looking at the quran and sunnah and start coming to fatwas. all scholars start with the base from one of the 4 main madhabs. Now the big big scholars of today, who have reached the next step of taqleed, i think its called mujtahid mutluq, like the sheikh yusuf karadawis, sheikh bin baaz' etc of this ummah, they end up differing with the madhab they follow. But the difference is for example sheikh yusuf qaradawi, altho primarily a shafi', he gives fatwas that are not of the shafi' madhab on many occasions, that of music being just one. But the people of egypt dont suddenly follow the madhab of yusuf qaradawi, as yusuf qaradawi never says "Follow Quran and Sunnah over opinions of 4 imaams". The saudi shayookh on the other hand do say this (dont think i am saying they are wrong, i am in no position to condemn such great scholars), and so the saudi people, and of that school of thought, like that on this forum for example, tend to follow what they say, almost creating a seperate school of thought
And do you think there is anything wrong with a layman going to a mufti for his fataawa, without following a madhhab?
Not entirely wrong. I believe we should find a local allim, or 'allimah, and trust them, and follow what they say. If we trust their isnaad, and their teachings, then we shouldnt have the need to question them and ask them for a proof everytime we ask them for a fatwa
And sister, especially today, with so many contempory issues, we have to go to a local imam anyway, as there are many issues that were not around bk in the day of the 4 imaams
But me speaking for myself only, i dont think there is anything wrong placing your trust in a local mufti, as long as you trsut them, and know they have a valid isnaad of teachers going back to the prophet saw. It is much better than doing ijtihaad yourself, or looking at the opinions of all 4 imaams and choosing whatever is easiest.
But to be honest, I ask, is your local mufti likely to be more knowledgable than the likes of Imam Abu hanifah, Imam Shafi', Imam Malik etc?
If the great scholars of the past, the Imam Bukharis, the Imam Nawawi's, the Ibn kathirs, the Ibn Qayyims, the Ibn Taymiyyahs were ok with following a madhab (and most of them for most parts of their lives did do taqleed), then surely they are a far more safer and reliable option.
Dont forget the hanafi madhab is not just the madhab of imam abu hanifah. he used to discuss every one issue with 40 of his students. and these werent just 40 ordinary students. Iraq was known for their wealth of scholars in the science of fiqh, amd most of these scholars were either tabieen or taba-tabieen. They would sometimes spend 4 months on just one small issue. Is it likely that all of them at the end would have come to a wrong conclusion?
Also as mufti Muhammed ibn adam says
here
It should be remembered that when we follow a particular Madhhab (School of thought), we are not following one person; rather we are following the extensive research carried out by thousands of scholars who devoted their life for this noble cause.
So although I diont think its wrong to place trust in a local scholar, I think there are far better options
And are you aware that the 'ullemah of the madhhabs all said that we should take from them what is correct, and leave that which is incorrect?
I am aware of this common statement made by brothers and sisters trying to prove taqleed wrong, but as previous brotehrs have mentioned, the imaams were speaking to their students, to educated scholars, not laymen like me and you
even then,how do people like me and you find out if a hadith is sahih? Because its in bukhari? Of course not, we usually listen to a view of a respected scholar, like sheikh bin baaz, and follow his opinion, because we trust him
Also, as a side note I'd like to mention, the students of the madhabs many times added hadith that came later if they together found it to be strong. So the students did add hadith, just as their teachers instructed, So I today, on many instances, do something as a follower of the hanafi madhab that Imam abu hanifah didn't do
You say that a hadith can never contradict what the four imams said. But how can that be? Since they held different opinions on some issues. Can both be correct? The differing is allowed? Do you mean it is a mercy?
Sorry i dont quite eman contradict. for example, somebody would come to the prophet and ask for a fatwa, the prophet would say do "A". An imam, lets say Imam abu hanifah, he would know of this hadith, but he wouldnt say to his followers do "A", he'd say do "B". This is because Imam Abu hanifah would do ijtihaad on the hadith and would put what the prophet said into context. For example, waht the prophet said to an old man about him kissing his wife during a fast is different to the ruling on a far younger man. He would use a certain hadith, put it into the context the prophet said it in, and would give a fatwa based on his understanding, so he's based it on the hadith, but has come to an apparent contradiction
And as explained earlier, sometimes two contradicting things can both be correct. For example, as I mentioned before, the raising of the hands b4 and after ruku'
Imam Abu hanifah finds hadith he believes to be strong that shows the prophet near the end times of his life NOT raising hands before and after ruku'. Imam malik also, but shafi' and ahmad say these hadith are weak. split opinion, there is no majority here, but both are right as they can both back their claims up
I say differing is allowed, this is the unanimous opinions of ALL scholars, as it was allowed during the time of the prophet amongst the sahabah on many many occasions
And yes,differing opinions are a mercy. ibn taymiyyah has written books on why this is so, and we should respect the different opinions
So don't you think it's better to go with the consensus of the scholars? For example, on the issue of the woman's prayer. Don't you think, since this is such a huge issue, a sister should go with the what the overwhelming majority of the 'ullema were upon in this regard?
I suppose majority is always best, but a lot of times there is no majority
Regarding womens prayer in the hanafi madhab, i have not studies this ruling, but i do know the hanafis do have their evidences, and it is not based simply on their own opinions, but yes following majority is probably the best, but I know too well this can often lead people to constantly look at all 4 madhabi positions,a nd eventually leads them to following the opinion they like best, so many people avoid this
