brothers and sisters.
do you have aink for the above
jazakallahu khair
In The Name Of Allah, Most Beneficent Most Merciful
QUESTION
What is the significance of Taqleed in Shari'ah and if Taqleed is important then why is the Taqleed of an individual considered so important? What is the harm in following one particular Imam for a certain mas’alah then following another Imam regarding something else? Why do the Ulama prevent this, even when the masaalik of all the four Imams are accepted?
ANSWER
The original source of guidance is the Qur'aan but generally it is the fundamental principles and Masa'il which are integrate precepts, stated in the Qur'aan. It was the duty of the Prophetto explain in full the details and particulars: 'To make clear the issues that were sent to the people.'
(Bayanul-Qur'aan)
EXAMPLE NO.1
It is stated in the Qur'aan: 'Establish Salaah.' The full details concerning salaah are related to us by the Prophet
EXAMPLE NO. 2
It is stated in the Qur'aan: ‘Pay Zakaah.' All the details on how the Zakaah is calculated on silver, gold, goats, cows, camels etc. have been found in the Ahadeeth. The Qur'aan has not mentioned anything in regard to this.
EXAMPLE NO.3
It is stated in the Qur'aan: 'And pilgrimage to the house is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for those who can.' The details on how tawaaf should be done and how many rounds there are in one tawaaf, the Masa'il of Arafat, Mina, Muzdalifah and rami etc, have all been explained by the prophet
To understand the Qur'aan, it is firstly important to acquire the intelligence of Ahadeeth. It is impossible to understand the Qur'aan whilst neglecting Ahadeeth. The Ummah has been commanded to derive guidance from the Qur'aan under the explained instructions of the Prophet
(Bayanul-Qur'aan)
Therefore it is mentioned in the Ahadeeth 'Perform salaah in the manner that you have seen me perform.'
(Bukhari Sharif Vol.2 pg.1076).
The Prophet
DIFFERENT TYPES OF AHADEETH
Some things were mentioned verbally by the Prophet
QIYAS
There are also some things which the Prophet
EXAMPLE
Somebody inquired that since Hajj is due upon my mother, would it be sufficient if I were to perform it on her behalf ? The Prophet
It has been narrated from Hazarat Abdullah ibn Abbas May Allah be pleased with him that a woman came to the Prophet
Bukhari Sharif Volume 2 pg.1088
In Shari'ah this is known as Qiyas, Ijtihad, Istinbaat and I'tibaar. Teachings of this nature are substantiated from the Prophet
The Prophet
When the Prophet
IJTIHAAD
When a mas'alah cannot be clearly found in the Qur'aan and Ahadeeth, the analogies and evidences have to be considered to find out its decree. This is known as Ijtihad and Qiyas, as can be understood from the afore mentioned. If this is agreed upon, it is called Ijma'a. That is why the Ulama of Usool have written that Qiyas does not establish the decree, but it just makes it evident.
A ruling which existed in the Qur'aan or Ahadeeth, but was not quite apparent for the common people to understand, a Mujtahid having done Qiyas on its analogies or by analysing evidently, implicitly or by way of necessity, would make it evident. Imam Bukhari rahmatullahi alaihe has compiled a specific chapter regarding this.
TAQLEED
Whoever does not have the capability of Ijtihad, following a Mujtahid becomes compulsory for him. This is known as Taqleed.
This is why Hazarat Mu'aaz May Allah be pleased with him was sent as a Qadhi, so that the Masa'il and rulings he derives from the Qur'aan, Ahadeeth and Ijtihad would be implemented. Following these three would in fact mean obeying the Prophet
It has been narrated from Hazarat Abu Hurraira May Allah be pleased with him that the Prophet
THE TYPES OF MASA'IL
There are two different types of masa'il. Firstly, those that have been mentioned in the `Nas` (Qur'aan or Ahadeeth). Secondly, those which have not been mentioned in the Qur'aan or Ahadeeth.
There are two forms of the first type. The first form is that the Nas will only be ruling in the positive or only in the negative. The second form is that there are two types of Nas regarding the same Mas’alah. In some we need a ruling in the positive and in others in the negative. For example, from some we find out about Ameen-bil-Jahr and from some we find out about Ameen-bis-sir. Some inform us about Raf'ul-yadaayn, whilst others tell us about Tark-ul-raf'a.
There is also two types of these Masa'il as well. One is when historic evidence or other circumstances indicate that one Nas has preference over the other. The other type is, when it is not known which Nas has preference over the other and which comes first and which comes second. In total these are of four types;
FIRST; Those Masa'il which only have one type of Nas. No Qiyas or Ijtihad will be done, neither will there be Taqleed of anybody. Instead the Nas will be acted upon.
SECOND: Those masa'il which have two types of Nas and it is also known which comes first and which comes second. Generally, the first one will be abrogated, while the second one will be acted upon. There is no need for Qiyas, Ijtihad or Taqleed in this type either.
THIRD:Those masa'il where there are two types of Nas and it is not known which comes first and which comes second.
FOURTH:Those masa'il regarding which there is no Nas at all.
These last two types will be under one of the two situations. Either a person is acting upon it or he is not acting upon it and wondering around freely. Well, there is no permission for this. 'What does man think that he will be left in vain? 'So do you think that we have created you for play?' This is not the case, you have to obey our commands in every aspect. Well, what is he then going to act upon? In the third type, which Nas does he act upon? If he acts upon one, the other gets left out. He cannot appoint a Nas on his own behalf. He does not have the knowledge of which Nas came first and which second, so that he could cancel the first and act upon the second. In the fourth type, there is no Nas at all. So without knowledge what is he going to act upon?
Allah says in the Qur'aan, 'Do not act upon anything without knowledge and research.' This leaves no choice but to do Ijtihad. It is necessary in the third type because one of the Nas has to be appointed to be acted upon, and in the fourth type because the ruling has to be found.
This is also quite obvious that not everybody has the capability and capacity to do Ijtihad and Istinbaat. This verse of the Qur'aan makes this clear as well. Allah says: 'If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those who have authority amongst them, the proper investigators would have known it from them (direct).'
Anybody can claim to make a decision, regardless of its being right or wrong, but only he will be called a Mustanbit and Mujtahid, whose Istinbaat is in accordance to the shari'ah. If it is not, then he will be known as a Muqallid. Hence it is important for a Mujtahid to do Ijtihad in these two types and as for the Muqallid, it is important for him to do Taqleed. Even if the Mujtahid makes an error, he will not be deprived of reward and if his Ijtihad is correct then he will be entitled to double reward. Likewise it has come in Bukhari Sharif Vol 2 pg.1092
A DOUBT
Why is the Taqleed of the four Imams (Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'ee, Imam Ahmad rahmatullahi alaihim) done, even though there were many Mujtahideen amongst the SahabahMay Allah be pleased with them, Tabi'een and the Tab'i-Tabi'een? What is the harm in doing Taqleed of anybody else, especially those Sahabah whose virtues have been mentioned profusely in many Ahadeeth.
ANSWER
The answer to this is that indeed the Sahabah May Allah be pleased with them have a higher status than the four Imams. The reason for doing Taqleed of the four Imams is not because they are thought to be greater than the Sahabah May Allah be pleased with them, but when doing Taqleed it is important to acknowledge the masa'il in which Taqleed is done.
Today, there are vast amounts of details and explanations present about the masa'il, compiled and collected in the Mazahib of the four Imams, from Kita-but-Taharah to Kitabul-Fra'idh, including Ibadah, Dealings etc. In short each and every Mas’alah in all the fields and spheres has been collected. These type of detailed and compiled Mazahib cannot be found from the Sahabah, Tabi'een or the Tab'i-Tabi'een. So if one was to do Taqleed of anybody apart from the four Imams, then how would he do it? This is why Taqleed of the four Imams alone, has been chosen.
Allah bestowed upon the four Imams the knowledge of the Qur'aan and Ahadeeth in depths and the complete skills of Istinbaat to this extent that they had access to all the Ahadeeth of the Prophet
Hazarat Shah Waliullah Muhadith Dehivi rahmatullahi alaihe has written in Sharhul- Mu'at-ta, (page 6) about the spreading and circulation of Ahadeeth and about Madina Tayiba, being the headquarters of knowledge. He writes:
'These four Imams are such that their knowledge has encompassed the whole world and those four Imams are Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe), Imam Malik (rahmatullahi alaihe), Imam Shafi'ee (rahmatullahi alaihe) and Imam Ahmad (rahmatullahi alaihe)'
QUESTION
Why is it important to do Taqleed of only one Imam? What harm is there in following one Imam for one mas'alah, then another Imam for some other mas'alah, the way it was in the time of the Sahabah and the Tabi'een. They were not dependent on one individual in following the whole Mazhab.
ANSWER
In the time of the Sahabah, virtue and prosperity had the upper hand and generally there was no part in deen for fulfilling personal desires. That is why when someone inquired about a Mas’alah, he asked with a good intention and he would act upon it as well, regardless of whether he liked it or not.
In later times, this was not the case. Instead, people started having the urge to ask one mas'alah from a certain Alim and if the answer was against their desires, they would walk off to another Alim in search of ease. Still not content with this, they were stricken with a growing concern about how they could find a way out in every Mas’alah which would satisfy them. It is apparent that this can not be the motive for the search of truth.
Sometimes this can cause a lot of damage. For example, a person made wudhu then touched his wife. Somebody following the Mazhab of Imam Shafi'ee (rahmatullahi alaihe) said to him "Repeat your wudhu because touching your wife breaks the wud-hu." He replies, "I do Taqleed of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe) and wudhu does not break in his opinion of this situation." Then this person vomits. Somebody following the Mazhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe)says to him, 'Repeat your wudhu because vomit breaks the wudhu in the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe)." He replies, "I am following the Mazhab of Imam Shafi'ee (rahmatullahi alaihe) and in his view, wudhu does not break by vomiting." Now, this persons salaah is not valid in accordance with the Mazhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe) or Imam Shafi'ee (rahmatullahi alaihe) This is known as Talfeeq which is void and not permissible, by unanimous decision.
Following in this manner is in actual fact doing Taqleed of neither of the Imams. Instead it is fulfilling personal desires, which is forbidden in the Shari'ah. It leads a person astray and away from the path of Allah. Allah says in the Qur'aan, ‘And do not follow your personal desires, for they will lead you astray from the path of Allah.'
(Bayanul-Qur’aan)
This is why it is important to do Taqleed of only one Imaam. The Qur'aan has associated obedience with repentance, ‘And follow the path of he who turns towards me,'
(Bayanul-Qur’aan)
On this basis, any individual who had strong presumption about Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alaihe), that he was repentant, correct and that his Ijtihad was in accordance with the Qur'aan and Ahadeeth, he chose to do his Taqleed. Anybody who had the same thought regarding Imam Sha-fi'ee (rahmatullahi alaihe), Imam Malik (rahmatullahi alaihe) or about Imam Ahmad (rahmatullahi alaihe), he started doing his Taqleed. Now, this is incorrect to leave one's own Imam whenever a person feels and start following a different Mazhab, because without permission of the Shari'ah it becomes Talfeeq and fulfilment of personal desires. In result of which a person is lead astray.
Hence, Molana Mohammad Hussain Sahib has written in his compilation Ishaa'atus-Sunnah Vol 11 No.2 pg.53. After opposing Taqleed for a very long period of time and then becoming affected with bitter experience for not doing Taqleed, he writes, "We found out from 25 years of experience that those people who abstain from entire Mujtahids and Taqleed, they end up saying farewell to Islam. Some become Christians whilst others end up without any Mazhab at all. Rebellion and disobedience of the Shari 'ah is a petty result of this freedom."
(Sabeelur-Rashaad pg.12)
This is why those learned Ulama who have deep insight of the Qur'aan and countless treasures of the traditions of the Prophet
It would not be an exaggeration if it was said that these Ulama reached such a status only through following the Prophet
WAS SHAH WALIULLAH A MUQALLID?
QUESTION
What do the Ulama and the Muftis say about the following Mas’alah. Was Shah Waliullah a Muqallid or not? If he was a Muqallid then what was his Maslak? Here some people say he was not a Muqallid. Please give reference from some authentic source.
ANSWER
Hazarat Shah Waliullah Sahib (rahmatullahi alaihe) was enriched with the treasures of a vast amount of knowledge, deep concerns, high morals, righteous behaviour, purified mind, cleansed heart, strong connection and true saintliness. Whenever any doubts arised, instantly it was solved through Nabawi Ruhanyat as if all the traditions were in front of him. He was well aware of the Mazahib and had full experience of the Imams of Ijtihad regarding the principles of Istinbaat and the derivation of masa' il. He was well versed in the science of collaboration between two traditions and was a Hafiz of Naasikh and Mansookh etc.
Considering all this, he did not have the need to do Taqleed but the Prophet
(Fuyuzul-Haramain pg.65)
He passed away in 1176 A.H. and it was the same year that he taught Bukhari Sharif for the last time. He wrote the Sanad out for Molvi Cheraagh Sahib with his pen, which still exists in Khudaa Baksh Library in Patnaa along with the Bukhari Sharif itself. On the Sanad he wrote 'Hanafi' with his name. It has also got Hazarat Shah Rafi-ud-deen's certification on it, to prove that it was written by his father, along with Shah Alam's stamp of confirmation as well. From this we can tell that he stayed a Hanafi till the end. Nobody has the authority to say that he became a Ghair Muqallid.
Of course he used to collect them according to his capability and discuss the strength and weakness of the proofs, which might have left doubts in some people.
WHAT SHOULD A MUQALLID DO IF
THERE IS A HADITH CONTRADICTING THE SAYING OF AN IMAM?
QUESTION
What do the Ulama and the Muftis say about this mas'alah. If in the opinion of Imam A'zam (rahmatullahi alaihe) something is regarded as unlawful and there is a Sahih Hadith contradicting Imam Sahibs (rahmatullahi alaihe) opinion. The narrators are approximately more than four in number and they are all reliable. They all narrate exactly the same proof from the Prophet
ANSWER
It can be possible that there is a Hadith in Bukhari Sharif against the mas'alah stated by Imam A'zam (rahmatullahi alaihe), but this can never be possible that Imam Sahib (rahmatullahi alaihe) has stated a Mas’alah without any evidence. At least think about this that even in the view of Imam Sahib, it is not permissible to do Qiyas when there is a Sahih Hadith in existence. Then saying that Imam Sahibs opinion is merely just a Qiyas, which is against the Hadith, is completely incorrect and against the principles of Imam Sahib and it is also slanderous.
An opinion is decided upon, first by finding out the cause of a certain masalah (Illah) which can be found in the Nas. So that those Masa'il which have no Nas, but have the same cause, can be ruled the same as the ones which have a Nas. The benefit of this is that the decree of the Nas becomes more general. Imam Bukhari rahmatullahi alaihe has also confirmed this in his Bukhari Sha-rif.
Hence, in whichever mas'alah there is already a Nas, the Qiyas and opinion of Imam A'zam rahmatullahi alaihe has no part to play. Instead the Nas will be acted upon. Some short sighted people just pick up one Hadith and start saying that Imam A'zam's rahmatullahi alaih's certain opinion is against this Hadith. This is because of their ignorance or enmity.
Sahih Bukhari, collectively has been given preference, but that does not mean that each and every Hadith of Bukhari Sharif has priority over each and every Hadith of the other books of Ahadeeth. It can be possible that some Ahadeeth in other books have been given preference over Bukhari Sharif, upon which Imam A'zam's rahmatullahi alaihe opinion is based. Sheikh ibn Hamaam rahmatullahi alaihe has discussed this in Fath-hul-Qa deer.
It has been stated in Umdatul-Qari Sharhul-Bukhari Vol 8 pg.51:
Imam Bukhari's rahmatullahi alaihe claim, that all the Ahadeeth are Sahih, is not worth attention because definite evidence is needed to make an entire claim.
Therefore, declaring that Imam A'zam's rahmatullahi alaihe view is against Hadith and merely is an opinion, is itself a declaration without any evidence. It contradicts the evidence itself, which originates from lack of knowledge or enmity.
TAQLEED FOR A MUHAQIQ ALIM AND
CHANGING FROM ONE MAZHAB TO
ANOTHER
QUESTION NO. 1
What is the meaning of Taqleed in the terminology of the Fuqahaa ?
ANSWER NO.1
A person who can be trusted that his ruling will be in accordance with the evidence. Accepting his word and not asking him for proof is Taqleed, (Likewise it has been mentioned in Aqdul-Jayyid)
QUESTION NO.2
In reality, is it accepted by the Ulama that a person who is a Mujtahid himself cannot do Taqleed of anybody else, with the understanding of,
ANSWER NO.2
The preferred ruling is that, it is permissible for a Mujtahid to do Taqleed of another Mujtahid because Ijtihad is fractional. (Likewise is has been explained in Shami)
QUESTION NO.3
If a person does not hold the status of a Mujtahid, but he is an AIim of the Qur'aan and Sunnah and not only does he have deep knowledge of Sunnan-e-Nabawia, but he also understands the detailed fiqhi masa'il of the different Mazahib and knows which should be given preference. What is the ruling of his doing Taqleed of the Imams of the different Mazahib?
Is it important for him to stay connected with one Mazhab all the time and under no circumstances can he follow a different Mazhab, even though it may be regarding the same mas’alah? Or is it alright to take all the evidence of the different Mazahib into consideration and then act upon the one that is more closer to Qur'aan and Ahadeeth.
ANSWER NO.3
When he is not capable of doing Ijtihad although he might have deep knowledge, it is still important for him to do Taqleed of an individual. It is not right for him to follow another mazhab on the basis of his own opinion. Talfeeq is Bil-Ijma'a void and not permissible. (Likewise it has been stated in Dur-rul-Mukhtar)
Whilst being deprived of Ijtihad, making a statement about a mas’ala that it is in accordance with the Qur'aan and Sunnah, is beyond his status.
QUESTION NO.4
For instance, if somebody has started to follow one Mazhab, can he totally or partly follow another Mazhab later on or does he always have to stay with the first Mazhab?
ANSWER NO.4
If the trust, on the basis of which a person starts to do Taqleed of an Imam, starts to expire from one Imam, due to vast knowledge and deep understanding, then it is permissible to change Imam’s totally and not partly. Or else, Talfeeq will come into existence which is not permissible. (Likewise it has been stated in Hamwee)
QUESTION NO.5
'A person who does not have any knowledge of Qur'aan and Sunnah, he is one of the common folk. What is the ruling for such a person to move from one Mazhab to another Mazhab ?
ANSWER NO.5
This is not permitted. It is fulfilling the desires and it becomes a play. Aqdul-]ayyid, Insaaf, Sabeelur-Rashaad, AI-Iqtisaad, Intisaarul-Haq, Tayseer and At-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer, have all stated the detailed evidence regard-ing this issue.
IS IT AGAINST TAQLEED FOR A HANAFI TO FOLLOW SOMEBODY ELSE 'S VIEW?
QUESTION
What is the definition of Taqleed? Will a person still remain a Hanafi if he acts upon Imam Abu Yusuf’s rahmatullahi alaihe view or Imam Zufar's rahmatullahi alaihe. Also will he still remain a Hanafi if he acts upon the opinion of Imam Shafi'ee rahmatullahi alaihe or Imam Malik rahmatullahi alaihe at the time of need (for example the mas'alah of Mafqood).
ANSWER
For a Non Mujtahid to follow a Mujtahid, trusting him that he has the proof and evidence for it and he does not ask him for the evidence, is known as Taqleed.
The principle of Imam A' zam rahmatullahi alaihe which his students have described in de-tails and from which other masa'il are derived, whether these masa'il are directly from Imam Sahib rahmatullahi alaihe or not, a person who adopts them remains a 'Hanafi'. The views of Imam Sahibs students are in actual fact Imam Sahibs views, regardless of whether they are directly or indirectly from Imam Sahib. Therefore, acting upon them on special occasions does not expel an individual from Hanafiyah.
Sometimes, because of changes in occurrences and incidents, the ruling changed in a way that the scholars of the later era understood that if Imam Sahib rahmatullahi alaihe was still alive today, he would have made a certain ruling in a particular mas'alah. Therefore, they decided upon that ruling, regardless of whether that was the view of Imam Shafi'ee rahmatullahi alaihe or an opinion of any other Imam.
These type of changes, like the excellence of Hajj, nafl and Sadaqah etc., can be found in the time of Imam Sahib rahmatullahi alaihe himself. Hence, this does not cause any changes in Hanafiyah. Details can be found in Uqood Rasmul Mufti Ii Ibn Abideen.
Last edited by Musalmaan; 09-08-2006 at 03:20 PM. Reason: mark out "the importance of some part esp."
do you have aink for the above
jazakallahu khair
yep sure.
[link removed - refer to forum rules]
a great site ... alhamdulilah covers alot of thing.
may Allah reward them ajr-e-azeem and may we take benefit from it.
Last edited by Musalmaan; 09-08-2006 at 03:30 PM.
Is it really a neccessity to follow taqleed?
I see the 4 madhabs as guides, if we are not within the rulings of any 4 imams, then we are surely in the wrong.
But If we do an action which atleast 1 or 2 imams agree [with sound evidence from Quraan+/-Sunnah]...Then how can it be wrong?
for example:
placement of hands in salaah....One may have it upon his chest, and another below the naval. Depending on which imam had the most authentic/reliable sources, you would follow the one which is right/more authentic regardless of which out of the 4[Madhabs] you follow....
I mean, if it was done by RasoolAllah [SAW], and it was acknowledged that it was done, then how can we put off an act of the prophet [saw]?
Also, I don't think the sahaabah [raa] picked and chose which action to follow...did they?
Well, that's the way I see it, and I am willing to give up this opinion if anyone can prove me wrong and guide me to the straight path inshallah
Jazakallah khair
how many faraiz and waajibaat are their in salaah?
faraiz=plural of fardh
waajibaat=plural of waajib
helloo????
r u dere?
lol I'm sorry...
faraa'iz:
1-Niyyat (intention)
2-Tahrima (To say Allah Akbar)
3-Qiyam (Standing)
4-Qiraat (Recitation of Quran by mouth gently)
5-Ruku (To bow)
6-Sajda (Prostration)
7-Qa'da-i- Akhira (Last sitting)
waajibaat ... still searching ...
n niyyah is b4 salaah and not in salaah...
how much qiraat is fardh?
do u getting some ideas?
lol.....as if I don't know these things, HEY! I've been thru these
in fiqh lessons like a hundred times...
Here are the waajibaats:
1. To recite a part of the Quran in the first two rakahs of the Fard Prayers.
2. To recite Al-Fatiha in the first two rakahs of the Fard Prayer and in all the rakahs of the other Prayers.
3. To recite another Surah or a part containing one long verse or three short verses after Al-Fatiha in the first two rakahs of the Fard Prayers and in all the rakahs of the other Prayers.
4. To do the sequence in recitation, Ruku, Sajdah and the rakahs.
5. Qaumah
6. Jalsah
7. Ruku and Sajdahs
8. Qadah Ulaa, first sitting, for Tashahhud after two rakahs in the Prayers consisting of three or four rakahs.
9. To read Tashahhud in the two Qadahs.
10. To read the 2 durroods upon RasoolAllah[saw]
11. To raise hands with Takbir for the Qunut and to recite the Qunut in the last rakah of the Witr Prayer.----Witr salaah only----#
But I don't get it, what's the point?
brother, there are 14 waajibs and there are also mistakes in your waajib list, acc. to hanafi madhab.
moreover, Ruku and Sajdahs are fardh not wajib.
plz dont take me wrong, i m not letting you down or like disgracing you, but i want to show you the fact that what serious and open error r those who are mixing madhab. even like as u said u make fiqh lesson 100 times..if u forgetting it, then do realize what those who didnt take any lesson abt it??
Fardh / Waajib are the important part of ibadaat, it is fardh/waajib to know that.
if one misses a single fardh in salaah, no matter how elequent his rest salaah be, the salaah remains invalid and he has to repeat that salaah,
n if he misses waajib unknowingly, then he can make up that by sajdah sahw in the end, n if unfortunately he forgets to do sajdah sahw then his salaah becomes invalid thus he has to repeat that salaah.
one can do all this if he knows it and very well memorized all the fardh, waajib parts esp, then sunnah muakaddah and gair muakadah of salaah, similar case to other worship of Allah, so its duty on us what the madhab had properly carried out the detail, and dont get into difficult/unneccessary thing which we are not told/suppose to as per the command of ALLAH SWT, rather stick to madhab know its detail and then carried out it properly. one can not memorize all the detail w.r.t 4 madhabs, leave alone looking and memorizing daleel/evidences w.r.t each amal of ibaadaat.
For more detail, do ask to reliable ulema and have a go through abt the above post.
wama alaina illal balaghul mubeen.
Last edited by Musalmaan; 09-04-2006 at 11:49 AM.
hmm.....but this is salaahI pray how it's been taught to me, the right way. I don't mix madhaabs with this subject. It was a mere example.
I mean on other matters....
well brother, question rises who taught u this?format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
hmm.....but this is salaah
I mean on other matters....
even though everything is alhamdulilah properly documented listed for us.
Take a look at it.
http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/Part8.html
lol I'm not 'deviating' from the deen if that's what you think LOL
It's just a thought that came to mind.
Well it looks like it was a wrong concept....
Jazakallah for clearing up
Why do you feel the need to post such misleading texts that goes against the view of the majority of the aa'immah.
An 'aami (layman) has no madhhab according to the majority of the scholars. He is allowed to ask any trustworthy mufti and make taqleed of him hence they used to say, the madhhab of the layman is the madhhab of his mufti. A layman can adopt a madhhab if he wishes to become a taalibul-'ilm and study Fiqh.By Abuz-Zubair
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 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.”
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…”
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.”
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 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 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 said: “Indeed actions are based on intentions…”. 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.
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 then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah 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… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab:Imaam ibn 'Abd al Shakur al Biharee said in his famous book on Usool of the Hanafee Madhab, Musallam at-Thubutt,
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.”
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 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 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 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” – 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): “…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?!”
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)Then there is no waajib except what Allaah has made waajib, and Rule belongs to Him, and He did not make waajib to anybody to take a particular madhhab from men from Aaimaah (Imaams), making it waajib is a tashree’ ( legislation) of a new lawImaam Shurunbulalee, the Hanafee Imaam, said in al-‘Aqd-ul-Fareed :We conclude from what we said, it is not obligatory for a human (the layman) to make taqleed to a particular madhhabImaam Ibn Humaam said in Fath al-Qadeer:
And there is no waajib except what Allaah and His Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have made waajib, and Allaah and His Messenger did not make waajib on anybody from people to take a madhhab from madhhab of people from Aaimaah and he makes taqleed of them in his religion in all what occurs to him and he leaves othersThe Hanafee Imaam, Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said,A group of the hanafees is engrossed in extreme partisanship and bigotry in adhering strongly to the books of fataawa and when these people come across an authentic hadeeth or a clear aathar which is contrary to their madhhab they say, "If this hadeeth was authentic then (our) Imaam would have definitely issued verdicts according to it and not contrary to this, then this is the ignorance of these people.Shaykh Syed Anwar Shah al-Kashmiree who is a famous Hanafee Deobandee scholar said:
(al-Naaf'ie al-Kabeer)I have witnessed these people and they formulate defective and erroneous principles, so what else can be wished for after this. So when one of them finds a weak hadeeth according to his madhhab, he formulates the rule or principle that due to numerous routes (of this weak hadeeth) the blame of weakness is lifted or removed. Similarly when they find an authentic hadeeth contradicting their madhhab they immediately formulate the rule and principle that the hadeeth is Shaadh (i.e. weak) due to opposing something more authentic that it.Imaam Ibn Al-Qayyim said regarding whether a common person can follow a madhhab, he replied:
(Faidh al-Baaree)Indeed the common person cannot have a madhhab, even if he thinks that he does, since the common person has no madhhab at all. This is because the madhhab will be either for the one who is able to research to a certain level and understand evidence and also know about the other madhhabs or for the one who has read a book concerning the details of that madhhab and knows the ruling and sayings of his Imaam. As for the one who is unable to do any of that but merely says, "I am a Shaafi’ee ..." or "I am Hanbalee ..." etc., then he does not become that just by saying so, just as would be the case if he said, "I am a religious scholar ..." or "I am a scholar of grammar ..." or "I am a writer ..." then he does not become that just by saying so. This is further clarified by the fact that the one who says, "I am a Shaafi’ee ... or a Maalikee ... or a Hanafee ..." claiming that he follows that Imaam and his way, would only be truthful if he were to follow his way in acquiring knowledge, understanding and extraction of proof. As for this one, with his ignorance and being far from the manners of the Imaam and his knowledge and way, how can it be correct for him to ascribe himself to him except with mere claims and empty words having no meaning?! How can the common person have a madhhab? Even if it could be imagined, it would still not be obligatory upon him or anyone else to ever have to follow the madhhab of a certain man from the ummah, to the extent that he accepts all his sayings and rejects everyone else’s sayings.And he called this a filthy innovation.
A’laam ul-Muwaqqi’een
And this is why you find that the early Hanafee Imaams such as Luknawee, ibn 'Abideen, Ibn Humaam, et al said that the common person should not adopt a madhhab.
As for Shah Wallullah, he was a classical example of those who called for the re-opening of the doors of Ijtihaad. He differed with his madhhab on several occassions since he was a Mutjahid and not a Muqallid. In Hujjatullaah al-Baaligah, he said that the true view is that Witr is Sunnah differing with the Hanafee madhhab that Witr is Waajib. Shah Wallullah in his usool followed the same step as his predecessors and that is if evidence reaches them, they followed it and if not, they would give rulings based on their madhhab.Shah Wallullah is also credited for reviving the hadeeth approach in the Indian sub-continent.
The major points are that the layman should make taqleed of the people of knowledge (ask ahlul-Dhikr if you not know), one who is trustworthy and known for his knowledge, and the 'aami (layman) will stray from the Deen if he does not make taqleed of their verdicts without inquiring about the evidences since the layman cannot grasp it.
Those who have not reached the level of itjihaad but yet are above the level of laymen (such as the students of knowledge who are studying Fiqh), then they are required to choose a madhhab.
Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:And that which the majority of the Ummah are upon is that ijtihaad is permissible in general and taqleed is permissible in general. Ijtihaad is not obligated upon everyone whilst taqleed forbidden; neither is taqleed obligated upon everyone whilst ijtihaad forbidden. Rather, ijtihaad is permissible for the one who has the ability, and taqleed is permissible when ijtihaad cannot be performed.Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said regarding this:
Majmoo-al Fatawaa
The issue of sticking to a madhhab has in it some detail. If a person has the ability to know the ruling from its proof, and to deduce the ruling from its proof, then it is not permitted for him to cling to a madhhab rather, it is upon him to take the ruling from the evidence if he has the ability to do so. However, this is rare amongst the people, since this is a quality of the mujtahideen from the people of knowledge; those that have reaced the levels of ijtihaad. As for one who is not like that, then he cannot take the rulings directly from the evidences. And this is the predominant case amongst the people, especially in these latter times. So [in such a case] there is no harm in adopting one of the four madhhabs and making taqleed of one of them. However, he should not make blind taqleed such that he takes all that is in the madhhab; whether it is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is upon him to take from the madhhab that which - in his view - does not clearly oppose the evidence. As for those views in the madhhab which clearly oppose the evidence, then it is not permissible for the Muslim to take it. Rather it is upon him to adopt what is established by the proof, even if it is in another madhhab. So his leaving the madhhab for another madhhab in order to follow the evidence is something good; this is a matter which is good - rather it is obligatory; since following the evidence is an obligation."
Muntaqaa min Fataawaa
format_quote Originally Posted by IqramIs it really a neccessity to follow taqleed?
I see the 4 madhabs as guides, if we are not within the rulings of any 4 imams, then we are surely in the wrong.
But If we do an action which atleast 1 or 2 imams agree [with sound evidence from Quraan+/-Sunnah]...Then how can it be wrong?
for example:
placement of hands in salaah....One may have it upon his chest, and another below the naval. Depending on which imam had the most authentic/reliable sources, you would follow the one which is right/more authentic regardless of which out of the 4[Madhabs] you follow....
I mean, if it was done by RasoolAllah [SAW], and it was acknowledged that it was done, then how can we put off an act of the prophet [saw]?
Also, I don't think the sahaabah [raa] picked and chose which action to follow...did they?
Well, that's the way I see it, and I am willing to give up this opinion if anyone can prove me wrong and guide me to the straight path inshallah
Jazakallah khair
brother, it is allah who guides, firstly and formostly. i dont intend to attack you.
format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi
I no need to argue further on the issue of taqleed with you.
You have presented your article, I have presented mine.
Truth is Clear and Simple, false is complicated and is rather self-contradictory.
May Allah save us all from najdi fitnah and dajjali fitnah.
No, I’m not. I am aware of those group of ppl. Who call the muqallid of “Imaam-e-Mujhtahideen” in Ijtihadi matter (differenes of opinions) to be “blind follower”, “biddati”, “mushrik” etc. I'm just trying at my level to remove this misguidance and ignorance in them, insha'Allah.format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi
may Allah guide us all along to the right path.
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqramlol I'm not 'deviating' from the deen if that's what you think LOL
Well it looks like it was a wrong concept....
Jazakallah for clearing up
barikallaho fee.
i just wanted to inform u whats wrong in going into matter beyond priority. first thing first, a man who didnt give zakaah and busy in giving sadaqah is in deep error. his sadaqah is of no rewards. he should do fardh first, nafil come afterward. one pray all night nafil and sleep at fajir time or make fajir poorly is not an intelligent act.
I hope u understand what i'm trying to say. I, myself learning.
and yes there is leeway, but ask this to some authentic aalim. what can not come under talfeeq.
but we should learn deen first, all the thing which is compulsory is compulsory to learn first, and then if Allah will, move on to secondary things.
may Allah guide us along to the right path.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks