Ibn Al Qayyim on Taqleed

for your further interest:

Aswad bin Yazid narrates, "Mu'aath came to us in Yemen as a teacher and commander. We questioned him regarding a man who had died leaving (as his heirs) a brother and sister. He decreed half the estate for the daughter and half for the sister. This was while the Rasulullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam was alive."
[Kitaabul Faraa-idh: Bukhari and Muslim Shareef]

It will be realised from this Hadith Shareef that Taqleed was in vogue during the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihe wasallam. The questioner (in the Hadith) did not demand proof or basis for the decree. He accepted the ruling, relying on the integrity, piety and up-righteousness of Hazrat Mu,aath radiyallahu anhu. This is precisely Taqleed.

IMAAM ABU BAKR BIN ABI SHAYBAH (rahmatullahi alaih)


One of the benefactors of Hanafi Fiqh was a Buzrook by the name of Imaam Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaibah (rahmatullahi alaih). He passed away in 235 A.H. He had compiled a voluminous Hadith Kitaab, which spanned 16 volumes.

Nevertheless, there are two very important points regarding this Kitaab.

This Kitaab has a compilation of Fiq`hi Fataawa of more than 30 000 Sahaba (radhiAllaahu anhum) and Taabi`een (rahmatullahi alaihim). There does not appear any Qur`aanic proof from the Sahabi or Taabi`i providing the Fatwa. Nor is there any Hadith cited in support of the Fatwa given. There is also no record of objectors to these Fataawa.

This proves that during the era of the Sahabah and Taabi`een, Fataawa were given without and proof being cited from Qur`aan Shareef or Ahadith. The people practised upon these Fataawa without seeking any such proof. There is no evidence of anyone refuting these continuous practises. This is called Taqleed.





(some more good info., if you have interest in it)


The analysis of the differences Imaam Ibn Shaibah had with Hanafi Fiqh is as follows:

It is stated in ‘Inaaya’, which is the commentary of ‘Hidaya’, that the total number of Hanafi Fiqhi Masaa`il exceeds 1 260 000 (i.e. more than one million, two hundred and sixty thousand). Imaam Ibn Shaiba has differed upon only 125 Masaa`il. If we assume that his differences were exactly this (i.e.125), then the ratio between correctness and incorrectness of the Hanafi Masaa`il, would be one incorrect one to every 10 160 correct ones. Therefore, (according to one Hadith), there will be two rewards for every one of the 10 160 correct rulings and one reward for every one incorrect. It is very possible that there is no Muhaddith, who has attained this ratio of incorrect to correct rulings, ever.

When we study the differences of Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah, we note that there are atleast 60 Masaa`il, where there appears Ahadith on both sides. According to Imaam ibn abi Shaibah one Hadith is preferred and according to Imaam Saheb (rahmatullahi alaih) another Hadith is preferred. Imaam Saheb (rahmatullahi alaih) used to say: “If a Hadith is authenticated, then that is my Mazhab.” [Shaami]. Hence, we see that the Hadith he has preferred is an authentic one.

Imaam Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullahi alaih) said that Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alaih) only used authentic Ahadith, where the narrators were completely reliable. He was also well aware of ‘Naasikh Mansookh’ (i.e. which Hadith was abrogated and which was abbrogatory). He was also very particular to ascertain which action was the one executed by Nabi (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) during his last stages. He also kept his views in agreement to the majority of the Ulama of his time. [Al Khairaatul Hasanaat, page 30].

In those Ahadith where there existed ‘contradictions’, Imaam Saheb used to take that Hadith which he and other Muhadditheen accepted as the most authentic one. It is also apparent that he accepted the ‘replacement’ Hadith over the abrogated one and he considered those actions of Nabi (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) which were done at the last part of his life. It is also apparent that Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah did not apply that much attention to authentic Ahadith, therefore the Muhadditheen have place his Kitaab in the third category. He also did not pay that much attention to ‘Naasikh Mansookh’.

Hence, we can safely conclude that in the 60 odd differences raised by Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah, the view of Imaam Saheb is more correct and preferred.

Besides this, there are approximately a dozen Ahadith, where Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah has presented a ‘Khabar Waahid’ (Hadith related by a single person), whereas Imaam Saheb has presented Qur`aanic text in support of his view. It is clear that proof from the Qur`aan Shareef is most preferred.


There are approximately 1 ½ dozen Masaa`il where, Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah uses ‘Khabar Waahid’ whereas Imaam Saheb uses ‘Khabar Mash -Hoor’ (‘Famous’ Hadith). It is apparent that ‘Khabar Mash-Hoor’ holds preference over ‘Khabar Waahid’.

There are approximately 1 ½ dozen Masaa`il, where Imaam Ibn Abi Shaibah refutes these Masaa`il, whereas these Masaa`il are not even proven to be directly from Imaam Saheb. These are not even recorded in the Hanafi Fiqh Kitaabs. Here Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah has also erred.

There are approximately ten Masaa`il where there is a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the Hadith. Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah interprets it in one way and Imaam Saheb in another. It is apparent that there is no consideration given to difference in interpretation of Ahadith, whereas difference of opinion in Fiqh is taken into cognisance.

[Jaami` Bayaanul Ilm, page 131, vol.2 / Zail Jawaahir, page 485, vol.2 / Al-Khairaatul Hisaan, page 61].

Imaam Tirmidhi (rahmatullahi alaih) said: “He (Imaam Saheb) was a great Aalim in interpreting the Ahadith.” [Tirmidhi, page 118, vol.1].

There is a consensus of opinion amongst the Ummat that Imaam Saheb was a Mujtahid.

Nevertheless, there remains a dispute in six or seven Masaa`il.

The condition of Allaah Ta`ala’s acceptance is such that, even after Imaam ibn Abi Shaiba has written his Kitaab, there are still millions of people who follow the Mazhab of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alaih). There is not a single person, the world over who is a Muqallid of Imaam ibn Abi Shaibah.

Allaamah Abdul Qadir Qurashi, Allaamah Qaasim bin Qutlobugha and Allaamah Kawthari have written detailed refutations regarding this section in Imaam ibn Shaibah’s Kitaab.

It is recorded in the Ghair Muqallid periodical, “Al-I`tisaam”:

“Imaam A`zam (rahmatullahi alaih) has indeed, kept the conditions and needs of the civilisation of his era before him, and according to the Qur`aanic method of Mashwera, he formulated Fiqh according to sound Islamic principles. In reality, this is great achievement. It is impossible to refute this greatness and necessity (of his work).” [8 July 1960, page 5, column 1]

jazakAllahu khair bro musalmaan

The quote from Ibn Qayyim should also be taken with what he said in the following link.

http://www.islamicboard.com/679215-post17.html

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu


^^ do you think akhi that the article of ibn al-qayyim you have posted refutes taqleed? i believe it refutes that one shouldnt confine himself to one of the four madhaahib. that is an area which i have no knowledge.

however i really think taqleed is required for the laymen, and may Allah grant me understanding.

may Allah save us from being self appointed mujtahids, a'oodhubillah...

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud

Al Madani, that thread is saying alot of nonsense.

No one said its obligatory, but its very stupid not to follow one if you dont have the ijtihad to do your own study. Tell me how you would come to know how to do your salat, whats wajib and all the islamic knowledge not listed in the Qur'an without following a madhab otherwise? Assuming you are not a very educated scholar in Islam?

brother,

You have misinterpretated what is being said.

What we are saying (as Ibn Qayyim said) is that the layman has nothing to do with a madhab, all that is enough for him is to simply ask a mufti that he trusts and make taqlid of his fatwa. We are not saying Taqlid in an of itself is a reprehensible thing.

That thread is just propagating and advertising (hate to label but) salafism/******sm, truly this is the way to get misguided, end up following the untruth. Many times even going into haram, or otherwise. Some beliefs can even be seen as khufr.

Contrary to popular belief, salafism/wa habbism is not La Madhabi. The problem with those that make Taqlid of a madhab (especially those that are layman) do not appreciate a difference of opinion and even if they do not intend it, they end up considering others to be false.

Also contrary to popular belief, salafism/wa habbism is not a madhab. It is simply an ascription to the way of the Salaf. You'll find most of those that you label as such following the Hanbali Madhab.
http://www.islamicboard.com/725790-post4026.html

Now lets keep sectarianism out of this thread Insha'Allaah.

As a layman, should he believe that he has the intelligence to be able to deduce whats islamic and not MORE than the previous great scholars like Hanafi? What good is it for me to read 1-2 lines that most of you guys post to show evidence of, when you could not even comprehend the context as much as those great people?

We were simply saying that one does not have to confine himself to one madhab and leave the others. The layman has nothing to do with madhabs in the first place. Our job is to simply ask a mufti we trust and follow him blindly. A layman does not even know how the rulings are derived in a madhab so how can he even asribe himself to it?!

Taqleed has heavily been practiced in the last 1400 years, openly and our prophet :saw: never said its wrong. What now is happening - its recent thing to - is that its WRONG to do this. I surely do not believe the common misconception, which has been going on for the recent 200 odd years, can ever even doubt my stance on this matter.
The divide, and the "secting" if you want it to be called is due to this alone. Don't blame "madhabs" for this.

You are confusing between Taqlid of the Messenger and the Salaf and a school of thought.

The harms that blind following of a madhab have brought are clear in history. For example you'll find in the Shafiie books of old that they disallow marriage to hanafi's but they allow marriage to the people of the book! When the layman crossed the boundaries of Taqlid, you'll find in history books that a Hanafi city used to be taken over by a Shafiee city and they used to humilate the lattar etc. This kind of ignorance still exists today, where people will even call you an apostate for simply praying a bit differently than them! People have gone to extremes and have stated statements such as "Any hadith or verse in contradiction to our Imam is rejected" etc etc etc. This is from the harms of simplying ascribing yourself to one person and taking his words as the only source of rulings.

We are NOT saying madhabs are bad or wrong. They are definetly good and the works of the Imams and those that followed them is definetly crucial to the religion. It is when one layman ascibes himself to one person (of the 4 imams) yet not knowing what their methadology was.

This is exactly what Ibn Qayyim was saying:

As for the one who is unable to do any of thatbut 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 religious scholar...' or 'I am a scholar of grammar...' then does he become that just by saying so. This is futher clarified by the fact that the one who says 'I am 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 acquing knolwedge, understanding and extraction of proof. As for this one, with his ignorance and being far from the manners of the Imaam and his knolwedge 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 saying and rejects everyone else's sayings.

This is a filthy innovation introuduced tinto the ummah.

No scholar of Islaam has ever said this and they are higher in station and better knowing about Allah than to order the people about this. Even futher from the truth is the saying of those who say that he must stick to the madhhab of a single scholar and futher still from the truth is the one who says, he must follow one of the four madhhabs! O Allah, how strange!

[...]

Rather, he should seek from whom he wishes from the followers of the four madhhabs and others besides them. It is not obligatory upon him or upon the one who delievers verdicts (muftee) to limit himself to one of the four Imaams. Upon this is the consensus of the ummah, just as it is not obligatory upon the scholar to restrict himself to the hadeeths reported by the people of his land or any land in particlular, rather, if any hadeeth is authentic it is obligatory to act upon it, (*) whether it is reported of the people of the Hijaaz, 'Iraaq, Shaam, Egypt or Yemen."

Tell me what was the madhab of the four Imams. All Four Imams followed the Madhab of the Prophet, the difference lies in the way they developed their understanding of it.

Tell me according the hanbali madhab for example, who do they say is a Hanbali? i.e. who according to them qualifies as a 'Hanbali'? I assure you they don't say that a layman qualifies as a 'Hanbali'.

And from the above article:

Thus, it cannot be reasonable that He, in his Wisdom and Mercy, has obligated His entire creation to know the truth with a proof (dalil) and to be able to refute the one who disagrees with him in all the matters of the din, both the subtle and the obvious. Had that been the case, then everyone would have to be at the same level as our scholars. On the contrary, Allah has made one man a scholar, another a student, and this one a follower of the scholar, who considers him an Imam, just as one who follows his Imam in prayer.

[...]

The Companions would simple give their legal opinions and nowhere do the Companions say to them, "Go seek knowledge of the truth of this fatwa with a sound proof (Dalil)." Never do we find this, not once! Indeed, is not taqlid a necessary part of existence and responsibility; and there for of the Sacred Law and the Divine Decree?

This is EXACTLY what we are saying. The layman has NOTHING to do with any of the evidences, therefore having nothing to do with a madhab. Notice that the article does not say Taqlid of a Madhab, but of "learned people" and therefore the learned person can be of any Madhab and that is not of concern to the layman. It is enough for him to ask those of knowledge and make Taqlid of the fatwa he receives. This is the clarification that I was trying to make because someone can read that and assume that taqlid of a madhab is acceptable when Ibn Qayyim has clearly censured that elsewhere.

I don't want to go through a whole discussion again, so I'll leave it at this and you can refer to the other thread I linked to in my previous post. Allaahu Alam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4

Taqleed.....? :X

assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

my understanding of taqleed is to take our islaam from qualified and well versed scholars without asking for much proof but trusting in their knowledge. Such as taking from the qualified mujatihds of the madhaahib.

that is my little understanding, and may Allah make the siratul mustaqeem as clear as light to me and the ummah

Ameen

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm 'Abdullah

When you say it is required, you mean wajib/fardh? And when you say taqleed, you mean blind following? As in you follow one madhhab, and take your fataawa from that madhhab only and no other madhhab?

So what about if you know your madhhab has the weaker opinion? And you know there are ahadith that contradict that opinion, and all the other madhhabs have a consensus on another opinion? Would you still follow the opinion of your madhhab?

Sorry about all the questions.

I believe insha'allah I can answer this question since I suppose I am in a similar boat

Yes usually when you do taqleed of a madhab, you usually do taqleed of one madhab and one madhab only. That is not to say you think the other madhahib are wrong.

Brother Al madani gave examples of people in the past who went to extremes. You'll rarely find this however, most people of madhab respect others of the otehr madhabs. It is very very rare for people to argue if a shafi has such and such an opinion and tries to say he is right and a hanafi is wrong. it is extremely rare, just like there are brothers out there who have said it is bidaa', and some have gone to extremes to say it is even shirk a'oudobhilla to follow a madhab. This is why most people mix the la madhabis and the salafis, because it is usually the "salafis" who say this, but again it is rare

Now If I follow Imam Abu Hanifah, that does not mean I think a shafi' is wrong. I believe we are both right, both of us are laymen, we are following an educated scholar, and we will get our reward regardless of whether it turns out to be right or wrong. The Imams will get either one reward or two rewards as they are the ones that did ijtihaad

You ask what if we are following the weaker opinion?
Well sister thats the whole issue, we believe we are not in a position to say if a hadith is weak or not. There are so many things to know about a hadith, detailed biographies of each person in the narration, where the hadith was delievered, where it was passed on. Its more than just one hadith being in Bukhari, and another being in Tirmidhi, if they are contradicting it does not mean the Bukhari hadith is the strong one, and the other is weak. It could be that the two took places at different times.

For example, raising of the hands before and after ruku, the hanafis and the malikis are aware of the hadith that says the prophet did raise his hands b4 and after ruku, its not that they didn't come accross the hadith, its just they have other hadith contradicting that, but they interpreted the hadith, that say you dont have to raise your hands, as being during the end stages of the prophets life, thus throughout his life the hanafis believe early he used to rasie his hands, at the end he didnt. By the way hanafis do permit the raising of hands, it is not haram according to the hanafi madhab

Also a hadith can never contradict an opinion of a madhab, it can only appear so to a laymen. A madhab probably used that hadith in perspective, and came to another ruling, or the imam followed another hadith which he believed was stronger

Finally when there is ijmaa of all the other scholars, there is more leeway to follow the other opinion then, although some still stick to one in order for their nafs to not get tampered with, as they fear they might start following their desires and keep looking at the other madhahib and follow what seems eitehr to them. They prefer to stick on one, respect the views of the others, and often not even look at the other madhabs, in case they dont trust their nafs from following an opinion that think may seem easier

I hope this answers your questions

I genuinely believe it is NOT a very significant issue. There are far greater issues out there. Often I see brotehrs arguing about whether to follow a madhab or not, where next door to them there are muslims who dont even pray, while these apparantly deviant muslims, who do or do not follow a madhab (depending on which side you are on) are regularly praying in the mosque

We need to put things into the correct perspective. Lets not forget, over these minor fiqhi issues, difference of opinions are allowed, they were allowed during the time of the sahabah, it is important to note though that we have the same 'aqeeda, and same kalimah of course

I hope I havent offended any1 by what I have said, any more questions please feel free to ask

Wsalam

Um Abdullah, sis is that you

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu


sis Umm Abdullah, first off i just want to say, i hardly have any knowledge and am very likely to make lots of mistakes. In the process of learning inshaAllah.



You asked me how i interpret taqleed, i say my taqleed is me taking from the scholars of a madhab because they have more knowledge then i could hope to achieve.
^ That is to put it simply, theres much more depth to why i say this, its because i understand how these madhabs run, how they have come about, what people they have produced. 1 reward for a wrong ijtihaad, 2 for a right one saheeh? im not a mujtahid, so i will be a muqallid, im ok with the 1 reward as long as it will still lead me to jannah.



sis we all blind follow certain scholars/books etc. When we take from sheikh nasirudeen albanee, sheikh ibn abdul wahhab, sheikh ibn baaz may Allah have mercy on them all, we trust Their works, Their opinions, Their interpretations.

Saheeh?


may Allah save us from being self appointed mujtahids,....

Ok so do you believe it is obligatory to follow a madhhab?

laa adree, i think it helps, and i think people are very likely to be misguided without one.

And do you think there is anything wrong with a layman going to a mufti for his fataawa, without following a madhhab?

laa adree, i think if the laymen had a madhab, he would understand the fatawaa better as he understands his madhab. lets not forget that the sahabi's had differences of opinion, the tabieen had differences of opinion, the tabi tabi'een had differences of opinion. and now we people of little knowledge have difference of opinion. Who do we go to? which opinion do we take? the most saheeh? how do you know which one is most saheeh? Do you think you can deduce the mass evidence yourself?

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?

as brother musalmaan stated, this was directed to learned men, not us laymen.

You say that a hadith can never contradict what the four imams said. But how can that be?

if a hadith controdicts them then we will look into it carefully, fully deeply, understand all context, and go to a learned scholar and see whats happening. but a great scholar such as ibn abi shaybah didnt differ with imam abu hanifah and his fiqh other then on out of 1.2 million, 125 of them..... why do you doubt sister? it will be so rare to find a controdiction, and if you find masses and masses of controdictions, then audhubillah may Allah save me from suspicion but it seems that the person who is bringing out these controdictions knew better then imam abu hanifa and his students.....

Since they held different opinions on some issues. Can both be correct?

1 reward for the wrong one, two for the right.

The differing is allowed? Do you mean it is a mercy?

remember the prophet saws when he was asked by jibrail AS to go to battle, and then gave the order to the sahabi's to run to battle asap and pray Asr upon arrival, some feared they will miss asr so they prayed, some didnt in order to obey the prophet sallallahi alaihi wasallam. the prophet smiled when he heard and rebuked none.

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?

we should stick to the majority, na'am.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4

wa alaikum ussalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

So Taqleed as in following Imaam Hanafi, Imaam Malik, etc?

Sorry akhee... :X

dont be sorry ukhtee
taqleed could even be for example, say a scholar says:

i present so and so hadith, the explenation is so and so, my reasoning is so and so.

we check his credentials, we choose if we trust him or not.


i choose to make taqleed of the hanafi madhab yes sister.


taqleed.. blind following?

subhanAllah, then we are all blind following, because eveyrone makes taqleed believe it or not. everyone... and as much as we'd like to believe, we have to make taqleed, because we cant go DIRECTLY to the prophet sallallahi alayhi wa sallaam.