I am a barelvi incligning towards Ahl e Hadis with a lot of confusion

[ShahJahan]

Assalam Alaikum.

###################

[This is MY background, you can skip reading this part]
I'm 31 years old from Mumbai, India. My mother is a hanfi barelvi, married to a hanfi deobandi and my neighbour is an Ahl e hadith! Due to this I'm exposed to very contradicting opinions. They would almost never come to equal terms and always claim to be on the right path. I mostly followed Barelvism since my mother's family (all staunch barelvis) always had a good influence in our house. I never cared much about religion, until lately. Then I started reading about Islam and went to listen to sermons by maulanas, but in my country most sermons are generally bashing the other sect! This only increased my confusion! Then I stopped listening to sermons and started reading and watching youtube videos on specific topics of my interest, but still some confusion remains and thus I'm here, to seek help and knowledge from fellow brothers and sisters and increase my knowledge and perhaps end my confusion?!

###################

Now these are my questions related to figh

1) Barelvis and deobandis believe that following one of the 4 imams (Hanfi, Shafi, Hambli, Malki) is necessary. This leads me to a mental distress because these imams often have different rulings on the same topics.

Like I've heard (kindly provide citation for this if you can) that according to hanfi touch or kiss doesn't break wudhu, but according to Shaafi even touching does. Ahl e hadith say that if the touch/kiss is sexual, the wudhu will break, otherwise not. Quran categorically says to follow Allah and Prophoet Muhammad SAWS, and I kept following hanfi fiqh, but now I have mental unrest that I'm wrong and now follow Hadis.

Also, in namaz hanfi hold hands below navel for men and on chest for women, and shafi do both on chest (kindly provide citation for this if you can). Whereas Prophet Muhammad SAWS said pray as you see me praying to both men and women?

Say ameen loud in congregational prayers in Shafi and silent in Hanfi (kindly provide citation for this if you can)

Eating prawn in forbidden in Shafi and Maqruh in Hanfi (kindly provide citation for this if you can)

(Kindly provide more of such examples of contradicting verdicts to the same query according to different fiqhs, as I'm trying to compile a chart for educational purposes and future references and research on fiqhs.)


Now I followed Hanfi Barelvism all my life without giving much thought, but now since I started thinking, it has created a problem. We are taught that ALL four fighs are infallible and we HAVE TO follow one, you cannot mix and match (despite their infallibility). My problem is
how can all of them holding contradictory views to be simultaneously correct, as I believe they can be situationally right, but NOT simultaneously right?
How can we prove their infallibility? Since they are only humans, couldn't they err?!
What about the quran and hadith then?! Even when we have hadith to say otherwise, we are told that every sahaba saw Prophet doing things differently and thus by having 4 imams, Allah has preserved all of his sunnahs?! (citation?)
I imagined what will happen on Day of Judgement? Allahs says I'm told (kindly provide citation for this if you can) that he will do justice and everyone will be treated equally of their deeds, like likewise deeds will have likewise reward/punishment and that he is the best of judges. Now if all 4 are correct, wouldn't this contradict the basic premise of justice of same judgement for same deeds? Will he accuse a Shafi that his wudhu was broken and not hold Hanfi accountable for the same according to the above example?!

What is the correct opinion here? I'm talking the 4 imams are great scholars, but NOT infallible and thus, NOT worthy to be blindly followed, but rather to take the strongest opinion of the 4 imams (and more!) according to the Quran and Hadith. This will protect us, if they might have erred. Is my this opinion correct? What does this make me?! People now call me WahaabDa (Wahaabi), Gair Muqallid (non follower?) etc and that I'm misguided and even a Qafir to think that the 4 great imams are NOT infallible and disrespecting to them and thus a Qafir?! Is it so?! Is there a verse in Quran or Hadith that I have to follow one of the fiqhs, and somehow ignore their contradictions?


###################

Now these are my questions related to barelvism

I was (am?) a Barelvi and was told that in the times of Prophet Moses AS there was a women and she came and asked the Prophet to ask Allah when will she have children. Prophet Musa AS went to Mount Sinai(?) and Allah told him she is barren and will never have children. Phophet AS told so to the women. Then few years later when Musa AS went to the same place, the women saw her and told him O Musa AS you said I'm barren but I have (I forgot the exact number) many children now. Musa AS got angry and went to Mount Sinai and asked Allah about this. Allah said, O Musa sacrifice something from your body in my name and Musa AS (I think) cut a part of his ear lobe. Then Allah guided him to go to a specific man (Barelvis say he was a Wali) and ask him to sacrifice a part of his body in Allah's name, and his cut his body's flesh(!) from arms, chest, and all over body and said in name of Allah, take all! Allah said that this Wali of mine was hungry and went to that village and said he who give me one chapati (food) O Allah give him One child, he who gives me 2 chapatis give him 2 children, 3.. and so on. This women when heard this, gave him ALL his chapatis (forgot the exact number) and in honour of this Wali, I (Allah) granted her children. (kindly provide citation for this if you can)

I accepted this ALL my life as a miracle of Wali, as we are taught since young age about such miracles in Barelvism. But recently I found this disturbing because of the self mutilation of the body and even doubted the authenticity of the story. Is there a citation that it actually happened?!

I've also heard about Walis having Superhuman abilities like walking on water, flying, etc being told to us. (Kindly provide more of such examples of superhuman abilities and 'miracles' of Walis, if possible with citation, as I'm trying to compile a chart for educational purposes and future references and research on Walis)

 

[MidnightRose]

[MENTION=39216]ShahJahan[/MENTION]



Welcome to the forum! I hope your stay with us will be beneficial and enjoyable.

You certainly have a lot of information to cover.

To help you get a better understanding of Hanafi fiqh and the differences in jurisprudential understanding, I recommend that you read the following books. You can access a free PDF copy of each by clicking on each respective image.

Take your time reading through them to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Also, please do read them thoroughly.

 

[eesa the kiwi]

id be more worried about the shirk in barelvism rather than differences in fiqh
perhaps aqeedah should be your area of focus to study

 

[ShahJahan]

Walekum Assalam.

Welcome to the forum! I hope your stay with us will be beneficial and enjoyable.

Thank you, I hope so too.

You certainly have a lot of information to cover.

To help you get a better understanding of Hanafi fiqh and the differences in jurisprudential understanding, I recommend that you read the following books. You can access a free PDF copy of each by clicking on each respective image.

Take your time reading through them to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Also, please do read them thoroughly.

Thanks for the books. That's a lot of information though! I would request and appreciate a tailored answer to my questions in specific, although I'm open to education and will certainly look into those books, In Sha Allah.

id be more worried about the shirk in barelvism rather than differences in fiqh
perhaps aqeedah should be your area of focus to study

Aqeedah IS my focus brother! I'm worried that my aqeedah is (for lack of a better word) 'contaminated' by all the stories of 'Babas' and 'Walis' and seriously doubt the authenticity of it. Thus I request others to kindly post such 'miracles of Auliyah Allah' so that they can be confirmed/refuted and I'm compiling them so that I can then perhaps later on guide others, or just for archival purposes. But this aqeedah is NOT just under threat by Barelvism, but also the 4 fiqhs, IMO. How will Allah judge, if ALL of them are simultaneously correct?! Is prawn haram for Shaafi, but maqrooh for Hanfi? How can this be called justice, if there's a different outcome for the same deed, assuming ALL of them are SIMULTANEOUSLY right?! Thus, I'm pretty much inclining away from Hanfi Barelvism towards Ahl e Haditism! BUT since childhood, in almost all the sermons, Ahl e Hadith and Debonandis were so demonized in my mosques and outside, that I fear if my decision is on the right track. Thus was this thread!

 

[Scimitar]

Dude, there are NO bab's and wali's - it's all crap mate. Thet won't save you from hell fire. I'm Indian myself, and seen all sorts of nonsense in India like that, including worshipping at graves and asking the dead to do this, that and the other - it is unislamic and totally retarded.

Ignore your parents and your neighbour - they are all on the wrong path by choosing brelwi, deobandi and mumbia-fundi Ajmer is a JOKE - I wish someone levels it to the ground... Pure and blatant shirk happens there.

NO BS bro, but if a BABA or WALI comes to my face, I am slapping their face before they can open their mouth. They are con artists of the worst kind, evil EVIL MEN.

Scimi

 

[startingarabic]

There are a few links here for you to read up on
barelvis

The Dirty Mushirk Barelvi Grave worshipers Abu Zaheer Collection
http://carryonummah.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-dirty-mushirk-barelvi-grave.html
The Mushirk belief of Bareilawi Abu Zaheer Silly extreme Collection
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-mushirk-belief-of-bareilawi-abu.html
Mushrik barelvi Asrar Rashid propagator Vs Ustaadh Abdur Rahman
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mushrik-barelvi-asrar-rashid-propagator.html

If you know urdu I can give you a few quotes from books
if you dont want to read full books on




barelvis

..

 

[greenhill]

You most probably would, brother Scimitar.

Lucky it won't be the blade that puts the head apart from the body

Syirk. By the sounds of things.

On the 4 main imaams, or schools, I adhere to the belief that the deen is not made to be difficult for us. We do have a tendency to question a lot, thereby making it dufficult for ourselves.

Syafi is most meticulous.

At the end, you are judged by your intentions. Then on your action(s). So, here's the deal, if the intention is not because of Allah, then it is purely for the dunya. What a waste. Surah At Takkatur.

We do our best to please Allah by following what we learn and practice. The purpose is to develop a caring and just society. Moving away from that purpose would be oppression.

About prawns and stuff, those peripheral points we have to believe in Allah is ir Rahman ir Rahim. Most Just. He won't wrong a soul.


eace:

 

[startingarabic]

I can not read the Urdu but got it from a Arabic web site.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ah3J7Oe7MxOdhUlU1F0i8D4ReOjm
http://www.ircpk.com/books/
http://www.ircpk.com/

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Welcome to the forum, ShahJahan.

As pointed by brothers above, there are two different issues here. One of them is related to Aqeedah and the other is related to Fiqh.

I will answer the fiqh part first. Each Madhhab is based on certain principles and methodology to derive ruling from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The differences between them arise due to the differences in interpretation and prioritization of Religious Texts. Please see this thread for a detailed explanation on why are there differences of opinion among scholars and madhhabs: http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/134297764-differences-opinions-scholars.html


With regards to your specific questions, let us see why.

Like I've heard (kindly provide citation for this if you can) that according to hanfi touch or kiss doesn't break wudhu, but according to Shaafi even touching does. Ahl e hadith say that if the touch/kiss is sexual, the wudhu will break, otherwise not. Quran categorically says to follow Allah and Prophoet Muhammad SAWS, and I kept following hanfi fiqh, but now I have mental unrest that I'm wrong and now follow Hadis.

Allah :swt: says in the Qur'an,
O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful. [5:6]

The Arabic word here is لامستم v. لمس which means touch. It does not specify what type of touch.

Now based on this, Imam Ash-Shaf'ee says wudhu will break by merely touching a woman. Because according to him, when there is a definitive text in the Qur'an, we do not have to look further for any other explanation.

Further, (from http://islamqa.org/shafii/qibla-shafii/33978 )

[FONT=&quot]Next, taking a look at the verse itself… Allah mentions a number of things that would cause one to lose ritual purity. Allah first mentions the state of major ritual impurity resulting from sexual climax or intercourse “junuban” as a cause for having to make ghusl, then He mentions a second level of acts that cause one to fall into a state of ritual impurity that can be raised by making tayammum (going to the bathroom and touching a woman).. many scholars maintain that “lams” cannot mean sexual relations with women because the term “junuban”, which is already mentioned in the verse, covers this meaning… thus, they suggest, “lams” must refer to a lesser act that is not on the level of sexual relations as this would be redundant.[/FONT]​

But there are Ahadeeth that mention that Rasulullah :saws: used to pray tahajjud in his home and he used to move the leg of our mother 'Aisha :raha: to make space for performing Sajdah, while in prayer. Based on this Hadith, other Imaams have ruled that the touch mentioned in the above Ayah means sexual contact, not just a touch.


As you can see, both the rulings have strong daleel for them. We cannot simply decide which one to act upon based on our limited knowledge and understanding. The Fuqaha have studied all other possible narrations and then arrived at their conclusion. All of their rulings follow a set of principles, for example:
First priority is Qur'an
Then the actions of the Prophet :saws:
Then the actions of the Sahabah :rahm:
The Mutawatir Ahadeeth
The rigorously authenticated Ahadeeth
etc

Following one of them is following these principles in applying the fiqh rulings.


I will try to clarify your other examples later :ia:.

 

[ShahJahan]

Assalam Alaikum (or Walekum Assalam to those who salaamed first!)

Dude, there are NO bab's and wali's - it's all crap mate. Thet won't save you from hell fire. I'm Indian myself, and seen all sorts of nonsense in India like that, including worshipping at graves and asking the dead to do this, that and the other - it is unislamic and totally retarded.

Ignore your parents and your neighbour - they are all on the wrong path by choosing brelwi, deobandi and mumbia-fundi Ajmer is a JOKE - I wish someone levels it to the ground... Pure and blatant shirk happens there.

NO BS bro, but if a BABA or WALI comes to my face, I am slapping their face before they can open their mouth. They are con artists of the worst kind, evil EVIL MEN.

Scimi

Since the major part of Sufism and/or Barelvism is the belief on 'miracles', I'm thinking of creating a thread in which several 'miracles' which are often cited by Barelwis are addressed in the light of Quran and Hadith. Like how xyz walked on water, when Prophet Moses AS could NOT. Also, how they can fly, even give life to dead and make dua so that a person will NEVER die, and who, then it is believed didn't die, with people still claiming to see him alive after a 1000 years! I have several of such citations and I wish to juxtapose this with Quran and Hadith, like confirm it with a similar miracle OR refute it as how NOBODY else was able to do so. I wish to create such a juxtaposition with the intention of educational comparison, so that others can form their opinions and confirm or refute it. I'm in a state of doing this In Sha Allah soon enough.

This will NOT be, and should NOT be, construed as bashing a particular sect. As I'm even willing to and open to cite their explanations and even their citations of Quran and Hadith. This will be a mere juxtaposition, where I would cite the miracles of Awliya with a Quran/Hadith confirming/refuting it. People can then form opinions on it. I would then need your ALL help in guiding me to a Quranic verse or Hadith. Like how death is haq when an Auliya gave eternal life to somebody OR a similar Quranic verse or Hadith which says that this is possible or perhaps even a precedent from Prophets, Sahabas, etc. This will be a mere educational exercise, where ALL opinions will be cited in the light of Islam, since I don't think this has been done extensively. There are examples mentioned, but NOT completely studied with ALL the known examples being brought under a lens. This MIGHT be considered unnecessary, but I want to do this, if nothing, then as a mere educational exercise. All help will be appreciated.

There are a few links here for you to read up on
barelvis

The Dirty Mushirk Barelvi Grave worshipers Abu Zaheer Collection
http://carryonummah.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-dirty-mushirk-barelvi-grave.html
The Mushirk belief of Bareilawi Abu Zaheer Silly extreme Collection
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-mushirk-belief-of-bareilawi-abu.html
Mushrik barelvi Asrar Rashid propagator Vs Ustaadh Abdur Rahman
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mushrik-barelvi-asrar-rashid-propagator.html

If you know urdu I can give you a few quotes from books
if you dont want to read full books on

barelvis

..

That's a lot of videos, thanks for them. I'll be downloading them and then watch it later.

As for books,
I can read and understand English and Hindi
Cannot read but understand (listen) Urdu
Can read but NOT understand Arabic!

On the 4 main imaams, or schools, I adhere to the belief that the deen is not made to be difficult for us. We do have a tendency to question a lot, thereby making it dufficult for ourselves.

Syafi is most meticulous.

At the end, you are judged by your intentions. Then on your action(s). So, here's the deal, if the intention is not because of Allah, then it is purely for the dunya. What a waste. Surah At Takkatur.

We do our best to please Allah by following what we learn and practice. The purpose is to develop a caring and just society. Moving away from that purpose would be oppression.

About prawns and stuff, those peripheral points we have to believe in Allah is ir Rahman ir Rahim. Most Just. He won't wrong a soul.
eace:

I too understand that intentions are important, but this madhab issue for me is more of a aqeedah issue, than just the triviality of eating prawns. It is NOT prawn per se, it is the issue of how Allah will judge if ALL of them are SIMULTANEOUSLY correct? Will he punish a Shaafi for eating something Haraam, but pardon a Hanfi as for him it was just Maqrooh? Wouldn't this make Allah (nauzbillah) unjust?!

I also find this issue of madhabs to be (IMO) in contradiction to the divine command,

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.
-Quran 33:36 (Surah Al-Azaab)

Also,

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.
-Quran 4:82 (Surah An-Nisa)

And since the madhhabs often contradict, I find it much disturbing! Since rather than looking and interpreting the Quran and the Hadith and taking the strongest opinions, we are just following with the intention of the infallibility of our madhab? Is it even possible for them to be completely infallible, since they are only humans? And if we assume them to be infallible, will this belief be considered Shirk to Allah, since we assume them to be infallible when only Allah is infallible? Or NOT shirk, but still kufr as we gave them (IMO) prophethood with our assumption of infallibility? Since prophets are infallible by the decree of Allah as to how he always sends Jibreel AS to them before they might have done/said something wrong and protects them for errors (otherwise those errors would have become Sunnahs!). So if we believe the imams to be infallible, aren't we giving them divinity/prophethood? OR if we know them to be fallible, then why take everything they say to be our law, knowing they might have erred?! These are the questions which are bothering me!

I can not read the Urdu but got it from a Arabic web site.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ah3J7Oe7MxOdhUlU1F0i8D4ReOjm
http://www.ircpk.com/books/
http://www.ircpk.com/

Thanks brother, but I can't read urdu.
Kindly see my reply above to startingarabic.

Welcome to the forum, ShahJahan.

As pointed by brothers above, there are two different issues here. One of them is related to Aqeedah and the other is related to Fiqh.

I will answer the fiqh part first. Each Madhhab is based on certain principles and methodology to derive ruling from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The differences between them arise due to the differences in interpretation and prioritization of Religious Texts. Please see this thread for a detailed explanation on why are there differences of opinion among scholars and madhhabs: http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/134297764-differences-opinions-scholars.html


With regards to your specific questions, let us see why.


Allah :swt: says in the Qur'an,
O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful. [5:6]

The Arabic word here is لامستم v. لمس which means touch. It does not specify what type of touch.

Now based on this, Imam Ash-Shaf'ee says wudhu will break by merely touching a woman. Because according to him, when there is a definitive text in the Qur'an, we do not have to look further for any other explanation.

Further, (from http://islamqa.org/shafii/qibla-shafii/33978 )

Next, taking a look at the verse itself… Allah mentions a number of things that would cause one to lose ritual purity. Allah first mentions the state of major ritual impurity resulting from sexual climax or intercourse “junuban” as a cause for having to make ghusl, then He mentions a second level of acts that cause one to fall into a state of ritual impurity that can be raised by making tayammum (going to the bathroom and touching a woman).. many scholars maintain that “lams” cannot mean sexual relations with women because the term “junuban”, which is already mentioned in the verse, covers this meaning… thus, they suggest, “lams” must refer to a lesser act that is not on the level of sexual relations as this would be redundant.​

But there are Ahadeeth that mention that Rasulullah :saws: used to pray tahajjud in his home and he used to move the leg of our mother 'Aisha :raha: to make space for performing Sajdah, while in prayer. Based on this Hadith, other Imaams have ruled that the touch mentioned in the above Ayah means sexual contact, not just a touch.


As you can see, both the rulings have strong daleel for them. We cannot simply decide which one to act upon based on our limited knowledge and understanding. The Fuqaha have studied all other possible narrations and then arrived at their conclusion. All of their rulings follow a set of principles, for example:
First priority is Qur'an
Then the actions of the Prophet :saws:
Then the actions of the Sahabah :rahm:
The Mutawatir Ahadeeth
The rigorously authenticated Ahadeeth
etc

Following one of them is following these principles in applying the fiqh rulings.


I will try to clarify your other examples later :ia:.

:wasalam:
Using the same example as above, isn't there a need to like recompile the Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh)? It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that during the times of the 4 great Imams, the Hadith were NOT extensively compiled like Bukhaari and Muslim, as they were later on. And in the lack of such extensive collection, they did the best the could have at that time. But now, with the compilation, understanding, interpretation and even the use and help of electronic means to simplify in searching a hadith, shouldn't we 'unify' these differences of interpretations?

Like how Shaafi took the the literal translation and how Hanfi took the prophetic example. Should be unify the ruling to something along the lines,
If it is a sexual touch, or a sexual kiss then the wudhu will break, but if the touch did NOT have sexual intention, then the wudhu will remain.
THIS rather than saying that they are BOTH correct in their opinions, while they did NOT mention the intention of the touch, just understood touch according to their understanding and came to a conclusion?

I read your article from the link you posted. And now I'm even more confused!

As for the interpretation of a single word like the example of iddah period you gave, I was expecting that Prophet Muhammad :saws: would have in his lifetime ironed out such interpretations of words. Like when people would have asked him :saws: he would have told them that her iddah will be of [his :saws: opinion here] and thus cleared it out.

For your section on "Differences of Opinion Arising from the Noble Ahādith", I always thought (assumed) the Hadith to be authentic (sahih?), weak (Dhaeef?) or unauthentic(...?). I was NOT aware that there's even here a split of opinion amongst scholars between the authenticity of the hadith, except perhaps Shias/Sunnis. I just assumed that in his :saws: lifetime he would given sufficient examples, that the meanings of the words would be clear. That is, rather than having a word and having scholars interpret it, as in the case of iddah; the hadith would NOT just say the words, but also give the live example as to how much did he :saws: made the iddah to be? I always assumed Allah to have given his word and Prophet Muhammad :saws: to have given the interpretation and even live examples to carry out the commands in the words of Allah. I was NOT under the impression, that despite having an example (not just the Word of Allah) but an example in Prophet Muhammad :saws:, we were still interpreting the words as to what will be the iddah here!

For your section on "Why one of four?", you say that "Ulama and scholars who came later on continued to review, codify, explain and expand on the Hanafi madhhab. It is in this manner that we have a fully codified and systemic madhhab. This has been the case with the other three madhāhib also." For this, kindly read my reply above to your post where I speak of unifying and then codifying all these madhabs into one. Also the example on touch and how a single ruling with the inclusion of intention can remove this contradction of ruling on touch and wudhu.

For your section on "Why one madhhab?", kindly read my reply above to brother greenhill in this same post above.

For your section "Why I can’t follow the most authentic view?" I might NOT understand the intricacies of the fiqh and hadith, but why don't the scholars unite and redo the jurisprudence?! Take the strongest view and follow the strongest opinion?! Like the Quranic translations have gotten better with time and NOT the oldest translation is considered to the best anymore, but the fairly newer Sahih Internation is considered (by most) to be the better translation than others, similarly why don't they unite and use all the knowledge we gathered, compilation of hadith is done and with the new age tools and rather than relying on ONE man to make all the judgements, keep everything up to debate and THEN take the strongest opinion amongst them?!

 

[startingarabic]

Now based on this, Imam Ash-Shaf'ee says wudhu will break by merely touching a woman. Because according to him, when there is a definitive text in the Qur'an, we do not have to look further for any other explanation.

It a common and not very good example to give.
Imam Ash-Shaf'ee has 2 saying (one old school and the other new school) on this and even the most basic shafi books state that its related to non-mahrams where the wudhu breaks.

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Now based on this, Imam Ash-Shaf'ee says wudhu will break by merely touching a woman. Because according to him, when there is a definitive text in the Qur'an, we do not have to look further for any other explanation.

It a common and not very good example to give.
Imam Ash-Shaf'ee has 2 saying (one old school and the other new school) on this and even the most basic shafi books state that its related to non-mahrams where the wudhu breaks.

Yes, you are right. The accepted opinion among Shaf'i is that the wudhu breaks by touching non-mehram women only.

Since rather than looking and interpreting the Quran and the Hadith and taking the strongest opinions, we are just following with the intention of the infallibility of our madhab?

The madhhabs are not considered infallible. Everyone can make mistakes but only a Mujtahid imaam can make ijtihaad and derive rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The mujtahid gets rewarded for his ijtihad, even if he makes a mistake, he gets 1 reward for it.

We follow a mujtahid imaam because we (any layman) is not capable of studying all the religious texts and derive his own ruling.

Using the same example as above, isn't there a need to like recompile the Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh)? It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that during the times of the 4 great Imams, the Hadith were NOT extensively compiled like Bukhaari and Muslim, as they were later on. And in the lack of such extensive collection, they did the best the could have at that time. But now, with the compilation, understanding, interpretation and even the use and help of electronic means to simplify in searching a hadith, shouldn't we 'unify' these differences of interpretations?

It is not entirely true that all Ahadeeth were not available to the Imaams. Rather, they lived during the time of Sahabah and Tabi'een and they had live examples in front of them.
It is more possible that not all Ahadeeth have reached us. They might be aware of some Hadith, or action of a Sahabi or Tabi'ee which was not documented by later scholars and might not have reached us.


We cannot claim to follow the strongest opinion, because what are we basing our criteria on for choosing which opinion is the strongest? A student of 5th grade cannot evaluate the answer sheets of a 12th grader and mark the right answers. Only a scholar of very high position, who is able to make ijtihad on his own, will be able to study the reasoning and daleel of all the four madhhabs and then follow an opinion according to his ijtihad. Even then, we as laymen, cannot simply follow the ijtihad of that new scholar, because he will be someone:
- from the current times - far away from the times of Sahabah and Tabi'een
- his opinion or ijtihad will be his alone, unlike the madhhab, since madhhab is studied and codified by a number of scholar within the madhhab

 

[ShahJahan]

Now based on this, Imam Ash-Shaf'ee says wudhu will break by merely touching a woman. Because according to him, when there is a definitive text in the Qur'an, we do not have to look further for any other explanation.

It a common and not very good example to give.
Imam Ash-Shaf'ee has 2 saying (one old school and the other new school) on this and even the most basic shafi books state that its related to non-mahrams where the wudhu breaks.

I had watched a video by Brother Zakir Naik, where he had cited this same example of the interpretation of the word (I think it was) 'masa', where Imam Shaafi interpreted the word as touch, and thus the mere touch would break the wudhu; whereas Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted the word as a euphemism for sexual conduct (like when mother Mary used the language how can I bear a child when no man has ever touched me, here too the same masa is used) So this word CAN be interpreted as a physical touch AND a sexual conduct. Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted this word as sexual conduct, rather than a mere physical touch. So despite having a definitive text, the interpretation was different. IMO, Imam Abu Hanfia was right here, since there are hadiths where Prophet Muhammad :saws1: had touched Ayesha RA during salaat and in another hadith even kissed her and then went to make salaat without remaking a wudhu, again indicating that a touch or even a kiss doesn't break wudhu as long as it is non-sexual.

Now under this interpretation, I don't think the word 'masa' would have been used for NON-mahrams, since it is impermissible to have sexual conduct with non-mahrams anyways!

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Like how Shaafi took the the literal translation and how Hanfi took the prophetic example. Should be unify the ruling to something along the lines,
If it is a sexual touch, or a sexual kiss then the wudhu will break, but if the touch did NOT have sexual intention, then the wudhu will remain.
THIS rather than saying that they are BOTH correct in their opinions, while they did NOT mention the intention of the touch, just understood touch according to their understanding and came to a conclusion?

Imaam Ash-Shaf'ee was raised in Makkah, and he was from the tribe of Quraysh. The mastery he had on the language of the Qur'an is far greater than other imaams, because the Qur'an is revealed in the dialect of Quraysh. He lived during the time of Tabi'een, and he studied under Imaam Malik in Madinah.

His explanation and understanding of the words of the Qur'an has more weightage than others. Please see the explanation quoted above, (re-quoting here: )

Next, taking a look at the verse itself… Allah mentions a number of things that would cause one to lose ritual purity. Allah first mentions the state of major ritual impurity resulting from sexual climax or intercourse “junuban” as a cause for having to make ghusl, then He mentions a second level of acts that cause one to fall into a state of ritual impurity that can be raised by making tayammum (going to the bathroom and touching a woman).. many scholars maintain that “lams” cannot mean sexual relations with women because the term “junuban”, which is already mentioned in the verse, covers this meaning… thus, they suggest, “lams” must refer to a lesser act that is not on the level of sexual relations as this would be redundant.​

^ This is a very strong daleel and cannot be denied by anyone. Yes, there are Ahadith that mention the action of Rasulullah :saws: touching 'Aisha :raha: and continuing to pray, but there can be hundreds of other reasons for his actions, such as:
- the permissibly of touching can only be limited to the Prophet :saws:, and not for all Muslims. There are many such cases where something is permissible for the Prophet and not for others such as his multiple marriages
- the prophet used to pray in darkness in the night (at home for Tahajjud), and it could be that he moved her leg as moving an object, not intentional touch
- the authenticity of the Hadith is cross-verified by hadith scholars and it may not be of the level of authenticity required by Imaam Shaf'i
- various other reasons (my reasoning is limited)

So as you can see, a person like you and me cannot simply study different opinions and choose the "Sahih" among them, because all of them are rigorously authenticated opinions. If you choose one based on what is easy then you will end up following the desire and not following the principles of deriving rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah.


One more point I want to add here is, we follow the Qur'an and Sunnah (the way of the Prophet :saws, not Qur'an and Hadith, because not all Ahadeeth are follow-able as Sunnah. You might find a Hadith as "Sahih" but you can find another one with slightly lower grade, such as Hasan and that could be the Sunnah. Can we read all the Ahadith and decide what is the Sunnah based on them? No, we cannot. The mujtahid imaams have done that for us.

 

[ShahJahan]

By the time I was typing my reply to startingarabic, you had replied, I wanted to edit my post above to add this to the same post above, but couldn't find the edit button! Can we make edits in our posts?!

The madhhabs are not considered infallible. Everyone can make mistakes but only a Mujtahid imaam can make ijtihaad and derive rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah. The mujtahid gets rewarded for his ijtihad, even if he makes a mistake, he gets 1 reward for it.

Exactly, they can make mistakes but they won't be held accountable for that, since it was an honest mistake. But their mistakes gets codified into Islamic Law!

We follow a mujtahid imaam because we (any layman) is not capable of studying all the religious texts and derive his own ruling.

So why don't we (mujtahid scholars) recodify the text and unify all the rulings into one and end the confusion? Like take the strongest daleel, interpret it, then use the strongest interpretation? Rather than (for lack of a better word) blindly accept the mistakes of the past scholars, since they too were fallible? Indeed they were virtuous, but by the mere virtue of being human they were bound to make mistakes.

It is not entirely true that all Ahadeeth were not available to the Imaams. Rather, they lived during the time of Sahabah and Tabi'een and they had live examples in front of them.
It is more possible that not all Ahadeeth have reached us. They might be aware of some Hadith, or action of a Sahabi or Tabi'ee which was not documented by later scholars and might not have reached us.

Quoting your Why the difference of opinions article, 'The sphere of a muhaddīth is different from that of a faqīh.' Since Abu Hanifa was NOT collecting hadith and examining the chain of narrations as extensively as later scholars like Imam Bukhari and Muslim :rh: and since these scholars came later on, and since all the work back then was manual (searching the texts, quran, hadith, dictionary, commentary, etc), there were just way too many limitations on them, and despite that they did a very commendable job, but if there is a room for amelioration, then it should be ameliorated.

We cannot claim to follow the strongest opinion, because what are we basing our criteria on for choosing which opinion is the strongest? A student of 5th grade cannot evaluate the answer sheets of a 12th grader and mark the right answers. Only a scholar of very high position, who is able to make ijtihad on his own, will be able to study the reasoning and daleel of all the four madhhabs and then follow an opinion according to his ijtihad. Even then, we as laymen, cannot simply follow the ijtihad of that new scholar, because he will be someone:
- from the current times - far away from the times of Sahabah and Tabi'een
- his opinion or ijtihad will be his alone, unlike the madhhab, since madhhab is studied and codified by a number of scholar within the madhhab

Exactly! And that is why rather than a layman, why don't the scholars of Fiqh unite at some school of Fiqh and codify the text as one?! And rather than having just one imam, have a group of scholars, they will then take the strongest daleel, interpret and then take the strongest opinion amongst them. Ofcourse the works of our predecessors will be of great use in that, and where they all agree, it can be left at that, where there's a disagreement, we can take the strongest opinion.

Imaam Ash-Shaf'ee was raised in Makkah, and he was from the tribe of Quraysh. The mastery he had on the language of the Qur'an is far greater than other imaams, because the Qur'an is revealed in the dialect of Quraysh. He lived during the time of Tabi'een, and he studied under Imaam Malik in Madinah.

Yes, ever since I started studying Fiqh and in that VERY little time and limited knowledge, I was finding Imam Shaafi to be more (I don't know if I can say?) better than Imam Hanfi, NOT that Abu Hanifa was wrong, but IMO a bit more relaxed in his approach. And I was forming the conclusion that it is because of this most (atleast in my country) are Hanfis, since he allowed more freedom, while Imam Shaafi was more 'strict' in allowing things.

His explanation and understanding of the words of the Qur'an has more weightage than others. Please see the explanation quoted above, (re-quoting here: )

Next, taking a look at the verse itself… Allah mentions a number of things that would cause one to lose ritual purity. Allah first mentions the state of major ritual impurity resulting from sexual climax or intercourse “junuban” as a cause for having to make ghusl, then He mentions a second level of acts that cause one to fall into a state of ritual impurity that can be raised by making tayammum (going to the bathroom and touching a woman).. many scholars maintain that “lams” cannot mean sexual relations with women because the term “junuban”, which is already mentioned in the verse, covers this meaning… thus, they suggest, “lams” must refer to a lesser act that is not on the level of sexual relations as this would be redundant.​

^ This is a very strong daleel and cannot be denied by anyone. Yes, there are Ahadith that mention the action of Rasulullah :saws: touching 'Aisha :raha: and continuing to pray, but there can be hundreds of other reasons for his actions, such as:
- the permissibly of touching can only be limited to the Prophet :saws:, and not for all Muslims. There are many such cases where something is permissible for the Prophet and not for others such as his multiple marriages
- the prophet used to pray in darkness in the night (at home for Tahajjud), and it could be that he moved her leg as moving an object, not intentional touch
- the authenticity of the Hadith is cross-verified by hadith scholars and it may not be of the level of authenticity required by Imaam Shaf'i
- various other reasons (my reasoning is limited)

Those are very nice points! I was speaking above from memory from a speech I heard from Zakir Naik. I just NOW googled about the issue and was taken to this webpage: http://www.islamawareness.net/Wudu/fatwa_touching.html
It says there are 3 views, one of Imam Abu Hanifa, one of Imam Shaafi and one of "rest of the jurists" and "According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the third view is believed to be the most correct."

I understand that Imam Shaafi was one the best man to do the job and he did pretty well, may Allah reward him for it. But we cannot simply discount the contributions others too can make and take this forward. Like if you were to read the link I posed above (and Allah is my witness, I just google it!) that the "third" opinion which was later "believed to be the most correct" was NOT actually a NEW opinion per se, but rather an amalgamation of the works of both scholars, and this is exactly what I feel needs to be done!

 

[startingarabic]

I had watched a video by Brother Zakir Naik, where he had cited this same example of the interpretation of the word (I think it was) 'masa', where Imam Shaafi interpreted the word as touch, and thus the mere touch would break the wudhu; whereas Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted the word as a euphemism for sexual conduct (like when mother Mary used the language how can I bear a child when no man has ever touched me, here too the same masa is used) So this word CAN be interpreted as a physical touch AND a sexual conduct. Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted this word as sexual conduct, rather than a mere physical touch. So despite having a definitive text, the interpretation was different. IMO, Imam Abu Hanfia was right here, since there are hadiths where Prophet Muhammad :saws1: had touched Ayesha RA during salaat and in another hadith even kissed her and then went to make salaat without remaking a wudhu, again indicating that a touch or even a kiss doesn't break wudhu as long as it is non-sexual.

Now under this interpretation, I don't think the word 'masa' would have been used for NON-mahrams, since it is impermissible to have sexual conduct with non-mahrams anyways!

I am actually stating that Imam Shafi has 2 saying on this, his old school and new school.
I was told that 15 of his saying are take from his old school as they are more correct and this example is one of them.
I am actually stating this example as it is well know but even the people in the shafi mathab differ on this.
The in-depth study show the people of the mathab do not state the above but they state the about with non-mahrams only.
Sorry guy didnt read it as would of left it.

 

[startingarabic]

Knowledge
A Program on the Foundations of Knowledge
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/aprogram-on-foundations-of-knowledge.html

The Collections of Knowledgeable Texts
http://carryonummah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/i-took-these-sectionsfrom-book-called.html

check these articles they short and give you a bases where to start search for the correct knowledge.