topic of Talfiq and whether to choose a madhab or not

[Ümit]

Selamun Aleykum,

This topic has been bugging me for soms time now.

In a different thread I've been discussing this a little, but I am not quite satisfied about the result of it:
https://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134357529-correct-path.html#post3037345

in the thread mentioned above, Revertalyunani already explained:

Talfiq is when you fuse two opinions together.But if they are on different cases,it makes no sense doing talfiq.

OK....I understand that part...but let us now take us again the same example of that thread:

Now for example according to shafi your wudu is broken if you touch a female,including your own mother.
According to hanafi this does not break your wudu.

According to Shafi you can eat shrimps
But according to Hanafi you cant eat shrimps.

So case 1:
Person A likes to take the easy road, so he decides that touching his mother does not break wudu and he eats schrimps
Those are two completely different cases...so it is not Talfiq.

Is he allowed to do that? isn't that cherrypicking?

Case 2:
Person B likes to take the secure road, so he decides that touching his mother breaks wudu and he does not eat schrimps

Isn't that possibly making something haraam which normally would be halal...which is also forbidden?
So, is he allowed to do that?

Case 3:
Person C decides to look for the evidences and choose for those options with the strongest evidence.
However he is a layman like me and discovers that in most cases the evidences are pretty much equally strong...and is therefore forces to choose for the safest way...which is like person B
so indirectly still making haraam which otherwise would be perhaps halaal.

Case 4:
Person D decides to follow the hanafi's and therefore, touching his mother does not break his wudu but he cannot eat schrimps...therefore he successfully does what is halaal and leaves what is haraam.

Isn't case 4 the better than the other 4 cases? no matter what madhap one chooses from.

To be clear: I am not advertizing people to follow a certain madhab...I just want to understand.

 

[Revert alYunani]

so indirectly still making haraam which otherwise would be perhaps halaal.

what haram does he do i dont understand?
Person A is cherrypicking if he looks to find the easiest solution yes but if he truly believes in one opinion and chooses it there is nothing wrong in shaa Allah.
Person B is also choosing two different opinions and is not doing talfiq
Person C the same as Person B,which is what Person A should have done.

None of them is doing haram tbh,as they are not going against any madhab.

Person D is not doing anything wrong,however if in any case he doesnt agree with the opinion of hanafi and believes more in the opinion of shafi hanbali etc,he is allowed to switch to it for that case.

I replied to the other thread,check it out in shaa Allah.

 

[Al-Ansariyah]

السلام عليكم
We arent obligated to follow one particular madhab. We should follow what is closest to Quran and sunnah. Bcuz at times of imam hanifa, the hadiths werent compiled so few of the statements he gave were slightly different from the sahih hadith. But that was not his mistake obviously. He wouldnt have ever gone against it if he knew. And 4 of the imams have said if we find any sahih hadith contradicting their(imams) opinions, we should follow sahih hadith.But we shouldnt follow whatever is easy like u said "cherry picking" Hence we must follow which is closest to quran and sunnah. And to find out which opinion is closest , we need to be very much knowledgable or ask from ulama haq.

 

[Ümit]

what haram does he do i dont understand?

What I meant with that is this:
It was about person C. Person C wants to do the right thing...to check the sources and choose for the options with the strongest evidence...however he does not have enough knowledge to do that properly.
For example I could be that person C.
most of the differences of opinions between madhabs are pretty small...If I try to compare them with each other, I often find myself agreeing with both sides.
I mean, most of the times, the opinions of both sides are well grounded.
So I usually end up where I started...not be able to decide which opinion is the better one....So I am forced to choose the secure road...because if you doubt whether something is halaal or not...better stay away of it...
But there is also a chance that it was actually halaal all the time....but by choosing the secure road I made it haraam to myself....which is a haraam act because Allah says: "Don't make haraam what is halaal"

I hope you understand what I mean. It is pretty complicated to describe this.
It is also the most confusing part.

But I would not have that problem if I just choose a madhab. every halaal is clear...every haraam is clear...so I do not end up with making things haraam for myself when it actually was halaal

Person A is cherrypicking if he looks to find the easiest solution yes but if he truly believes in one opinion and chooses it there is nothing wrong in shaa Allah.
Person B is also choosing two different opinions and is not doing talfiq

Person B is not doing Talfiq...I already understood that...but the danger here is: making things unneccessarily haraam when it was actually halaal...That is also a sin.

Person C the same as Person B,which is what Person A should have done.

None of them is doing haram tbh,as they are not going against any madhab.

Of course they do...by choosing for the madhab that allowes it, they go against the other madhab which does not allow it...perhabs the right opinion was "haraam"...but not everyone has enough knowledge to filter out the right opinion.

Person D is not doing anything wrong,however if in any case he doesnt agree with the opinion of hanafi and believes more in the opinion of shafi hanbali etc,he is allowed to switch to it for that case.

I replied to the other thread,check it out in shaa Allah.

Thanks for having patience with me...I will check it out and react here inshallah.

 

[Ümit]

السلام عليكم
We arent obligated to follow one particular madhab. We should follow what is closest to Quran and sunnah. Bcuz at times of imam hanifa, the hadiths werent compiled so few of the statements he gave were slightly different from the sahih hadith. But that was not his mistake obviously. He wouldnt have ever gone against it if he knew. And 4 of the imams have said if we find any sahih hadith contradicting their(imams) opinions, we should follow sahih hadith.But we shouldnt follow whatever is easy like u said "cherry picking" Hence we must follow which is closest to quran and sunnah. And to find out which opinion is closest , we need to be very much knowledgable or ask from ulama haq.

You are right...Haven't thought about that. Thank you very much for pointing that out.

The problem however is that most people share the same problem as I...not having enough knowledge to filter out the best opinion...because usually all four of the opinions are equally well founded.
I often end up with agreeing on both sides after checking out the evidences.

And you cannot ask every single topic to a sheikch...that is not practical.


But please...why is it wrong for the people like me (with not that much knowledge) to just choose a madhab and stick to that...isn't that a secure safe road?

 

[Revert alYunani]

It is pretty complicated to describe this.

its not complicated you make it complicated yourself.I have no idea how you make it haram to myself.You compare the madhab and follow what you believe more,if you cant choose then choose the secure road.Where is haram in this?

So according to your understanding,if you choose the madhab that allows smth,you go against the other madhab that does not allow it,means you make haram because what you are following may not be the right opinon?
Then by following only one madhab are you not doing the same? going against the other madhabs in every case?

We are all person C and even the scholars dont have enough knowledge to filter out the best opinion otherwise madhabs wouldnt exist anymore and we would only have one madhab,all of us.Dont make it complicated and hard on yourself.Madhabs are there to make religion easier for you,they already sorted things out and reached in conclusions about every situation.Now you choose between them what you believe more or what you think is the best conclusion.

 

[Ümit]

[MENTION=7133]Aly[/MENTION]unani: Your reaction on the other thread. I will react on it here inshaallah:

Salam alaikum

I wont be mad at you lol.We are here to learn and discuss so opposing each other in respectful way its alright.Dont worry,you can always say what you feel and think.
Now i wont reply to the situation you explained because it seems a bit complicated to give the best solution to that so i will give you another example to make it simple to understand.

Talfiq is fussion of two opinions.Meaning merging what one madhab says and what another madhab says and thus creating your own ruling which is different from all madhabs.
Merging shrimps and wudhu makes no sense because shrimps and wudhu are not related in any way.

Understood

But when do we make talfiq?
When it comes to one case.For example Wudhu.
Hanafi says that blood being spilled breaks the wudhu,and touching the wife doesnt break wudhu.
Shafi says blood being spilled doesnt break wudhu,but touching the wife breaks wudhu.
Now if you will either follow hanafi or shafi. If you says blood being spilled doesnt break wudhu (shafi) and touching the wife doesnt break wudhu either (hanafi) then this is talfiq,because you are merging two opinions for the same case,and your conclusion doesnt match any madhab.

understood...both opinions about touching wife and spilling blood are of the topic "things that break wudu" and therefore opinions of different madhabs not mergable

But eating shrimps is another different case. So if we were to talk about sea food,and you want to eat all kind of sea food as this is what you believe more from the evidences,then you can follow shafi which allows eating of all sea food.And you can follow hanafi when it comes to wudhu because you believe touching your wife doesnt break wudhu.And then when it comes to prayer and the way you pray,you can follow another madhab as prayer,shrimps and wudhu are not connected to each other.

Understood.

but here comes the problem:
during examination of the evidences I find myself agreeing on both sides quite often. So I end up where I started: not being able to decide which one is correct...so I force myself choosing for the secure road...but then doubt strucks me:
"perhaps it was halaal all along...but I made it unneccessarily difficult for myself by choosing for the secure road"

You get what i mean? You can switch because they are different cases,same with every other case.But if we were to follow one madhab blindly,then we would go agaisnt our beliefs and we would be uncomfortable and would make religion harder,not to mention the fitnah that is happening because of following madhabs blindly and proudly labeling themselves with them.That is why i am against groups and i dont follow any madhab.Allahu Alem though.

I am sorry but except a few cases, nobody proudly labels himself with one of the madhabs.
I never met a person who said "I am proud for being Hanafi, or whatever"...
and about following blindly...most of us are not that intelligent as you (not meant sarcastic...but geniunely meant literally).
We lack the knowledge to filter out the better opinion. Therefore we have to choose a madhab and go for it...a madhab is a secure road for many people.
We do not mention the madhabs name when we pray...we do not pray to the founders of that madhab...we just follow the paved road.

 

[Ümit]

So according to your understanding,if you choose the madhab that allows smth,you go against the other madhab that does not allow it,means you make haram because what you are following may not be the right opinon?
Then by following only one madhab are you not doing the same? going against the other madhabs in every case?

Maybe you are right. hiding behind a madhab does not make the situation any better.

I've been googling a little and I am starting to realize that maybe the problem I am facing is a modern problem.
In the old times (before the existence of the world wide web) people were dependant on the availability of sources.
not everyone has the time or patience to go to a library, find the book you need and investigate the opinions of other madhabs...

no ability to google a certain ruling...just old fashioned reading in books with maybe the help of the index in the back of the books.
Google did not exist...etc

If you for example lived in a hanafi society, you will have enough access to Hanafi sources...but less access to sources of other madhabs.
So, people were more or less forced to join the madhab of the society they live in.

Nowadays, we can find everything we need about every madhabs online. we could easily search for a certain topic. it is available within a few mouseclicks.
We do not have to hide behind a certain madhab anymore...

So therefore, I think you are right...

Thanks for helping me realizing this.

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Please read the posts from these threads:


Mixing madhabs


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


Why are there differences of opinions among scholars? (islamicboard.com)


Almost all the points raised here have been discussed and clarified in the above links.

 

[Revert alYunani]

Thanks for helping me realizing this.

JazakhAllahu Khair, may Allah guide us both.Hope you got a more clear and informative answer from the links brother AabiruSabeel shared.

 

[Al-Ansariyah]

This is a gud post i found. In sha Allah, it will be helpful.
Imam ibn qayyim said regarding this:
Does the common person (i.e. layman) have to follow one of the well known madhhabs or not?
There are two sayings regarding this:
.
Thats it is not obligatory upon him and this is what is correct and absolutely definite since there is
nothing obligatory except what Allah, the Most High, and His Messenger have made obligatory.
.
Neither Allah nor His Messenger have made obligatory to follow the school of thought (madhhab) of
any person from the ummah and to follow him alone in the Religion. The best generations passed
by without anyone doing this. 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 saying of his Imām.
.
As for the one who is unable to do any of that but merely says, 'I am a Shāfi'ī...or 'I am
Hanbalī...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 Shāfi'ī... or a Mālikī...or a
Hanafī...' 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 Imām 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.