For quite a while, very deceiving tactics have been utilised by the non-Madhhabīs (also known as Salafiyyah) over the past few decades to lure people into their sect. The most prominent of these tactics is to have the unsuspecting public thinking that having differences of opinion in matters of fiqh is dangerous and something unfounded within the parameters of our dīn. The general public are given questions by the non-Madhhabīs to cause doubts in their minds. These questions range from ‘how can four schools (madhhabs) be correct?’ to questions like ‘how can four different opinions be right? Isn’t our Prophet j one?’ They also propagate that there must be one way in all matters of jurisprudence (fiqh). However these people of innovation (bidʿah) conceal, or are ignorant of their own scholars who themselves have differed in fiqh. The following is a compilation of a range of issues where the Salafī scholars have differed among themselves in just the description of prayer (ṣalāh) itself.

Venturing beyond the scope of differences in ṣalāh will, by far, be too lengthy and time consuming for this short epistle; hence, it has been limited to the prayer itself. This is because there are a lot of scholarly differences that can be accumulated between them (adding other differences from other chapters besides the description of prayer). However, the intention is to give the intrigued reader the upshot of this essay and an insight regarding the differences that have occurred between the Salafī scholars.

الاختلاف في صفة الصلاة بين علماء السلفية

The Differences in the Description of Prayer between the Salafī Scholars

May I remind the readers that the intent of this short work is to show that Muslims can never be unified under one opinion in all aspects relating to the religion; differences will occur in our jurisprudence (fiqh), and that the scholars will always differ down to the grain. Classical scholars have always agreed on a principle that differences amongst the scholars is a mercy from Allāh (subhana wa ta’ala).

To proceed with the differences:

[1] Folding the Hands after Bowing (Rukūʿ) – Qawmah

a) Sh. al-Albānī’s  opinion that placing your hands back after rukūʿ is a misguided innovation (bidʿah ḍalālah):
ولست أشك في أن وضع اليدين على الصدر في هذا القيام ( يعني بعد الرفع من الركوع) بدعة ضلالة، لأنه لم يرد مطلقا في شيء من أحاديث الصلاة وما أكثرها، ولا ذكره أحد من أئمة الحديث فيما أعلم

“I have no doubt that placing the two hands upon the chest in this standing (i.e. standing after rukūʿ) is a misleading bidʿah (innovation in religion), because this was not mentioned at all in any of the h̩adīths on [describing] ṣalāh though they are numerous. This was not mentioned by any of the scholars of h̩adīth as far as I know.”^([1])

1. b) While Sh. Ibn Bāz  was of the opinion that it was from the Sunnah:

ينبغي أن يعلم أن ما تقدم من البحث في قبض الشمال باليمين ووضعهما على الصدر أو غيره قبل الركوع وبعده كل ذلك من قبيل السنن

“It should be known that the above discussion on holding the left hand with the right one and placing them both on the chest, or any other place, either before or after rukūʿ is an act of Sunnah.”^([2])

[2] Constantly Moving Finger in Tashahhud

1. a) Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  was of the opinion that the finger should be moved constantly in tashahhud with the duʿāʾ, utilising the narration containing the narrator Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah:

دلت السنة على أنه يشير بها عند الدعاء، لأن لفظ الحديث «يحركها يدعو بها» فكلّما دعوت حرِّكْ

“The sunnah indicates that he should point with it when supplicating (duʿāʾ̃), because the h̩adīth reads, ‘moving it, making du’ã with it’. So every time you make duʿāʾ̃ (in tashahhud), move your finger.”^([3])

1. b) Sh. Muqbil Ibn Hādī al-Wādiʿī , utilising ʿAbdullāh Ibn Zubayr’s  narration, says:

هذا الحديث يدل على الإشارة بالأصبع، وأما التحريك فقد تفرد به زائدة بن قدامة، وقد خالف أربعة عشر راوياً

“This h̩adīth proves the indication (ishārah) with the finger, as for moving it then Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah is alone in his narration. He has opposed fourteen narrators.”

He goes on to reject the narration of Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah, saying it is isolated (shādhdh).^([4])

[3] Placing the Knees on the Ground before the Hands during Sujūd

1. a) Ibn Bāz , while discussing the ah̩ādīth regarding the knees going first before the hands during the prostrations (sujūd), says:

وهذا هو الأصح والأرجح، وبذلك يتفق الأحاديث ولا يقع بينها خلا ف. النهي عن البروك كبروك البعير يوافق حديث وائل في تقديم الركبتين، ثم اليدين بعد ذلك في السجود

“And this is the most correct and likely opinion, for that is in agreement with the ah̩ādīth and there is no difference between them. For the prohibition of kneeling like that of the camel is in agreement with the h̩adīth of Wāʾil regarding the knees going first [for sujūd], thereafter the hands after that during the sujūd.”^([5])

1. b) However, Sh. al-Albānī  mentions to do the opposite:

الخرور إلى السجود على اليدين… كان يضع يديه على الأرض قبل ركبتيه

“Going Down into Sujūd with the Hands: He used to place his hands on the ground before his knees.”^([6])

[4] Joining the Feet/Ankles in Prayer (Ṣalāh)

1. a) Sh. al-Albānī  was of the opinion that joining the feet in prayer is from the authentic Sunnah:

ولكن ربما يخفى على الكثيرين منهم أن من إقامة الصف تسويته بالأقـدام، وليس فقط بالمناكب، بل لقد سمعنا مراراً من بعض أئمة المساجد -حين يأمرون بالتسوية- التنبيه على أن السنة فيها إنما هي بالمناكب فقط دون الأقدام

ولما كان ذلك خلاف الثابت في السنة الصحيحة، رأيت أنه لابد من ذكر ما ورد فيه من الحديث؛ تذكيراً لمن أراد أن يعمل بما صح من السنة؛ غير مغتر بالعادات والتقاليد الفاشية في الأمة

“However, it remains unknown to many that straightening the rows requires straightening it with the feet, not just the shoulders. Indeed, we have often heard some of the Imāms of the mosques (masājid) pointing out – when ordering the people to straighten the rows – that the Sunnah is to do so with the shoulders to the exclusion of the feet! Since this is contrary to what is established in the authentic Sunnah, I thought it necessary to mention some ah̩ādīth that exist on this topic, as a reminder for whoever wishes to act in accordance with the authentic Sunnah, not being deceived by the widespread customs and habits prevalent in the Ummah.”^([7])

1. b) Contrary to this position, Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  mentions the feet should not be joined throughout prayer (ṣalāh) and said to do so is extreme:

وليس معنى ذلك أن يلازم هذا الإلصاق ويبقى ملازماً له في جميع الصلاة. ومن الغلو في هذه المسألة ما يفعله بعض الناس من كونه يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه ويفتح قدميه فيما بينهما حتى يكون بينه وبين جاره في المناكب فرجة فيخالف السنة في ذلك، والمقصود أن المناكب والأكعب تتساوى

“It does not mean that he should continue this joining and remain so for the whole s̩alāh. From the extremism that has occurred with regard to this issue is what is done by some people in that one of them will join his ankle to the ankle of his companion, and he will spread his feet so far apart until there is a gap between his shoulder and the shoulder of his companion, so he will oppose the Sunnah by doing that. The aim is that the shoulders and ankles should be in line with each other.”^([8])

[5] Where to Place the Hands in Prayer (Ṣalāh)

1. a) Sh. al-Albānī  vehemently advocates the view that the hands should be placed on the chest in prayer:

وضعهما على الصدر هو الذي ثبت في السنة، وخلافه إما ضعيف أو لا أصل له

“Placing the hands on the chest is what is established in the Sunnah, and any other opinion besides this is either weak or has no basis.”^([9])

1. b) However, according to Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān , other opinions are also regarded as Sunnah:

سنن الأفعال …وضعهما على الصدر أو تحت السرة في حال القيام

“Sunnah actions: and (he should) place both his hands upon the chest or below the navel in the standing posture.”^([10])

[6] To say ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’ or ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’ in al-Tah̩iyyāt

1. a) Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Munajjid, who supervises the question and answer website, Islamqa, said after quoting the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd (ra) stating that after the death of Nabī (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) they said ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’:

وهذا أثبت ألفاظ التشهد وأحسنها عند العلماء

“This is the soundest version of the wording of the tashahhud according to the scholars.”^([11])

1. b) However, Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  says this is from the ijtihād of Ibn Masʿūd (ra), and that ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’ should be said:

وأمّا ما وَرَدَ في صحيح البخاري عن عبد الله بن مسعود h أنهم كانوا يقولون بعد وفاة الرسول ﷺ: «السَّلامُ على النَّبيِّ ورحمة الله وبركاته» فهذا مِن اجتهاداتِه h التي خالَفه فيها مَنْ هو أعلمُ منه؛ عُمرُ بن الخطَّاب h، فإنه خَطَبَ النَّاسَ على مِنبر رسول الله ﷺ وقال في التشهُّدِ: «السَّلامُ عليك أيُّها النبيُّ ورحمة الله» كما رواه مالك في «الموطأ» بسَنَدٍ من أصحِّ الأسانيد، وقاله عُمرُ بمحضر الصَّحابة j وأقرُّوه على ذلك

“As for what is narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī from Ibn Masʿūd (ra), that they used to say ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’ after the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) demise, this is from his ijtihād, in which someone more learned than him, ʿUmar Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (ra) differed with him. ʿUmar (ra) used to give sermons on the minbar of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and he used to say in the tashahhud: ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’, as narrated by Imām Mālik in his Muwat̩t̩aʾ with a very authentic chain, and ʿUmar h did this in the presence of many Ṣah̩ābah (raa), and they all agreed with him.”^([12])

[7] Reciting al-Fātih̩ah in the Loud (Jahrī) Prayers behind the Imām

1. a) Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān  mentions three opinions, of which he agrees with the third opinion that it is only obligatory to recite Sūrat al-Fātih̩ah behind the Imām in the quiet prayers:

القول الثالث: التفصيل، في الصلاة السرية تجب؛ أما في الجهرية فيستمع لقراءة إمامه، لقوله تعالى: ﴿ وَإِذَا قُرِئَ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ فَٱسۡتَمِعُواْ لَهُۥ وَأَنصِتُواْ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُرۡحَمُونَ ٢٠٤ ﴾

وهذا هو الراجح، وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ومذهب الإمام مالك، هو الراجح إن شاء الله لأنه تجتمع به الأدلة أن المأموم يجب عليه قراءة الفاتحة في الصلاة السرية الظهر و العصر، ولا يقرأ في الصلاة الجهرية والإمام يقرأ

“The third opinion: specifically, in the quiet (sirrī) prayers it is obligatory [to recite Sūrat al-Fātih̩ah]; as for the loud prayers, then he should listen to the recitation of his Imām, as Allāh says: ‘When the Qurʾān is being recited, listen attentively and remain silent so that you may receive mercy’. This is the correct opinion, and it was also the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and in accordance with the School of Imām Mālik. It is the correct opinion, InShāʾAllāh, because it combines all the proofs: like it is obligatory upon the follower to recite al-Fātih̩ah in the quiet prayers like Ẓuhr and ʿAṣr, and that he should not recite in the loud prayer while the Imām is reciting.”^([13])

1. b) However, the standing committee of Saudi for research and fatwā said it is obligatory to recite al-Fātih̩ah in both quiet and loud prayers:

الصحيح من أقوال أهل العلم وجوب قراءة الفاتحة في الصلاة على المنفرد والإمام والمأموم في الصلاة الجهرية والسرية

“The correct opinion from amongst the people of knowledge is that it is obligatory to recite al-Fātih̩ah in the prayer for both the munfarid [one praying alone], Imām, and follower, in the loud and quiet prayers.”^([14])

Conclusion

By the grace of Allāh (subhana wa ta’ala), the above should be more than sufficient to prove the point. The many examples are regarding the differences amongst Salafī scholars in matters related to just prayer alone. The above gives overwhelming proof that differences are inevitable; this is despite the many other scholars from their group who have been left out from this discussion, as well as other issues of differences they have between themselves besides prayer, such as ablution (wuḍūʾ), bathing (ghusl) and even issues relating to Ḥajj and Ṣawm etc.

Final Note

May I remind the readers who are looking for the truth that sincerity is important: although we want to act upon the most correct view (in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Sunnah), most of the times our sincerity is severely lacking, harbouring pride (takabbur) or even looking down upon others, because we think they are not acting upon the truth – which will, in essence, damage any good actions we may strive to do.

والله تعالى أعلم

وصلى الله تعالى على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين

Compiled by – Abu Humayd

—————————————————————————————————-

^([1]) S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 145.

^([2]) Fatāwā Ibn Bāz, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz, vol. 11 p. 142.

^([3]) Al-Sharh̩ al-Mumtiʿ, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 594.

^([4]) Al-Jāmiʿ al-S̩ah̩iḥ, Muqbil Ibn Hādī, vol. 2 p. 121.

^([5]) Nūr ʿalā ’l-Darb, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz, online ref: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/14936.

⁽[6]⁾ S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 139.

^([7]) Silsilat al-Ah̩ādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, vol. 1 pp. 70-74.

^([8]) Fatāwā Arkān al-Islām, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 312.

^([9]) S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 88.

^([10]) Al-Mulakhkhas̩ al-Fiqhī, S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān, vol. 1 p. 134.

^([11]) S̩ālih̩ al-Munajjid, online ref: http://islamqa.info/ar/11417.

^([12]) Al-Sharh̩ al-Mumtiʿ, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 150.

^([13]) S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān, transcribed from the following Q&A session available from his website, online ref: http://www.alfawzan.af.org.sa/node/12731.

^([14]) Fatāwā al-Lajnah al-Dāʾimah, vol. 6 p. 384.

darultahqiq

Imam al-Juwayni رحمه الله said: 

"There is an agreement between the muhaqiqun (researchers/verifiers) that the ordinary/common muslims should not adhere [directly] to the Madhab of any particular Sahabi. 

Rather it is necessary for them to follow the Madhahib of the Imams who researched, analysed, formulated chapters, mentioned issues that clarify and were exposed to the Madhahib of their predecessors. 

The reason for this is that the predecessors, despite the fact that they are an example in religion and an example to the Muslims, did not kept themselves busy in the codification of the paths of ijtihad and clarifying the ways of considerations and arguments. 

While the imams of fiqh, who came after them, have sufficiently looked into the Madhahib of the Sahabah, and thus the general public was ordered to follow these Madhahib of those who have researched."

📚 - [البرهان ٧٤٤/٢]

The meaning of this is that it is not permissible for the general public to adhere directly to the Madhahib of the Sahabah. As their Madahhib are not condified and structured.

Whereas the four Madhahib (Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i) are an extension of the Madhahib of the Sahabah and it is condified and structured the views of the Sahabah whilst taking to account what has been abrogated, etc.

Following the Madhahib of the Sahabah for the laymen could lead to mistakes in fiqh, especially on those issues that were abrogated.

And it's true to say that the Madhahib of the 4 Imams are sufficient for every Muslim. If you take any book of fiqh from any of the 4 Madhahib, you will find all what the seeker of knowledge needs, purification with all its details related to water, its rulings, wudhu, ghusl, salah, zakat, fasting, hajj, sales, nikah, etc. Moreover, each of the 4 Madhahib can be traced back to the Sahabah and thus we are following the Sahabah. The claim that following one of the 4 Madhahib is not the same as following the Sahabah is just absurd.

Q: Why do the Ulama say that we need to stick to one mazhab? Can't one apply one's personal understanding and reasoning in choosing the view of the mazhab which one regards correct?

Do I Need To Follow a Madhab?

“Do I Need To Follow a Madhab?”  – Clarification Of a Common Misconception Amongst Muslims –

by Mufti Muhammad Sajaad

Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) said: “The difference found in the four Schools of Islamic law (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali) in this nation is a huge blessing and an enormous virtue. It has a subtle hidden wisdom the intelligent are able to grasp, but the ignorant are blind of. I have even heard some of them say: ‘The Prophet (pbuh) came with one law, so where did the four Madhabs come from?” (Jazeel al-Mawahib, p.4)

Is Following One Of The Four Madhabs Necessary?

A Self-Assessment

1. All the sacred verses and hadith are in Arabic. The four Imams were experts in the Arabic language and I am not

2. The four Imams lived in an age that was described by the Prophet (pbuh) as the most blessed of Islamic ages. He (pbuh) said: The best of my Umma are those of my generation, then the (generation) that follows them and then the (generation) that follows them (Sahih al-Bukhari). Obviously, I cannot claim to have this distinguished credential.

3. All four Imams were attested as being the most God-fearing and pious of people by thousands of leading Ulama

4. Thousands of scholars throughout Islamic history considered the opinions of the Imams to be the most superior and refined understanding of the Qur’an and Sunna. Not a fraction of these numbers have ever attested to my wisdom or scholarly credentials

5. The four Imams have an extraordinary track record. That is, the whole Umma embraced their opinions for over a thousand years. Throughout the Muslim world, Muslims followed one of the four schools [see last section]. My view(s) cannot claim this profound acceptability. The companion Ibn Masud said: That which the Muslims deem to be good, is good with Allah (Musnad Imam Ahmad). The odd opinions I may concoct do not have this solid recommendation

6. In so many matters of life I only feel at ease if I get an expert’s advice. I turn to doctors, mechanics, architects and many other specialists to tell me what to do. My religion is the most important thing to me, thus it makes sense to rely on the greatest intellects of the Umma to guide me

7. A school is the best way to protect the Deen from untrained individuals twisting it to suit ulterior motives and desires. I do not know of a better way to protect the Deen from distortion than this

8. Other schools were never meticulously codified and refined as were the opinions of the four Imams. Thus it is a red herring to say why only follow these four and not the madhab of say, Thawri or Tabari etc.

9. If Salafism was the way of this Umma throughout its history, why would Sunni scholars continuously condemn it as a dangerous deviation? For example, the great scholar Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) wrote a book against them called: Refutation Of Those Who Follow Other Than The Four Schools (Ar-radd `ala man ittaba ghayr al-madhahib al-arba`a).

The Dangers Of Abandoning The Four Schools

We all love to be given a choice. Having a range of hats or shirts to choose from is a luxury. But it would be suicide if we brought this mentality of the marketplace into our religion. When a person says it is not obligatory for the Muslim to follow one of the established schools that is what he is doing. People are then free to shop for whatever opinion takes their fancy! This is termed making your desires into religion and it is forbidden by this verse: Have you seen the one who takes his desires as his god (45:23). If the millions and billions of Muslims were supposed to apply their minds to the verses and hadith, chaos would only result. Without the scholarly expertise (or a high level of fear of Allah ta`ala) they would make horrendous mistakes. One of the legacies of the four Imams was their accurate use of analogy. That is deducting new rulings where nothing is clearly mentioned. These master scholars expended their intellects on precisely discovering the basic reason behind a ruling (`illa). If that reason is found elsewhere, they concluded, the same ruling would apply. And likewise if it is absent in another context then the ruling does not apply. For instance, many of the intoxicants and drugs that exist today were not mentioned in revelation. Nevertheless, the Islamic jurists explained, because the basic reason behind the forbidding of alcohol was intoxication, logically these other substances must also be considered forbidden by Allah Almighty. But the Salafi/“ahle-Hadith” campaign to get rid of the schools and their rules, would have individuals (and we are witnessing it happening more and more frequently today) turning to the verses and hadith and arguing,-for example- “I think the reason why ablution (wudhu) was made necessary before prayers was due to the extreme heat people lived in back in those days. In our age we have air conditioners, deodorants etc. Thus since the original reason does not exist anymore, wudhu is no longer necessary” (!) Take another example: “The reason Islam forbade having boyfriends and girlfriends was because of the danger of children being born without there being anything to bind the father to take responsibility. Today, effective contraception is easily available and DNA testing ensures no father can deny his child, thus this fear is now fully taken care of. So Muslims should also embrace the culture of men and women freely mixing and dating.” If the regulation provided by the four schools is thrown away, how do you stop the many individuals that form part of the Umma, who are weak of iman and taqwa, from turning Islam into a carnival of desires? This horror story is the ultimate end of the simplistic call of Salafism. It is this same call that has tragically even led to individuals perpetrating mass-murder on the streets of many cities in the name of Islam! Rather, it is nothing but a subversion and mockery of Islam. The far-sighted scholars of the Ahl al-Sunna long ago understood how valuable these four schools were in safeguarding the Deen of Allah Almighty. So they issued a fatwa that it was necessary for every Muslim to learn and adhere to one of the four schools.

The Verdict Of The Ulama Of The Muslim World

[1] The famous Imam al-Haramayn Abu al-Ma‘āli Abd al-Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni (419-478 AH) writes in his book Al-Burhan:“The expert scholars have agreed that the masses are obligated (‘alayhim) with following the schools of the (four) Imams who thoroughly investigated and researched, who compiled the chapters (of Fiqh) and mentioned the circumstances of the rulings.” (vol. 2, P. 1146)

[2] Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Hajr al-Haytami writes in Tuhfa al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al- Minhaj:“The claim the layman has no madh-hab is rejected, rather it is necessary (yalzamuhu) for him to do taqlīd of a recognised school. (As for the claim: scholars did not obligate following one school), that was before the codification of the schools and their establishment.” (Vol.12 p.491-Kitab al-Zakah)

[3] Imam al-Nawawi writes in Al-Majmu‘ Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab:“The second view is it is obligatory (yalzamuhu) for him to follow one particular school, and that was the definitive position according to Imam Abul-Hassan (the father of Imam al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni). And this applies to everyone who has not reached the rank of ijtihād of the jurists and scholars of other disciplines. The reasoning for this ruling is that if it was permitted to follow any school one wished it would lead to hand-picking the dispensations of the schools, following one’s desires. He would be choosing between Halal and Haram, and obligatory and permissible. Ultimately that would lead to relinquishing oneself from the burden of responsibility. This is not the same as during the first generations, for the schools that were sufficient in terms of their rulings for newer issues, were neither codified nor widespread. Thus on this basis it is obligatory for a person to strive in choosing a madh-hab which alone he follows.” (vol.1 p. 93)

[4] Shaikh Salih al-Sunusi writes in Fath al-‘Alee al-Malik fil-Fatwa ‘ala madh-hab al-Imam Malik:“As for the scholar who has not reached the level of ijtihād and the non-scholar, they must do taqlīd of the Mujtahid… And the most correct view is that it is obligatory (wajib) to adhere to a particular school from the four schools…” (p.40-41, in Usul al-Fiqh)

[5] Imam Sharani, an undisputed authority in the Shafi school writes in Al-Mizan al-Kubra:“…You (O student) have no excuse left for not doing taqlīd of any madh-hab you wish from the schools of the four Imams, for they are all paths to Heaven…” (p.55 vol.1)

[6] Imām Shams al-Din Dhahabī (673-748 AH) writes in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubalā under Ibn Hazm Zāhirī’s comment:“I follow the truth and perform ijtihād, and I do not adhere to any madh-hab”, “I say: yes. Whoever has reached the level of ijtihād and a number of imāms have attested to this regarding him, it is not allowed for him to do taqlīd, just as it is not seeming at all for the beginner layman jurist who has committed the Qur’ān to memory or a great deal of it to perform ijtihād. How is he going to perform ijtihād? What will he say? On what will he base his opinions? How can he fly when his wings have not yet grown?” (Vol.18, Pg.191)

[7] In the famous twelve volume Maliki compendium of fatāwā, Al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rib an fatāwā ahl al-Ifriqiyya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib, Imam Ahmad al-Wanshirisi records the Fatwa on taqlīd: “It is not permitted (lā yajoozu) for the follower of a scholar to choose the most pleasing to him of the schools and one that agrees the most with him. It is his duty to do taqlīd of the Imam whose school he believes to be right in comparison to the other schools.” (vol.11 p.163-164)

[8] The Hanbali scholar Imam ‘Ala al-Din al-Mardawi in his major Juristic compendium Al-Insaf, cites the statement of the famous scholar Imam Al-Wazir ibn Hubaira (died 560 ah):“Consensus has been established upon taqlīd of every one of the Four Schools and that the truth does not lie outside of them.” (Vol.11 p.169, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah).

[9] Imam Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi states in Al-Bahr al-Muhit,“There has been established a consensus amongst the Muslims that the truth is restricted to these (four) schools. This being the case it is not permitted to act upon an opinion from other than them. Nor is it permitted for ijtihād to occur except within them (i.e. employing their principles that is the tools of interpretation).” (vol.6 p.209)

[10] In the commentary of the Shafi text Jam‘ al-Jawami‘, Imam Al-Jalāl Shams al-Din al-Mahalli writes:“And the soundest position (wal-Asahh) is that it is obligatory (yajibu) for the non-scholar/layman and other than him of those (scholars) who have not reached the rank of ijtihād, adherence of one particular school from the madh-habs of the Mujtahid Imams (iltizam madh-hab Muayyan min madāhib al-Mujtahideen) that he believes to be preferable to another school or equal to it.” (Kitab al-ijtihād, p.93)

[11] Imam Rajab al-Hanbali writes in his book: “Refutation of anyone who follows other than the four schools” [A title that emphatically exposes the deception of the Salafi claim that it is they who represent true Islam]:“…that is the Mujtahid, assuming his existence, his duty (Farduhu) is to follow what becomes apparent to him of the Truth. As for the non-Mujtahid his duty is taqlīd.” Elsewhere having indicated in the latter the rarity of the lofty status of ijtihād, he states: “As for all other people who have not reached this level (of ijtihād), it is not allowed (lā yasau‘hu) for them but to do taqlīd of these Four Imams and to submit to that which the rest of the Ummah submitted to.” (Majmoo‘ al-Rasail Ibn Rajab, vol.2 p. 626 and p.624 respectively).

[12] In the famous commentary of the treatise of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani Al-Risalah, entitled “Al-Fawākih al-Dawāni,” Imam Ahmad al-Nafrawi (died 1126 ah) also confirms the Ijma of all the scholars that following one Imam is obligatory: “The consensus of the Muslims has been established upon the obligation (Wujub) of following one of the four Imams today; Abu Ḥanīfa, Malik, Shafi and Ahmad- May Allah be pleased with them… What we explained before, in terms of the obligation of following one of the four Imams, is in relation to those who do not possess the capability of performing ijtihād.” (vol.2 p.574, Bab Fi al-Ruyah wa al-Tathāub, 1997).

Download a pdf copy – link

Source

Read online:

Al-Miftah

We are often faced with the question: “Why do you follow Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik or Imam Shafi’i etc (rahimahumullah)?

Aren’t we supposed to follow Sayyiduna Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam)?

A unique perspective 

My Respected Teacher, Al-Muhaddith Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him and keep him in good health, and may Allah continue to allow us to benefit from Shaykh) writes:

“It is crucial for every Muslim to know the command of Allah Ta’ala concerning all matters; salah, zakah, fasting and all other acts of worship, including monetary dealings etc.

He should not embark on any deed without understanding the rule of Shari’ah and the command of Allah concerning that deed. If he is notified (by any scholar) of the view of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) – or any other Imam for that matter – on that issue, he should indeed accept this, but with the following frame of mind:

This is how Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) has understood the command of Allah and his Messenger (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), therefore I practice this as the way of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam). My heart should be linked to Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), it should believe that these are his commands and sunnats (ways) or I abstain from certain things because he (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) has prohibited us from doing so. 

(i.e, these are not rules that Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) has enforced, but merely his understanding of the way of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam)

This is a book by  Shaykh Abu Usamah from South Africa.  It covers several major unfounded doubts in the minds of many concerning the issues of following a madhhab (School of Islamic Law).

The book is in question and answer format which makes it easier to comprehend. A lot of the discussions have been adapted from “Atharul Hadith” of  Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) which has been extremely successful in eradicating many contemporary misconceptions.

Download the book – HERE

darultahqiq

In the recent past, due to several reasons, there has been a significant shift in the channel of Islamic information in our societies.

In the past, our system of information was in line with the ancient methods; that is to acquire Islamic knowledge from heart to heart. This was done in madrasahs as well as via the mimbars of the masajid.

Now that the world has become a global village, the channel of education has been broadened. Just as this brings some benefit, it also has its hazards. As a result, we have become beset with fitnahs of all kinds.

One such trial is the scourge of salafism; a doctrine or ideology that deceitfully claims to uphold the teachings of the salaf, but in reality actually defames the very same thing!!

A consequence of this is that people begin to question the legality of other madhahib. In our province, the overwhelming majority are Hanafis. Therefore the attack of these ill-informed individuals would be focused on the Hanafi Madhab.

The purpose of this booklet; entitled: ‘From Our Perspective’ is to enlighten one and all about the authentic proofs that support the Hanafi standpoint on issues that these individuals raise objection to. The book is meant to be brief, and therefore most of the chapters have just one clear authentic proof. For more elaboration on such issues, the ‘Ulama can refer to the detailed Arabic works on this subject.

Download the e-book – HERE

The following work is an English translation of a treatise known as al-Din al-Qayyim by Shaykh Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi of India, it was originally written in Arabic as a riposte to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751 AH) of Damascus, on the latter’s treatment and claims on the issue of Taqlid.  Thus, it is esentially a scholarly defence of the need and permissibility of following qualified scholarship (Taqlid) of the highest ranking Imams known as Mujtahids, like Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH), Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH), al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH) and Ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH). 

These Imams are the founders of the four most accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Madhhabs) in Sunni Islam for more than 1200 years.  Their schools represent the real understanding of the teachings of the earliest Muslims, meaning, the Way of the Sahaba, and what they received from the Companionship of Allah’s Messenger, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.  Till this day, most Muslim scholars and laiety on the surface of the earth are adherents of one of these four recognised Madhhabs.  It is only a small minority who have distanced themselves from Taqlid via the centuries as the books of Islamic scholarship and history attest to for more than a millenium.

The  English edition was translated from Arabic by Shaykh Zameelur Rahman from England, and with his permission it has been uploaded here for the benefit of all readers who wish to understand the issue of Taqlid, and why it is necessary for most Muslims to practice Islam in their lives with the conviction that it is based on not only the sources of the Sharia, but explained and detailed accurately by premier authorities known as Mujtahid Imams.

Download link

darultahqiq

Question

Some scholars say ‘Take the good, leave the bad.’

Whats is its’ reference?

I have read Mashayikh advising to avoid reading things from people of batil due to zulumat in their writings/speeches, how does this reconcile with the former mentioned quote/principle?

Answer

This statement is actually an understood principle among the Scholars. It is not a Hadith, but actually a logical conclusion.

Who does this apply to?

However, it is crucial to understand who this applies to.

There are essentially two groups of people;

1. Those who have vast amounts of knowledge and understanding.
2. Those who don’t.

Those who have sound understanding (the first group) will be able to easily sift out ‘the good from the bad’ without being affected by the bad. However, they too read such works with caution, only at times of need.

Don’t fall prey to falsehood

An under qualified or ill equipped reader easily falls prey to the bad, since he has no concept of it being wrong.

Therefore the seniors always caution against reading the works of the people of falsehood (ahlul batil), since most of the readers are ill equipped to sift the good from the band in such books. Hence such a reader will be undoubtedly misled.

Furthermore, even if one reads only good in the book of an innovator, one will still subtly be affected by the writers ideology in one way or another.

Imam Muhammad Ibn Sirin (rahimahullah) had given the Ummah a golden piece of advice when he said:

‘Indeed this knowledge is your religion, so check who you take your religion (Din) from.’

(Muqaddimah Sahih Muslim)

In fact Ibn Sirin (rahimahullah) also explained the practice of the Sahabah (radiyallahu’anhum) and Tab’un (rahimahumullah): ‘Initially they would not question the source. When innovations began, they would ask: tell us your source. Thereafter only the narrations from the Ahlus Sunnah would be accepted, and those from the ahlul bid’ah people of innovation (ahlul bid’ah) would be rejected.’

(Muqaddimah Sahih Muslim)

And Allah Ta’ala Knows best,

Answered by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar

Can a Layman Act On the Qur'an or Hadiths Without First Consulting a Scholar?:

Ibn al-Qayyim was asked about someone who possessed a copy of Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, or one of the Sunan collections, if it was permitted for him to act on the hadiths in them without first consulting a scholar about their meanings. He replied as follows:

‘The correct view in the issue is that there is some detail: If the textual indication in the hadith is plain and clear to whoever hears it, allowing for no other plausable interpretation, he can act on it and give fatwa according to it: he doesn’t need the approval of any jurist or Imam. The saying of the Prophet ﷺ is proof in itself, no matter who it opposes.

‘But if the indication is vague, or the intent is unclear, then it is unlawful for him to act on it or give a fatwa based on what he thinks it means, until he asks a scholar and gets clarity about the meaning of the hadith … This applies to one who is qualified, but has shortcomings in his knowledge of fiqh, the principles of the legalists, and the Arabic language.

‘If he is not of the qualified, his duty is simply to act by what God has said: “Ask the people of knowledge if you don't know.” [16:43]’*

The upshot of Ibn al-Qayyim's words in terms of a layman are:

1. Hadiths that speak about general knowledge of Islam (basic beliefs, morals, well-known and clear-cut obligations or prohibitions, etc.) may be read and acted upon by the layman, without the need to consult a scholar first.

2. Hadiths dealing with the nitty gritty aspects of the shariah, or those related to larger socio-political issues, the lay people must consult a qualified scholar before acting on them.

3. The above guidelines are pretty much the same for the Qur'an too; not forgetting its broader purpose: “This is a Book We have sent down to you, full of blessings, that they may reflect upon its verses, and that men of understanding may be reminded.” [38:29]

4. When in doubt as to what is clear-cut or not, one consults a scholar first.

5. Finally, books like Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, and the like are not books that laymen should be reading, without scholarly instruction. Their overall benefit for non-specialists is limited. Books like Imam al-Nawawi's Riyadh al-Salihin, however, were not only written for scholars, but for educated laymen too.

_______

*Ibn al-Qayyim, I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in (Jeddah: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 2002) 6:164.

Shaykh Abu Aaliyah

darultahqiq

The following is a crucial and highly welcomed Fatwa passed in the Holy city  of Makka al-Mukarrama in 1987 on the validity of following (taqlid) one of the Four Sunni Madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali) with regards to Islamic rulings, as well as a warning to those who try to detract the common folk from this type of  taqlid, and attack it in an odious way.  It also warned against those who go to excesses in attempting to fanatically promote an anti-Taqlid stance and presumptuously attempt to re-interpret the Shar’ia especially when they have not reached any level of valid and recognised Ijtihad. 

It is an essential Fatwa to show that not only is taqlid allowed and valid, but that also following false beliefs is harmful to Islam.  It is also pertinent that the Fatwa mentioned that the main cause of the fitna (mischief) of abandoning the taqlid of the valid Schools of Sunni law has been coming from the hands of young Muslims who lack the tools to really understand in a painstaking way why difference of opinion (ikhtilaf) in jurisprudential rulings (fiqh) occurred, and why they are permitted if the foundational principles (Usul) are valid in the first instance.  Valid usul has been noted in the Four Sunni Madhhabs and all of them recognise each other as valid interpretations of Islamic law while the diametric opposite has been witnessed in those who are outside these Four Sunni Madhhabs, especially so if the detractors are not recognised as high ranking jurisprudents (fuqaha) of the genre known as Mujtahids.  The Mujtahid being the one who has been recognised by other elite scholars to have the skill sets, high level of intellectual knowledge, proficiency of the sources of Islamic law and taqwa (fear of Allah) to extract independent legal rulings (Ijtihad).  The sources of Sunni Islamic law are the Holy Qur’an, Sunna (Prophetic practice), Ijma (agreement of the Sahaba or Mujtahid scholars in a specific age) and Qiyas (analogical reasoning).

What is pertinent and noteworthy is that this Fatwa was endorsed by some of those who are looked upto by various groups of those who are generally anti Sunni Madhhabs.  Such names include the late Saudi Grand Mufti, Abdal Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1999), the late Bakr Abu Zayd and currently alive Salih al-Fawzan.  All three named are said to be Hanbali in fiqh though their personal aqida is another matter as they are looked upto as being representatives of the so called Salafi way of this age by certain strains of Salafism.  Some of the other signatories are from other parts of the Muslim world, and a number of them are also well known scholars who have now passed away. 

The footnotes have been added by the compiler of these lines, in order to clarify what the veritable scholars of the past have said with regards to the obligation of taqlid for all non-Mujtahids, the Ijma (consensus) recorded on the taqlid of only one of the four Sunni Madhhabs; who are the real followers of the Saved sect known as Ahlus Sunna wal-Jama’ah in this age and the past by means of scholarly quotations from elite authorities. 

The following Qur’anic verse is one of the evidences used by the great Scholars of the past to establish Ijma (consensus) as a source of Islamic law.

Allah subhana wa ta’ala said in Sura an-Nisa (4:115):

Translation:

“And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.”

As for the obligation of taking from the pious and rightly guided scholars of this Umma then the following verse from Sura an-Nisa (4:59) is a witness to this as they are the ones who are recognised as being those in authority (Ulul Amr) amongst the Muslims besides a true Islamic ruler:

Translation:

“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.”

Here follows the Fatwa and the reader is advised to download the pdf file at the end as it has the orignal Arabic Fatwa with the English edition with the  names of the signatories in both languages.

RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE FIQH
ACADEMY IN ITS TENTH SESSION

Convened in 1408/1987. Regarding the juristic Differences between the Schools of Law and the [Reprehensible] Fanaticism of some of their Followers

Praise be to Allah alone, and peace and blessings be upon the last of the Prophets, our Master, Sayyiduna Muhammad. May Allah bestow peace and blessings upon him, his family, and his Companions.

The Assembly of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, in its tenth session, convened in Makkah al-Mukarramah, for the period between Saturday 24 Safr 1408/17 October 1987 and Wednesday 28 Safr 1408/21 October 1987, has considered the issue of juristic differences between the schools of law (madhahib), and the contemporary fanaticism of followers for their own schools, which goes beyond time bounds of moderation and reaches the point where the perpetrators attack the other schools and their scholars (ulama).

The Assembly examined the problems which arise in the minds of the youth of this age and their ideas surrounding the differences between the schools of law, of which they do not know the basis or the significance. Those who mislead them give them the idea that so long as Islamic Law is one, and its foundations in the Sublime Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah are also united, why then are there differences between the Schools of Law? And why are they not united so that the Muslims have before them only one school of law and one understanding of the Shari’ah?

The Assembly also examined the issue of fanatical adherence to the schools of law and the problems which result from it, especially among some contemporary currents in our time, whose followers call for a new line of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). They attack the established schools of law, which have been accepted by the Ummah since the beginning of the Islamic era and [they attack] their Imams—or some of them—wrongly, and sow seeds of discord (fitnah) amongst the people!

After discussing this issue, the events and circumstances surrounding it and the resultant discord and deception, the Fiqh Academy resolved to direct the following statement to both parties, those misleading and the fanatics, in order to remind and inform them as follows:

First:

Regarding the Differences between the Schools of Law (Madhahib)

The differing positions in terms of opinion which exist in Islamic countries are of two kinds:

1. Differing positions in terms of belief
2. Differing positions in terms of fiqh

The first of these, that is, differences of belief (al-Ikhtilaf al-I’tiqadi), is in reality a problem which has caused catastrophes in Islamic countries, splitting the ranks of the Muslims and dividing their position. It is a distressing matter, which should not exist. The Ummah must unite upon the position of those who follow the Sunnah and the community (Ahl as-Sunnah Wa’l-Jama’ah) [ii], who represent the pure and sound Islamic thought of the era of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the era of the rightly guided Caliphate, which the Messenger indicated to be an extension of his Sunnah, by saying: “Follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Caliphs after me. Adhere to it and hold onto it firmly with your molar teeth.”

With regard to the second [kind of difference], that is, differences in terms of fiqh on some issues, there are technical reasons which have necessitated this. Allah, praised be He, has put profound wisdom in this, which includes mercy upon his servants and widening the scope for deriving rulings from the texts. Furthermore, it is a blessing and a juristic and legal treasure, which affords the Muslim Ummah breadth in matters of religion (din) and law (Shari’ah), so that it is not confined to applying a single legal ruling, for which there is no alternative. Rather, if the Ummah finds hardship in the position of one of the jurist Imams at a particular time or regarding a particular matter, they find in the position of one of the other Imams a range, a leniency and an ease, whether in matters of worship, or in dealings with others, family matters, or justice and crime in light of legal evidences.

This second kind of difference of schools, that is, differences in terms of fiqh, is not a deficiency or a matter of contradiction in our religion, and it is impossible for it not to exist. There can be no community (ummah) whose legal system is perfect, including its jurisprudence (fiqh) and independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), in which such differences of opinion do not exist regarding jurisprudence and independent legal opinions.

The reality is that these differences are inevitable, because the source texts often hold more than one meaning. In addition, the text cannot contain every eventuality, since the texts are limited, whereas the eventualities are unlimited, as expressed by a group of scholars. Consequently, it is necessary to resort to analogy and to examine the pretexts for rulings; the objective of the Legislator: the general aims of the Law; and the application of these in actual and new circumstances.

In this the understanding of the scholars differs, as does their allocation of preference between the various possibilities. Their rulings on the same issue therefore differ, although each of them is aiming and searching for the truth. Whoever finds it has two rewards; whereas whoever is mistaken has one reward. As a result the [juristic] scope widens and the narrowness disappears.

Where then is the deficiency in the existence of these differences of position? We have shown the benefit and the mercy that is in them, and that they are in fact a blessing and a mercy from Allah to his believing servants, and at the same time a great source of legislative wealth, a feature worthy of the pride of the Muslim Ummah. However, [there are those] misleading foreigners who seek to exploit the weakness of the Islamic culture of some Muslim youth, especially those who study with them abroad. Therefore, they depict these differences of position in terms of fiqh as if they were differences of belief, in order to give them the impression — wrongly and falsely – that it indicates a contradiction within the Shari’ah, rather than apprehending the distinction between the two types [of difference] … and how different they are!

Second:

Regarding the group who call for discarding the schools of law and want to induce the people into a new line of independent legal reasoning, attacking the existing schools of law and their Imams, or some of them; in our above statement on the schools of jurisprudence, and the advantages of their existence and of their Imams, [we state that] it is necessary for them to desist from this odious way which they pursue and with which they mislead the people, split their ranks and divide their unity. [They do so] at a time when we are in urgent need of unity in order to confront the grave challenges posed by the enemies of Islam, rather than this call to division, of which we have no need.[iii]

May Allah bestow peace and blessings in abundance on Sayyiduna Muhammad, his family and Companions. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.

Signed by:

President of the Assembly of the Academy:
‘ABD AL-‘AZIZ IBN ABD ALLAH IBN BAZ
Vice President:
DR. ‘ABD ALLAH ‘UMAR NASIF

Members:
‘ABD ALLAH ‘ABD AR-RAHMAN AL-BASSAM
DR. BAKR ‘ABD ALLAH ABU ZAYD
MUHAMMAD IBN JUBAYR
MUSTAFA AHMAD AZ-ZARQA
MUHAMMAD IBN ‘ABD ALLAH IBN SUBAYYIL
SALIH IBN FAWZAN AL-FAWZAN
MUHAMMAD RASHID RAGHIB QABBANI
ABU’L-HASAN ‘ALI AN-NADWI [not present to sign]
MUHAMMAD MAHMUD AS-SAWAF
AHMAD FAHMI ABU SUNNAH
ABU BAKR JUMI
MUHAMMAD ASH-SHADHLI AN-NAYFAR
MUHAMMAD SALIM IBN ‘ABD AL-WADUD
MUHAMMAD AL-HABIB IBN AL-KHAWJAH
Chairman of the Assembly of the Fiqh Academy:
DR. TALAL ‘UMAR BAFAQIH

—————–

Footnotes:

(i) RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE FIQH ACADEMY IN ITS TENTH SESSION (1987).  See – Al-Majma al-Fiqhi al-Islami (The Islamic Fiqh Academy), 1(2), pp.233-237. English translation taken from The Influence of the Noble Hadith upon the Differences of Opinion amongst the Jurist Imams by Shaykh Muhammad Awwamah, Turath Publishing, London, 1^st edn, 2014. Original Arabic fatwa may be downloaded from – here. It has also been appended at the end of this English version.

 (ii) The true followers of the Saved sect known as Ahlus-Sunna wal-Jama’ah in this age are the adherents of one of the Four Madhhabs in Jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i or Hanbali), and in terms of Aqida (Islamic creed) they accept, respect and adhere to one of the following legitimate schools described below which all recognise each other.

Ahlus Sunna after the Salaf (first three pious generations of Islam) was represented by three valid schools which are not sects but valid explanations of creedal statements:

1)        Ash’ari school named after Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (b. around 260 AH in Basra and died in 324 AH in Baghdad). He was a Shafi’i but some say he was a Hanafi. He authored al-Ibana an uṣūl al-Diyana, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, Risala ila Ahl al-Thagr and other works

2) Maturidi school– named after Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi who was born in Samarqand (Uzbekistan). He was a Hanafi and his creed is the same as that of Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) as they are from the same Madhhab. He died in 333 AH and authored Kitab al-Tawhid and a major Tafsir called Ta’wilat Ahlus Sunna (published in 10 volumes). Please see the following link for some works linked to this school of aqida – 80 Books on Sunni Creed according to the Hanafi Madhhab

3)        Athari school – follow the true teachings of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH). The pseudo Atharis are the false claimants to the Way of the Salaf and they call themselves ‘Salafi’ today. Their hallmark in these times is an open disdain and rejection of the above two named schools of Aqida, and many of them reject following one of the Four Jurisprudential schools of Islamic law. The rejecters of the Ash’ari/Maturidi schools share the commonality of linking themselves to the 7^th century controversial Hanbali figure known as Taqiud-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH). See what a number of famous and reputable scholars had to say about him here – https://taymiyyun.wordpress.com/

The Hanbali scholar known as Abul Faraj ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) was one of those who refuted the false claimants to the real Hanbali creed in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat and its abridgement known as Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih. Both of these latter works are also available in English nowadays.

Scholarly quotes on the need to adhere to one of the above recognised

Schools of Aqida:

Imam Tajud-Din al-Subki (d. 771 AH) said in his Tabaqat al Shafi’iyya al-Kubra (3/373):

“We have already mentioned what Ibn Abdis Salaam (d. 660 AH) and others before and after him mentioned, which is that the Sħafi’is, Malikis, Ĥanafis and the virtuous (fudala) among the Ĥanbalis are all Asharis. This is what was stated by Ibn Abdis Salaam, the Shaykh of Sħafi’is, and Ibn Al-Ĥajib, the Shaykh of the Malikis, and Al-Husayri, the Shaykh of the Ĥanafis. Among what was stated by Ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH), the Hafiz of this Umma, trustworthy (thiqa) and firmly established (thabt): ‘Are there any among the jurists (Fuqaha), among the Ĥanafis, Malikis and Sħafi’is that do not agree with al-Ash’ari and do not relate themselves to him, and pleased with his efforts for the religion of Allah, praising him for great knowledge? That is, except for a tiny group that hides anthropomorphism (Tashbih), and makes an enemy of those who believe in tawĥid and clear Allah of likeness to creation (Tanzih).”’

Imam ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) said that the two Imams of Ahlus Sunna are al-Shaykh Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari and al-Shaykh Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (al-Zawajir, p. 82) and in his Fatawa Hadithiyya (Dar Ihya wa’l Turath, p. 370, 1998) while defining what a man of bid’a (an innovator) is he said:

“One who is against what the Ahlus Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah are upon (man kaan ‘ala khilaf maa ‘alayh ahlis sunnah wa’l jama’a), and what is meant by them [the Ahlus Sunnah] are the followers of Imam Abul Hasan Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, the two Imams of Ahlus Sunnah.”

Imam Ahmad Shihab ad-Din al Qalyubi (d.1069 AH)

Imam al-Qalyubi wrote on the fourth volume of his marginalia to the book Kanz ar-Raghibin:

“One who departs from what Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH) and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH) reported is not a Sunni. These two Imams followed the footprints of Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all).” 

Allama Abdal Baqi al-Mawahibi al-Hanbali (d. 1071 AH) in his al-Ayn wal Athar (p. 53) has said that : “The groups of Ahlus Sunna are three: Asha’ira, Hanabila and Maturidiyya with the evidence inclined by the Hanbali Ulama upon the Asha’ira as in many books on Kalam and the totality of the Hanbali books.”

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) said in his Lawami al-Anwar (p. 73):

“Ahl al-Sunna consist of three groups: the textualists (al-Athariyya), whose Imam is Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Ash`aris, whose Imam is Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, and the Maturidis, whose Imam is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi…. and they are all one sect, the saved sect, and they are Ahl al-Hadith.”

[iii] Here follows some quotes from classical scholars on the need to adhere (taqlid) to one of the Four Sunni Schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i or Hanbali) for all those who have not reached the level of valid Ijtihad which is of the highest rank of true Islamic scholarship:

 [1] Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH) said: “The difference found in the four Schools of Islamic law (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali) in this nation is a huge blessing and an enormous virtue. It has a subtle hidden wisdom the intelligent are able to grasp, but the ignorant are blind of. I have even heard some of them say: ‘The Prophet (pbuh) came with one law, so where did the four Madhabs come from?” (Jazeel al-Mawahib, p.4)

The famous Imam al-Haramayn Abu al-Ma‘āli Abd al-Malik bin Yusuf al-Juwayni (419-478 AH) writes in his book Al-Burhan:

[2] “The expert scholars have agreed that the masses are obligated (‘alayhim) with following the schools of the (four) Imams who thoroughly investigated and researched, who compiled the chapters (of Fiqh) and mentioned the circumstances of the rulings.” (vol. 2, P. 1146)

[3] Shaikh al-Islam Ahmed Ibn Hajr al-Haytami writes in Tuhfa al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al- Minhaj:

“The claim the layman has no madh-hab is rejected, rather it is necessary (yalzamuhu) for him to do taqlīd of a recognised school. (As for the claim: scholars did not obligate following one school), that was before the codification of the schools and their establishment.” (Vol.12 p.491-Kitab al-Zakah)

[4] Imam al-Nawawi writes in Al-Majmu‘ Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab:

“The second view is it is obligatory (yalzamuhu) for him to follow one particular school, and that was the definitive position according to Imam Abul-Hassan (the father of Imam al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni). And this applies to everyone who has not reached the rank of ijtihād of the jurists and scholars of other disciplines. The reasoning for this ruling is that if it was permitted to follow any school one wished it would lead to hand-picking the dispensations of the schools, following one’s desires. He would be choosing between Halal and Haram, and obligatory and permissible. Ultimately that would lead to relinquishing oneself from the burden of responsibility. This is not the same as during the first generations, for the schools that were sufficient in terms of their rulings for newer issues, were neither codified nor widespread. Thus on this basis it is obligatory for a person to strive in choosing a madh-hab which alone he follows.” (vol.1 p. 93)

[5] Shaikh Salih al-Sunusi writes in Fath al-‘Alee al-Malik fil-Fatwa ‘ala madh-hab al-Imam Malik:

“As for the scholar who has not reached the level of ijtihād and the non-scholar, they must do taqlīd of the Mujtahid… And the most correct view is that it is obligatory (wajib) to adhere to a particular school from the four schools…” (p.40-41, in Usul al-Fiqh)

[6] Imam Sharani, an undisputed authority in the Shafi school writes in Al-Mizan al-Kubra:

“…You (O student) have no excuse left for not doing taqlīd of any madh-hab you wish from the schools of the four Imams, for they are all paths to Heaven…” (p.55 vol.1)

[7] Imām Shams al-Din Dhahabī (673-748 AH) writes in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubalā under Ibn Hazm Zāhirī’s comment:

“I follow the truth and perform ijtihād, and I do not adhere to any madh-hab”, “I say: yes. Whoever has reached the level of ijtihād and a number of imāms have attested to this regarding him, it is not allowed for him to do taqlīd, just as it is not seeming at all for the beginner layman jurist who has committed the Qur’ān to memory or a great deal of it to perform ijtihād. How is he going to perform ijtihād? What will he say? On what will he base his opinions? How can he fly when his wings have not yet grown?” (Vol.18, Pg.191)

[8] In the famous twelve volume Maliki compendium of fatāwā, Al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rib an fatāwā ahl al-Ifriqiyya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib, Imam Ahmad al-Wanshirisi records the Fatwa on taqlīd:

“It is not permitted (lā yajoozu) for the follower of a scholar to choose the most pleasing to him of the schools and one that agrees the most with him. It is his duty to do taqlīd of the Imam whose school he believes to be right in comparison to the other schools.” (vol.11 p.163-164)

[9] The Hanbali scholar Imam ‘Ala al-Din al-Mardawi in his major Juristic compendium Al-Insaf, cites the statement of the famous scholar Imam Al-Wazir ibn Hubaira (died 560 ah):

“Consensus has been established upon taqlīd of every one of the Four Schools and that the truth does not lie outside of them.” (Vol.11 p.169, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah)

[10] Imam Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi states in Al-Bahr al-Muhit:

“There has been established a consensus amongst the Muslims that the truth is restricted to these (four) schools. This being the case it is not permitted to act upon an opinion from other than them. Nor is it permitted for ijtihād to occur except within them (i.e. employing their principles that is the tools of interpretation).” (vol.6 p.209)

[11] In the commentary of the Shafi text Jam‘ al-Jawami‘, Imam Al-Jalāl Shams al-Din al-Mahalli writes:

“And the soundest position (wal-Asahh) is that it is obligatory (yajibu) for the non-scholar/layman and other than him of those (scholars) who have not reached the rank of ijtihād, adherence of one particular school from the madh-habs of the Mujtahid Imams (iltizam madh-hab Muayyan min madāhib al-Mujtahideen) that he believes to be preferable to another school or equal to it.” (Kitab al-ijtihād, p.93)

[12] Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali writes in his book: “Refutation of anyone who follows other than the four schools” [A title that emphatically exposes the deception of the Salafi claim that it is they who represent true Islam]:“…that is the Mujtahid, assuming his existence, his duty (Farduhu) is to follow what becomes apparent to him of the Truth. As for the non-Mujtahid his duty is taqlīd.” Elsewhere having indicated in the latter the rarity of the lofty status of ijtihād, he states: “As for all other people who have not reached this level (of ijtihād), it is not allowed (lā yasau‘hu) for them but to do taqlīd of these Four Imams and to submit to that which the rest of the Ummah submitted to.” (Majmoo‘ al-Rasail Ibn Rajab, vol.2 p. 626 and p.624 respectively).

[13] In the famous commentary of the treatise of Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani Al-Risalah, entitled “Al-Fawākih al-Dawāni,” Imam Ahmad al-Nafrawi (died 1126 ah) also confirms the Ijma of all the scholars that following one Imam is obligatory:

“The consensus of the Muslims has been established upon the obligation (Wujub) of following one of the four Imams today; Abu Ḥanīfa, Malik, Shafi and Ahmad- May Allah be pleased with them… What we explained before, in terms of the obligation of following one of the four Imams, is in relation to those who do not possess the capability of performing ijtihād.” (vol.2 p.574, Bab Fi al-Ruyah wa al-Tathāub, 1997).

The above sources were quoted from – Here

Thanks and appreciation to the original translators of many of the above quotes.

 Peace and blessings be upon Muhammad

 Wassalam

Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed

1^st April 2015/12^th Jumada al-Akhir 1436 AH

Download the pdf file – HERE

The Obligation of Taqlid – Shaykh Fazlur Rahman Azmi

The following book is with regard to the obligation of Taqlid (following qualified scholarship) and the harms of abandoning it, with special regards to making Taqlid of an Individual Mujtahid Imam of the highest rank.  It was written by Shaykhul Hadith Fazlur Rahman ‘Azmi of South Africa.  The authors biography is available here in detail:

Biography of Shaykh Azmi

TheObligationofTaqlid_fazlurRahmanAzmi.pdf

darultahqiq

This is a collection of articles about following one of the four Sunni madhhabs (Schools of Islamic jurisprudence) in Islam.

The work may be downloaded – HERE

FollowingAMadhhabInnovationOrObligation.pdf

darultahqiq

Some contemporaries, who degrade the Fiqh of the four Imams and their followers, actually do so because they view legitimate “difference of opinion” as evil. This is the reason for which they keep harping on the fact that we need to follow the Quran and Sunnah and not any of the Schools of Fiqh. This is analysis of their claim.

My Honourable Teacher, Al-Muhaddith, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) responds to this with the following:

“Firstly, this implies that the Imams of the four Madhahib (Schools of Fiqh) were not following the Quran and Sunnah !

Secondly, this can only be said in ignorance of the reality we are faced with; tell me in the name of Allah! Up to how many “schools” have they resulted in, after Muslims lived within the four schools for centuries? Where is the logic behind their claim?!

Lastly, I will explain further that following the Quran and Sunnah actually leads us to legitimate difference of opinion.”

(Atharul Hadithi Shareef, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pg.77)

A valuable lesson

Shaykh ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) has included the following incident in his glorious book “Atharul Hadith”.

“Sayyiduna ‘Urwah ibn Zubair – a Tabi’e- (rahimahullah) once objected to Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu ‘anhuma): “You have been misleading the people!”

Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu’anhuma) asked for the reason, to which ‘Urwah replied: “When a person dons his Ihram for Haj or ‘Umrah and after arriving in Makkah performs the tawaf only, you state that he is now free of his ihram. Whereas Sayyiduna ‘Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) actually opposed this view!”

Ibn ‘Abbas responded: “Are the two of them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyallahu’anhuma) preferred to you over what is in the Quran and Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam)?”

‘Urwah replied: “Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) had more knowledge/ understanding of the Quran and Sunnah than me and you put together!”

(Al-Mu’jamul Awsat of Tabarani, Hadith:21)

In a narration of Musnad Ahmad Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu’anhuma) responded to ‘Urwah’s objection by saying: “I am quoting a Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) to you, and quote Abu Bakr and ‘Umar?!”

‘Urwah replied:

“They followed Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) more than you, and they knew more about him than you knew”

(Musnad Ahmad, vol.1, pg.252)

The narrator; Ibn Abi Mulaykah (rahimahullah) comments: “Urwah defeated him.”

Shaykh ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) explains:

“…’Urwah is actually saying to Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas:

“By us taking the view of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) we aren’t disregarding the way of the sunnah. In fact we find ourselves with two options; that which Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu’anhuma) witnessed (and understood) from Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) and what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) witnessed/understood. We then preferred their view because they were most knowledgeable regarding the sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam).”

(Atharul Hadithi Sharif, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pg. 108)

Imam Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said:

نسلم ما سمعنا، ونكل ما لا نعلم إلى عالمه، ونتهم رأينا لرأيهم

“We follow what we know, and hand over what we do not know to those who do know. We will even question our understanding in favour of theirs”  (Al-Intiqa, pg.265, 266)

The reality of “Fiqhus Sunnah”

Shaykh (may Allah protect him) writes further:

“And this is our response to those who ask us to abandon the Fiqh of Imams: Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’e and Ahmad (rahimahumullah) and to rather take –what they label as- “Fiqhus-Sunnah” or “Fiqhul-Quran was-Sunnah”

We say to them:

“We are not prepared to accept you’ll as alternatives to those Imams, for they were undoubtedly more knowledgeable than you’ll regarding the sunnah. In fact there is no comparison between you’ll and them in knowledge.

It is actually our eagerness to follow the way of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) that leads us to follow what these great Imams had understood (and presented to the ummah) as the sunnah!”

(Atharul Hadithi Shareef, fi ikhtilafil A-immatil Fuqaha, pgs. 108-109.)

The true meaning of Fiqh of Abu Hanifah etc.

The word fiqh actually translates as: understanding.

Shaykh ‘Awwamah writes: “Therefore, when we say “Fiqh of Abu Hanifah, Fiqh of Shafi’e and so on, the actual meaning of this is: the understanding of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi’e.

The question that arises is: Their understanding of what?

It is their understanding of none other than the Quran and Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam)

The reason for this is that “Fiqh” in fact means: understanding.”

Don’t be fooled!

“In light of the above, we can now realize a widespread grave mistake which nobody seems to pay attention to, or even rectify; when certain people label their “understanding” as “Fiqhus Sunnah” or Fiqhus Sunnah wal Kitab”

This term literally translates as: “the understanding of the Quran and Sunnah”. In this case it is the understanding of some unknown, or under qualified person. It is his understanding which he seeks to legitimise by attributing it to the Quran and Sunnah. This is done to give the impression that they are presenting before the people the “original authentic source” of knowledge (whereas it is merely their distorted understanding). In this manner they deter others from the Fiqh of the Imams; Abu Hanifah, Shafi’e, Malik and Ahmad (rahimahumullah).

They even boldly venture to say: “People! Do you want “Fiqh of Muhammad sallallahu’alaihi wasallam” or “Fiqh of Abu Hanifah and Shafi’ie”?

One of them had the audacity to ask before leading the salah; “Should I perform the salah of Muhammad (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam) or the salah of Abu Hanifah”!!

This is all the consequence of them attributing their Fiqh/understanding to the Quran and sunnah, and the fiqh/understanding of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Shafi’e to Abu Hanifah and Shafi’e, not to the Quran and Sunnah.

In so doing, they have separated the correct understanding of the Quran and Sunnah (the understanding of legitimate scholars) which in reality was the most appropriate explanation of the Quran and Hadith. They severed this and then produced a new understanding which they attribute to the Quran and Sunnah!”

(Atharul Hadith, pgs.134-135)

They truly did know better

Imam Malik (rahimahullah) said:

سلموا للأئمة ولا تجادلوهم، فلو كنا كلما جاءنا رجل أجدل من رجل اتبعناه: لخفنا أن نقع في رد ما جاء به جبريل عليه السلام

“Submit to the Imams and don’t argue with them, for if we were to follow every convincing debater, I fear we may end up refuting what Angel Jibrail brought from the skies”  (Atharul Hadith, pg.117)

Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (rahimahullah) said:

التسليم للفقهاء سلامة في الدين

“In conceding to the Fuqaha (Jurists) is the security for our din”

(Atharul Hadith, pg.117)

Imam Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said:

نسلم ما سمعنا، ونكل ما لا نعلم إلى عالمه، ونتهم رأينا لرأيهم

“We follow what we know, and hand over what we do not know to those who do know. We will even question our understanding in favour of theirs”  (Al-Intiqa, pg.265, 266)

These quotations are so glaring in the current conditions.

So the next time someone confronts us with arguments like the ones discussed above, we shouldn’t be moved. In fact, these last three quotations are sufficient in response!

May Allah Ta’ala keep us under the shadows of our Imams which ultimately lead us to the shadow of Rasulullah (sallallahu’alaihi wasallam). Amin.

al-miftah

(Click on picture to enlarge)

Shaykh Abdal Hayy al-Lucknawi (d. 1886 CE) mentioned the following anecdote from the 10th century scholar known as Shaykh Mahmūd b. Sulaymān al-Kafawī (d. 990 AH/1582 CE) as quoted from his Aʿlām al-Akhyār:

The knowledge of our eponym, Abū Hanīfa, was transmitted through his disciples to a vast number of countries. In fact, the school’s jurists are dispersed throughout a vast number of cities.

For example, our colleagues from among the early Hanafīs (ashābunā al-mutaqaddimūn) were dispersed in Iraq, mashāyikh Balkh, mashāyikh Khurasān, mashāyikh Samarqand, mashāyikh Bukhāra, and other mashāyikh from Isbahān, Shirāz, Tūs, Zinjān, Hamadān, Istarabād, Bastām, Marghinān, Farghānā, Damaghān, and other provinces within the lands beyond the Oxus River (sic) such as Khurasān, Azarbayjān, Khwārazm, Ghazna, Karmān. Also, the school was spread in the lands of the Hind, and different provinces in Arab and non-Arab lands. All of these scholars spread the knowledge of Abū Hanīfa by dictating to students, memorization, and writing in the madhhab. Those Hanafīs were engaging in learning fiqh, ijtihad (legal reasoning), spreading the benefits of their knowledge, and writing. This system of transmitting knowledge remained this way over years and centuries.

Then, God destined the coming of Chingis Khan (d. 1227) who chose war and murdered people, destroyed knowledge and countries. His children followed him on the same path. This resulted in the immigration of Hanafī jurists and their families, who survived this injustice, to Damascus, Aleppo, Egypt, and Anatolia. This led to the flourishing of Hanafī knowledge in these provinces. (al-Nāfiʿ al-Kabīr li Man Yutaliʿ al-Jāmiʿ al-Saghīr (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1986),8.  Quoted in We’re Not in Kufa Anymore: The Construction of Late Hanafism in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, 16th – 19th Centuries CE, p. 25 by Dr. Samy Ayoub)

darultahqiq

Introduction

 For quite a while, very deceiving tactics have been utilised by the non-Madhhabīs (also known as Salafiyyah) over the past few decades to lure people into their sect. The most prominent of these tactics is to have the unsuspecting public thinking that having differences of opinion in matters of fiqh is dangerous and something unfounded within the parameters of our dīn. The general public are given questions by the non-Madhhabīs to cause doubts in their minds. These questions range from ‘how can four schools (madhhabs) be correct?’ to questions like ‘how can four different opinions be right? Isn’t our Prophet j one?’ They also propagate that there must be one way in all matters of jurisprudence (fiqh). However these people of innovation (bidʿah) conceal, or are ignorant of their own scholars who themselves have differed in fiqh. The following is a compilation of a range of issues where the Salafī scholars have differed among themselves in just the description of prayer (ṣalāh) itself.

Venturing beyond the scope of differences in ṣalāh will, by far, be too lengthy and time consuming for this short epistle; hence, it has been limited to the prayer itself. This is because there are a lot of scholarly differences that can be accumulated between them (adding other differences from other chapters besides the description of prayer). However, the intention is to give the intrigued reader the upshot of this essay and an insight regarding the differences that have occurred between the Salafī scholars.

الاختلاف في صفة الصلاة بين علماء السلفية The Differences in the Description of Prayer between the Salafī Scholars

May I remind the readers that the intent of this short work is to show that Muslims can never be unified under one opinion in all aspects relating to the religion; differences will occur in our jurisprudence (fiqh), and that the scholars will always differ down to the grain. Classical scholars have always agreed on a principle that differences amongst the scholars is a mercy from Allāh (subhana wa ta’ala).

To proceed with the differences:

[1] Folding the Hands after Bowing (Rukūʿ) – Qawmah

a) Sh. al-Albānī’s  opinion that placing your hands back after rukūʿ is a misguided innovation (bidʿah ḍalālah):
ولست أشك في أن وضع اليدين على الصدر في هذا القيام ( يعني بعد الرفع من الركوع) بدعة ضلالة، لأنه لم يرد مطلقا في شيء من أحاديث الصلاة وما أكثرها، ولا ذكره أحد من أئمة الحديث فيما أعلم

“I have no doubt that placing the two hands upon the chest in this standing (i.e. standing after rukūʿ) is a misleading bidʿah (innovation in religion), because this was not mentioned at all in any of the h̩adīths on [describing] ṣalāh though they are numerous. This was not mentioned by any of the scholars of h̩adīth as far as I know.”^([1])

1. b) While Sh. Ibn Bāz  was of the opinion that it was from the Sunnah:

ينبغي أن يعلم أن ما تقدم من البحث في قبض الشمال باليمين ووضعهما على الصدر أو غيره قبل الركوع وبعده كل ذلك من قبيل السنن

“It should be known that the above discussion on holding the left hand with the right one and placing them both on the chest, or any other place, either before or after rukūʿ is an act of Sunnah.”^([2])

[2] Constantly Moving Finger in Tashahhud

1. a) Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  was of the opinion that the finger should be moved constantly in tashahhud with the duʿāʾ, utilising the narration containing the narrator Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah:

دلت السنة على أنه يشير بها عند الدعاء، لأن لفظ الحديث «يحركها يدعو بها» فكلّما دعوت حرِّكْ

“The sunnah indicates that he should point with it when supplicating (duʿāʾ̃), because the h̩adīth reads, ‘moving it, making du’ã with it’. So every time you make duʿāʾ̃ (in tashahhud), move your finger.”^([3])

1. b) Sh. Muqbil Ibn Hādī al-Wādiʿī , utilising ʿAbdullāh Ibn Zubayr’s  narration, says:

هذا الحديث يدل على الإشارة بالأصبع، وأما التحريك فقد تفرد به زائدة بن قدامة، وقد خالف أربعة عشر راوياً

“This h̩adīth proves the indication (ishārah) with the finger, as for moving it then Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah is alone in his narration. He has opposed fourteen narrators.”

He goes on to reject the narration of Zāʾidah Ibn Qudāmah, saying it is isolated (shādhdh).^([4])

[3] Placing the Knees on the Ground before the Hands during Sujūd

1. a) Ibn Bāz , while discussing the ah̩ādīth regarding the knees going first before the hands during the prostrations (sujūd), says:

وهذا هو الأصح والأرجح، وبذلك يتفق الأحاديث ولا يقع بينها خلا ف. النهي عن البروك كبروك البعير يوافق حديث وائل في تقديم الركبتين، ثم اليدين بعد ذلك في السجود

“And this is the most correct and likely opinion, for that is in agreement with the ah̩ādīth and there is no difference between them. For the prohibition of kneeling like that of the camel is in agreement with the h̩adīth of Wāʾil regarding the knees going first [for sujūd], thereafter the hands after that during the sujūd.”^([5])

1. b) However, Sh. al-Albānī  mentions to do the opposite:

الخرور إلى السجود على اليدين… كان يضع يديه على الأرض قبل ركبتيه

“Going Down into Sujūd with the Hands: He used to place his hands on the ground before his knees.”^([6])

[4] Joining the Feet/Ankles in Prayer (Ṣalāh)

1. a) Sh. al-Albānī  was of the opinion that joining the feet in prayer is from the authentic Sunnah:

ولكن ربما يخفى على الكثيرين منهم أن من إقامة الصف تسويته بالأقـدام، وليس فقط بالمناكب، بل لقد سمعنا مراراً من بعض أئمة المساجد -حين يأمرون بالتسوية- التنبيه على أن السنة فيها إنما هي بالمناكب فقط دون الأقدام

ولما كان ذلك خلاف الثابت في السنة الصحيحة، رأيت أنه لابد من ذكر ما ورد فيه من الحديث؛ تذكيراً لمن أراد أن يعمل بما صح من السنة؛ غير مغتر بالعادات والتقاليد الفاشية في الأمة

“However, it remains unknown to many that straightening the rows requires straightening it with the feet, not just the shoulders. Indeed, we have often heard some of the Imāms of the mosques (masājid) pointing out – when ordering the people to straighten the rows – that the Sunnah is to do so with the shoulders to the exclusion of the feet! Since this is contrary to what is established in the authentic Sunnah, I thought it necessary to mention some ah̩ādīth that exist on this topic, as a reminder for whoever wishes to act in accordance with the authentic Sunnah, not being deceived by the widespread customs and habits prevalent in the Ummah.”^([7])

1. b) Contrary to this position, Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  mentions the feet should not be joined throughout prayer (ṣalāh) and said to do so is extreme:

وليس معنى ذلك أن يلازم هذا الإلصاق ويبقى ملازماً له في جميع الصلاة. ومن الغلو في هذه المسألة ما يفعله بعض الناس من كونه يلصق كعبه بكعب صاحبه ويفتح قدميه فيما بينهما حتى يكون بينه وبين جاره في المناكب فرجة فيخالف السنة في ذلك، والمقصود أن المناكب والأكعب تتساوى

“It does not mean that he should continue this joining and remain so for the whole s̩alāh. From the extremism that has occurred with regard to this issue is what is done by some people in that one of them will join his ankle to the ankle of his companion, and he will spread his feet so far apart until there is a gap between his shoulder and the shoulder of his companion, so he will oppose the Sunnah by doing that. The aim is that the shoulders and ankles should be in line with each other.”^([8])

[5] Where to Place the Hands in Prayer (Ṣalāh)

1. a) Sh. al-Albānī  vehemently advocates the view that the hands should be placed on the chest in prayer:

وضعهما على الصدر هو الذي ثبت في السنة، وخلافه إما ضعيف أو لا أصل له

“Placing the hands on the chest is what is established in the Sunnah, and any other opinion besides this is either weak or has no basis.”^([9])

1. b) However, according to Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān , other opinions are also regarded as Sunnah:

سنن الأفعال …وضعهما على الصدر أو تحت السرة في حال القيام

“Sunnah actions: and (he should) place both his hands upon the chest or below the navel in the standing posture.”^([10])

[6] To say ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’ or ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’ in al-Tah̩iyyāt

1. a) Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Munajjid, who supervises the question and answer website, Islamqa, said after quoting the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd (ra) stating that after the death of Nabī (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) they said ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’:

وهذا أثبت ألفاظ التشهد وأحسنها عند العلماء

“This is the soundest version of the wording of the tashahhud according to the scholars.”^([11])

1. b) However, Sh. Ibn ʿUthaymīn  says this is from the ijtihād of Ibn Masʿūd (ra), and that ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’ should be said:

وأمّا ما وَرَدَ في صحيح البخاري عن عبد الله بن مسعود h أنهم كانوا يقولون بعد وفاة الرسول ﷺ: «السَّلامُ على النَّبيِّ ورحمة الله وبركاته» فهذا مِن اجتهاداتِه h التي خالَفه فيها مَنْ هو أعلمُ منه؛ عُمرُ بن الخطَّاب h، فإنه خَطَبَ النَّاسَ على مِنبر رسول الله ﷺ وقال في التشهُّدِ: «السَّلامُ عليك أيُّها النبيُّ ورحمة الله» كما رواه مالك في «الموطأ» بسَنَدٍ من أصحِّ الأسانيد، وقاله عُمرُ بمحضر الصَّحابة j وأقرُّوه على ذلك

“As for what is narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī from Ibn Masʿūd (ra), that they used to say ‘al-Salām ʿalā ’l-Nabī’ after the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) demise, this is from his ijtihād, in which someone more learned than him, ʿUmar Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (ra) differed with him. ʿUmar (ra) used to give sermons on the minbar of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and he used to say in the tashahhud: ‘al-Salām ʿalayka ayyuhā ’l-Nabī’, as narrated by Imām Mālik in his Muwat̩t̩aʾ with a very authentic chain, and ʿUmar h did this in the presence of many Ṣah̩ābah (raa), and they all agreed with him.”^([12])

[7] Reciting al-Fātih̩ah in the Loud (Jahrī) Prayers behind the Imām

1. a) Sh. S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān  mentions three opinions, of which he agrees with the third opinion that it is only obligatory to recite Sūrat al-Fātih̩ah behind the Imām in the quiet prayers:

القول الثالث: التفصيل، في الصلاة السرية تجب؛ أما في الجهرية فيستمع لقراءة إمامه، لقوله تعالى: ﴿ وَإِذَا قُرِئَ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ فَٱسۡتَمِعُواْ لَهُۥ وَأَنصِتُواْ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُرۡحَمُونَ ٢٠٤ ﴾

وهذا هو الراجح، وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ومذهب الإمام مالك، هو الراجح إن شاء الله لأنه تجتمع به الأدلة أن المأموم يجب عليه قراءة الفاتحة في الصلاة السرية الظهر و العصر، ولا يقرأ في الصلاة الجهرية والإمام يقرأ

“The third opinion: specifically, in the quiet (sirrī) prayers it is obligatory [to recite Sūrat al-Fātih̩ah]; as for the loud prayers, then he should listen to the recitation of his Imām, as Allāh says: ‘When the Qurʾān is being recited, listen attentively and remain silent so that you may receive mercy’. This is the correct opinion, and it was also the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and in accordance with the School of Imām Mālik. It is the correct opinion, InShāʾAllāh, because it combines all the proofs: like it is obligatory upon the follower to recite al-Fātih̩ah in the quiet prayers like Ẓuhr and ʿAṣr, and that he should not recite in the loud prayer while the Imām is reciting.”^([13])

1. b) However, the standing committee of Saudi for research and fatwā said it is obligatory to recite al-Fātih̩ah in both quiet and loud prayers:

الصحيح من أقوال أهل العلم وجوب قراءة الفاتحة في الصلاة على المنفرد والإمام والمأموم في الصلاة الجهرية والسرية

“The correct opinion from amongst the people of knowledge is that it is obligatory to recite al-Fātih̩ah in the prayer for both the munfarid [one praying alone], Imām, and follower, in the loud and quiet prayers.”^([14])

Conclusion

By the grace of Allāh (subhana wa ta’ala), the above should be more than sufficient to prove the point. The many examples are regarding the differences amongst Salafī scholars in matters related to just prayer alone. The above gives overwhelming proof that differences are inevitable; this is despite the many other scholars from their group who have been left out from this discussion, as well as other issues of differences they have between themselves besides prayer, such as ablution (wuḍūʾ), bathing (ghusl) and even issues relating to Ḥajj and Ṣawm etc.

Final Note

May I remind the readers who are looking for the truth that sincerity is important: although we want to act upon the most correct view (in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Sunnah), most of the times our sincerity is severely lacking, harbouring pride (takabbur) or even looking down upon others, because we think they are not acting upon the truth – which will, in essence, damage any good actions we may strive to do.

والله تعالى أعلم

وصلى الله تعالى على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين

Compiled by – Abu Humayd

—————————————————————————————————-

^([1])S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 145.

^([2])Fatāwā Ibn Bāz, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz, vol. 11 p. 142.

^([3]) Al-Sharh̩ al-Mumtiʿ, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 594.

^([4]) Al-Jāmiʿ al-S̩ah̩iḥ, Muqbil Ibn Hādī, vol. 2 p. 121.

^([5]) Nūr ʿalā ’l-Darb, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz, online ref: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/14936.

⁽[6]⁾S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 139.

^([7]) Silsilat al-Ah̩ādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, vol. 1 pp. 70-74.

^([8]) Fatāwā Arkān al-Islām, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 312.

^([9])S̩ifah S̩alāt al-Nabī, Nās̩ir al-Dīn al-Albānī, p. 88.

^([10]) Al-Mulakhkhas̩ al-Fiqhī, S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān, vol. 1 p. 134.

^([11]) S̩ālih̩ al-Munajjid, online ref: http://islamqa.info/ar/11417.

^([12])Al-Sharh̩ al-Mumtiʿ, S̩ālih̩ Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol. 1 p. 150.

^([13]) S̩ālih̩ al-Fawzān, transcribed from the following Q&A session available from his website, online ref: http://www.alfawzan.af.org.sa/node/12731.

^([14]) Fatāwā al-Lajnah al-Dāʾimah, vol. 6 p. 384.

———————————

To save the above as a pdf please click – HERE

To know more on the differences within the ranks of three of the major Salafi authorities in terms of Aqida and Fiqh, one may see a full book – HERE

By Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf

Full lecture at Zamzam Academy

Translator’s Preface

The following is an excerpt from our abridged translation of the masterpiece, Athar al-Hadīth al-Sharīf fī Ikhtilāf al-A’immah al-Fuqahā’, by the Syrian Hadīth scholar, the teacher of our teachers, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah. There were numerous requests for an abridged translation of the work for the benefit of non-Arabic readers, as the original work is relatively lengthy. We will post sections of it in installments and finally publish the complete abridgement in a separate post. We have previously posted the following sections of the book:

1. Introduction/When is a Hadīth suitable for practice?
2. The correct meaning of the statement, “When a Hadīth is authentic it is my opinion.”
3. Is the authenticity of a Hadīth sufficient to practice upon it?
4. Difference of the jurists in their understanding of a Hadith
5. Difference of approach in dealing with apparently conflicting aspects of the Sunnah

The excerpt before you is an explanation of the fourth and final reason of differences among the jurist Imāms: varying degrees of knowledge of the Sunnah. In this chapter, the author commences by explaining that the idea of one scholar gathering the entire Sunnah independently is erroneous. He further explains that one cannot gauge at the knowledge of hadith a scholar possessed based on the amount of hadiths that he narrated. This is because a scholar does not necessarily impart every hadith he learnt. After discussing the vast amount of hadīths these Imāms were aware of, he acknowledges that there were times when they were also unaware of certain hadiths, albeit very few, for which he provides several examples. He concludes, by explaining the reason for delaying this cause as the last cause, although generally it is the first cause of difference that comes to mind when discussing the differences of the Imams. Further, he explains that often a scholar has proofs to substantiate his view, but others are unaware of them.

Towards the beginning of this chapter, the author discusses the knowledge of Imām Abū Hanīfah in the science of Hadīth. Since this discussion is quite important and well presented, we will publish it separately in a subsequent post.

It is important to remember that this is only an abridged translation. Therefore, many sections were omitted and some were summarized.  To make the article more reader-friendly, an idiomatic translation was adopted in several places. Those who are interested in more detail are advised to read the original work.

Muntasir Zaman

The Fourth Cause of Difference: Difference Due to Varying Degrees of Knowledge of the Sunnah

By Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah

Translated by Muntasir Zaman

I will commence this section with a quotation of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī:

We do not know of anyone who was able to gather the Sunnah in its entirety. When the knowledge of the majority of the scholars is collected, we can find the Sunnah. Conversely, when each scholar’s knowledge is separated, part of the Sunnah will be left out; what was left out from him will be present by someone else. In knowledge, they are in various categories: those who gather most of it, although they miss some, and those who gather less than others.[1]

‘Allāmah Ibn Taymiyyah [d. 728 AH] writes, “Whoever believes that every authentic narration has reached every Imām or a specific Imām, is gravely mistaken.”[2] Thus, it is not possible for anyone to claim for himself or someone else claim for him that he has collected the Sunnah in its entirety, based on the statement of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī alongside the concurrence of other scholars of research. Variance of the Imāms with regards to retention of the Sunnah and knowing it does not necessitate that the one who is more knowledgeable is more suitable to be followed, for example, because he might be superior in this respect whereas someone besides him deserves precedence due to his understanding and ability of deduction.

As for knowledge of Hadīth, it is conditional that a person reaches the ranks of ijtihād, and is acknowledged for it, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentions:

It is incorrect to say, “Whoever does not know all the Ahādīth cannot be a mujtahid, because if the prerequisite of being a mujtahid was to know every statement and action of the Prophet that relates to legal injunctions, then such a mujtahid never existed in this ummah. The peak of a scholar is to know most of them, such that he is only unaware of some details.[3]

Imām Ahmad is renowned for his excellence in this field, as is Imām Mālik, al-Shāfī‘ī, and Abū Hanīfah although some people have reservations regarding Imām Abū Hanīfah.

From one angle, the science of Hadīth is reception (tahammul) and audition (samā‘), and from another angle, it is transmission (riwāyah) and imparting (adā’). Firstly, a Hadīth scholar learns the narration from his teachers, which is termed as “tahammul,” after which he imparts it to people, which is termed as “adā’.” When he narrates excessively, people become aware of his narrations that serve as an expression of his abundant reception [i.e. of Hadīth]. Conversely, when he is engaged in other than the transmission of Hadīth, whatever he narrates occasionally will not depict the amount of his reception [i.e. of Hadīth], be it minimal or excessive.

Abū Bakr (Allāh be pleased with him) was the first man to accept Islām, the most constant in the companionship of the Prophet, and the most knowledgeable Companion. Despite all of this, only a fraction of his narrations have reached us, which do not portray that he is from the scholars of the Companions, let alone portray that he is the most knowledgeable of them.

Similar is the case of Imām Mālik whose prominence in Hadīth is as his student al-Shāfi‘ī explains, “When it comes to Hadīth, Mālik is a star.” He himself says, “I have written one hundred thousand narrations.” Likewise is the case of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, regarding whom Imām al-Subkī writes, “Ibn Khuzaymah was asked, “Do you know any Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh that al-Shāfi‘ī did not include in his book?” He replied,

“No.”[4] [i.e. authentic Sunnah from the Ahādīth of legal injunctions, and not Ahādīth in general.]

Imām Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī can be excused [for not narrating everything they knew] on account of their preoccupation with fiqh, imparting fiqh, ijtihād, deducing rulings, and laying out the principles of fiqh and ijtihād more than the transmission of Hadīth. This does not mean that they had scarce knowledge of Hadīth; rather, they were abundant in reception and infrequent in transmission.

In spite of this, we acknowledge that Abū Hanīfah did not independently encompass the entire Sunnah, neither did al-Shāfi‘, Mālik, Ahamd, al-Thawrī, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, and al-Awzā‘ī independently encompass the entire Sunnah. It would be beneficial to mention several examples of how a small fraction of the Sunnah never reached some of the Imāms.

‘Isā ibn Abān mentions:

When Abū Yusuf came to Baghdad, he held the opinion of Imām Abū Hanīfah regarding the selling of awqāf (trusts). However, when Ismā‘īl Ibn ‘Ulayyah narrated to him from Ibn ‘Awn, from Nafi‘, from Ibn ‘Umar, concerning ‘Umar giving his share of Khaybar away in charity, he (Abū Yūsuf) remarked, “This cannot be opposed. If it had reached Abū Hanīfah, he would have expressed his opinion accordingly and would not oppose it.”[5]

Imām Ahmad mentions, “Al-Shāfi‘ī told us, “You are more knowledgeable than me regarding Hadīth and its transmitters. When there exists a Hadīth, inform me, be it from Basrah, Kufah or Shām, so that I may practice upon it, if it is authentic.”[6]

In al-‘Ilal al-Mutanāhiyah, Ibn al-Jawzī narrated the Hadith, “Perform Salāh behind every righteous and corrupt person” from six Companions via thirteen routes, classifying each route as weak. He then concludes with the statement of Imām Ahmad, “I have not heard of these.”[7]

These are a few examples of how some Imāms were unaware of a Hadīth or more, and those who came afterwards corrected them either in their lifetime or after their death, which is not a shortcoming on their part keeping in mind the scarcity of such instances. Thus, no one person is capable of encompassing the prophetic Sunnah. Perfection is solely for Allāh.

Addendum

Perhaps, some are wondering as to why I mentioned this cause as the last cause. I have done so deliberately, knowing well that many people repeatedly mention this cause verbally and in their works, and place it as the first cause. When they come across a Hadīth that an Imām did not practice upon, they immediately assert, “He was unaware of it, and had he known about it, he would practice upon it. No one individual is capable of encompassing the Sunnah independently.”

I never cease to be amazed by these people for two reasons:

Firstly, they do not exhaustively search the works of the Imām such that they may have the slightest proof that the Imām did not come across it, because of which he held a view contrary to it. I have heard of a scholar who used to say, “Abū Hanīfah did not come across the Hadīth, ‘There is no Salāh without the Opening of the Book [sūrat al-Fātihah].” This is in spite of him [i.e. Imām Abū Hanīfah] narrating this Hadīth in his well-known Musnad, which was printed multiple times, commonly available, and commentated on!

If someone claims that he completely exhausted all the works of the Imām, yet he did not come across this specific Hadīth, he is still not permitted to claim that the Imām was unaware of it. This is similar to when you are searching for a Hadīth in the Sahīhs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, but do not find it there, you cannot claim, “This is an authentic narration that the two illustrious Imāms, al-Bukhārī and Muslim, were unaware of.” If that was the case, how vast is your knowledge? What a great Imām you are yourself!

Secondly, the person who claims that the Imām was unaware of this Hadīth is merely surmising, and is falsely accusing an Imām from the Imāms of the Muslims without any evidence or proof. Did the Imām himself inform him, “I did not come across this Hadīth”?

In light of the above, to postpone this cause was  natural, demanded by academia and the etiquette of Islām in relation to its scholars.

It is better for an intelligent Muslim to accuse himself instead of being bold against the Imāms by accusing them of being unaware of what people such as himself came across. How stunning is the incident of Imām Ahmad recorded by al-Bayhaqī in Manāqib al-Shāfi‘ī: Humayd ibn Ahmad al-Basrī mentions:

I was in the company of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and we were discussing a particular ruling. A person told Imām Ahmad, “O Abū Abd Allāh, there is no authentic narration in this issue! He (i.e. Imām Ahmad) said, “If there is no authentic narration in this issue, there is still the opinion of Imām al-Shāfi‘ī regarding it, and his evidence is most reliable in this.” [8]

Thereafter, Imām Ahmad told the person of an incident that took place between him and al-Shāfi‘ī, which shows that whenever al-Shāfi‘ī held an opinion, it is necessary for it to be substantiated by an evidence from the Sunnah. However, sometimes this evidence is unknown. Unknown to who? Unknown to the likes of Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal! Imām Ahmad mentions:

I asked al-Shāfi‘ī, “What is your opinion concerning so and so issue?” He then gave me an answer, so I asked, “Where have you taken this from? Is there a narration or verse on the issue?” Thereupon, he presented an explicit narration of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh be pleased with him).”(i.e. explicit in its content such that the words do not contain another meaning.) [9]

Imām Ahmad knew the Hadīth. In spite of this, he was unaware of the manner of deducing the ruling from it. However, he was patient and composed, which is a lofty character that every Muslim to a greater extant should inculcate.

Consider another incident of Imām Ahmad, wherein his good conduct with other Imāms manifests. Imām Ahmad mentions, “It reached me that he (Ishāq ibn Ismā‘īl al-Tālqānī) negatively mentioned ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī. How strange is this! Thereafter, he said in a state of anger, “What is your problem-may you be destroyed- that you speak ill of the Imāms?”[10]

Imām Taqī al-Subkī mentions:

People are of two categories: a mujtahid scholar who is capable of deducing rulings from the Qur’ān and Sunnah, or a layman who follows a scholar. The duty of the mujtahid when an occurrence takes place is to deduce the legal ruling from shar‘ī evidences. The duty of the layman is to refer to the statements of the scholars. It is not permissible for a non-mujtahid when he hears a verse of the Qur’ān or a narration that he leaves the statements of the scholars. This is because when he sees them going against it despite having knowledge of it, it is evident that they only went against it because of a proof. Allāh has mentioned, “Ask the people of the Remembrance, if you do not know.”

The intent is that when non-mujtahids, in particular the general masses, hear a verse that contains generality or non-restrictiveness, it is impermissible for them to practice upon that generality or non-restrictiveness except with the statement of the scholars. Only that person can practice upon generalities and non-restrictiveness who recognizes the abrogating and abrogated; general and specific; non-restricted and restricted; ambiguous and express; literal and metaphoric (texts).

Thereafter, he mentioned several examples from the Qur’ān and Sunnah in roughly two pages, after which he said:

This makes it clear that that merely practicing without analyzing the proofs of specification and restriction is an error…when he acknowledges that it is incorrect to practice upon the generality until ascertains whether there exist a specifying text for it, and he understands conflicting evidences, he will submit the matter to those suitable. He will also know that above every possessor of knowledge is he who is more knowledgeable. Likewise, it is inappropriate to adduce evidence from the Qur’ān until he knows from the Sunnah that which will clarify it, specify it, or restrict it. Allāh mention, “We have revealed to you the Remembrance so that you may explain to the people what has been revealed to them and perhaps they may ponder.”

Thereafter, he said, “Whoever fails to recognize the Qur’ān, Sunnah, and the opinions of the scholars, is not permitted to practice upon an evidence that hears without an Imām who will guide him.”[11]

The statements of the scholars in this regard are numerous. You will find the discussion of “whoever is not a mujtahid is a muqallid layman” towards the ending of the books of al-Usūl (principles of fiqh), and spread out in their statements in their other works.

———————————————————————————–

[1] Al-Shāfi‘ī, al-Risālah, 42-43

[2] Ibn Taymiyyah, Raf‘ al-Malām, 17

[3] Ibid., 19

[4] Al-Subkī, Ma‘nā Qaswl al-Imām al-Muttalibī, 77,106

[5] Al-Kawthari, al-Nukat al-Tarīfah, 40

[6] Al-Bayhaqī, Manāqib al-Shāfi‘ī, 528:1

[7] Ibn al-Jawzī, al-‘Ilal al-Mutanāhiyah, 418:1

[8] Al-Bayhaqī, Manāqib al-Shāfi‘ī, 154:1

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 226:1

[11] Al-Subkī, al-Durrah al-Mudiyyah, 20

The word madhhab is derived from an Arabic word meaning “to go” or “to take as a way”, and refers to a mujtahid‘s choice in regard to a number of interpretive possibilities in deriving the rule of Allah from the primary texts of the Qur’an and hadith on a particular question. In a larger sense, a madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi’i, or Ahmad–together with many first-rank scholars that came after each of these in their respective schools, who checked their evidences and refined and upgraded their work. The mujtahid Imams were thus explainers, who operationalized the Qur’an and sunna in the specific shari’a rulings in our lives that are collectively known as fiqh or “jurisprudence”. In relation to our din or “religion”, this fiqh is only part of it, for the religious knowledge each of us possesses is of three types. The first type is the general knowledge of tenets of Islamic belief in the oneness of Allah, in His angels, Books, messengers, the prophethood of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), and so on. All of us may derive this knowledge directly from the Qur’an and hadith, as is also the case with a second type of knowledge, that of general Islamic ethical principles to do good, avoid evil, cooperate with others in good works, and so forth. Every Muslim can take these general principles, which form the largest and most important part of his religion, from the Qur’an and hadith.

The third type of knowledge is that of the specific understanding of particular divine commands and prohibitions that make up the shari’a. Here, because of both the nature and the sheer number of the Qur’an and hadith texts involved, people differ in the scholarly capacity to understand and deduce rulings from them. But all of us have been commanded to live them in our lives, in obedience to Allah, and so Muslims are of two types, those who can do this by themselves, and they are the mujtahid Imams; and those who must do so by means of another, that is, by following a mujtahid Imam, in accordance with Allah’s word in Surat al-Nahl,

and in Surat al-Nisa,

in which the phrase those of them whose task it is to find it out, expresses the words “alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum“, referring to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences directly from the evidence, which is called in Arabic istinbat.

These and other verses and hadiths oblige the believer who is not at the level of istinbat or directly deriving rulings from the Qur’an and hadith to ask and follow someone in such rulings who is at this level. It is not difficult to see why Allah has obliged us to ask experts, for if each of us were personally responsible for evaluating all the primary texts relating to each question, a lifetime of study would hardly be enough for it, and one would either have to give up earning a living or give up ones din, which is why Allah says in surat al-Tawba, in the context of jihad:

The slogans we hear today about “following the Qur’an and sunna instead of following the madhhabs” are wide of the mark, for everyone agrees that we must follow the Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). The point is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is no longer alive to personally teach us, and everything we have from him, whether the hadith or the Qur’an, has been conveyed to us through Islamic scholars. So it is not a question of whether or not to take our din from scholars, but rather, from which scholars. And this is the reason we have madhhabs in Islam: because the excellence and superiority of the scholarship of the mujtahid Imams–together with the traditional scholars who followed in each of their schools and evaluated and upgraded their work after them–have met the test of scholarly investigation and won the confidence of thinking and practicing Muslims for all the centuries of Islamic greatness. The reason why madhhabs exist, the benefit of them, past, present, and future, is that they furnish thousands of sound, knowledge-based answers to Muslims questions on how to obey Allah. Muslims have realized that to follow a madhhab means to follow a super scholar who not only had a comprehensive knowledge of the Qur’an and hadith texts relating to each issue he gave judgements on, but also lived in an age a millennium closer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his Companions, when taqwa or “godfearingness” was the norm–both of which conditions are in striking contrast to the scholarship available today.

While the call for a return to the Qur’an and sunna is an attractive slogan, in reality it is a great leap backward, a call to abandon centuries of detailed, case-by-case Islamic scholarship in finding and spelling out the commands of the Qur’an and sunna, a highly sophisticated, interdisciplinary effort by mujtahids, hadith specialists, Qur’anic exegetes, lexicographers, and other masters of the Islamic legal sciences. To abandon the fruits of this research, the Islamic shari’a, for the following of contemporary sheikhs who, despite the claims, are not at the level of their predecessors, is a replacement of something tried and proven for something at best tentative.

The rhetoric of following the shari’a without following a particular madhhab is like a person going down to a car dealer to buy a car, but insisting it not be any known make–neither a Volkswagen nor Rolls-Royce nor Chevrolet–but rather “a car, pure and simple”. Such a person does not really know what he wants; the cars on the lot do not come like that, but only in kinds. The salesman may be forgiven a slight smile, and can only point out that sophisticated products come from sophisticated means of production, from factories with a division of labor among those who test, produce, and assemble the many parts of the finished product. It is the nature of such collective human efforts to produce something far better than any of us alone could produce from scratch, even if given a forge and tools, and fifty years, or even a thousand. And so it is with the shari’a, which is more complex than any car because it deals with the universe of human actions and a wide interpretative range of sacred texts. This is why discarding the monumental scholarship of the madhhabs in operationalizing the Qur’an and sunna in order to adopt the understanding of a contemporary sheikh is not just a mistaken opinion. It is scrapping a Mercedes for a go-cart.

Written by:

Shaykh Nuh Keller

Amman, Jordan

Source

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

Translated by Zameelur Rahman

People would seek fatwa from ‘ulama’ since the earliest of times in matters which they were in need of, because the majority of people are not able to derive the rulings of the Shari‘ah from their original sources. Thus, it would be necessary for them to refer to those who have knowledge of these rulings. This is what Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) ordered in His noble saying: “So ask the people of remembrance if you do not know.” (16:43) And as long as a mufti is trusted in his knowledge and his piety, they would not demand evidence for what he said – and this is the technical meaning of taqlid, since they defined it as: “Acting on the opinion of another without knowing his evidence or demanding proof.”

However, in the best of generations, they would not restrict themselves to taking fatwa from a single scholar, such that they would not permit seeking fatwa from another scholar, although when individuals had a particular affinity with a scholar of a certain land, their reliance on him would be greater than others, so by virtue of that affinity, they would refer to that scholar in all matters or most of them.

Of this is what al-Bukhari transmitted from ‘Ikrimah that the people of Madinah would ask Ibn ‘Abbas: “Is it permissible for a woman [that is a pilgrim], when she is menstruating, to set off for her hometown after the Tawaf al-Ziyarah and omit the Tawaf al-Wida‘?” Ibn ‘Abbas answered them by [saying] that it is permissible for her to set off and omit the Tawaf al-Wida‘. They said to him: “We will not adopt your opinion, and leave the opinion of Zayd.” In the transmission of al-Isma‘ili: “We do not care, whether you have issued us a fatwa or you have not issued us a fatwa. Zayd ibn Thabit says: ‘She does not set off.’” In the transmission of al-Tayalisi: “We will not follow you, Ibn ‘Abbas, when you oppose Zayd.” This is because they had greater confidence in Zayd ibn Thabit. Later, Zayd ibn Thabit retracted from his opinion when he came to know of the hadith of Safiyyah, as transmitted by Muslim from Tawus: “I was with Ibn ‘Abbas when Zayd ibn Thabit said to him: ‘You issue fatwa that a menstruating woman departs before having her final meeting with the House?’ Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘At the least, ask so-and-so Ansari woman: Did the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) command her?’” He said: “Subsequently, Zayd ibn Thabit returned to Ibn ‘Abbas, laughing, and saying: ‘I do not believe but that you told the truth!’” When Zayd ibn Thabit (Allah be pleased with him) retracted, the people of Madinah were content that it is permissible for her to set off [before performing the Tawaf al-Wida‘].

And of this is what Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) transmitted from Abu Muslim al-Khawlani (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him), he said: “I came to the mosque of the Damascenes, when there was a circle therein comprising of senior companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and there was a youth amongst them with kohl on his eyes and bright teeth. Whenever they differed in anything, they referred it to the young man, a youthful young man.” He said: “I asked a sitting-companion of mine: ‘Who is this?’ He said: ‘This is Mu‘adh ibn Jabal.’” And in another narration: “Whenever they differed over anything, they referred it to him and they departed on his opinion.”

Examples of this are many.

The upshot is that most people would refer to those they trusted, and they would prefer his fatwas over the fatwas of others. There were some who did not suffice with seeking fatwa from a single scholar, because the madhhabs were not codified in that time, so they did not believe it was forbidden to seek fatwa from anyone that was accessible to them, even if it was someone besides whom they normally referred to. There was no fear at that time that people would select from the different madhhabs that which accorded with their passions because it was difficult for the questioner to know the opinion of the one he is seeking fatwa from before he asked him, which was because the madhhabs were not yet codified.

But after the codification of the four madhhabs of jurisprudence with a specific structure, and books were compiled on them, and they condensed into schools which were dedicated to studying them, and the opinions of these madhhabs became well-known and familiar to the people, if it was permitted for everyone to select from these opinions whatever he wished whenever he wished, that would lead to following desires and not following the bright Shari‘ah. There is no doubt that each of these jurists only selected an opinion on the basis of the strength of its evidence according to him not on the basis of what his heart desired, so it would be possible for another mujtahid to select or reject what he said due to a stronger evidence that appeared to him from the sources of Islamic legislation. However, the layperson who is not able to compare between these opinions on the basis of the evidences of the Shari‘ah, if he was given the option to adopt what he wished and reject whatever he wished, it would be feared for him that he will adopt from these opinions that which accords with his desires, and not because of the proof of the Shari‘ah that was the basis of that opinion.

Furthermore, each one of these madhhabs has a specific structure under the remit of which it operates, whereby many of its rulings are linked to each other. Thus, if one ruling from it is adopted and another ruling that is linked to it is omitted, the structure would collapse, and a situation of talfiq (mixing opinions from different madhhabs on a single issue) – not taken as valid by anyone – may arise. It is difficult for a layperson to appreciate these subtleties, so if the door of selecting was to be opened for the layperson, that would lead to chaos in the laws of the bright Shari‘ah. It was for this [reason] that a need arose to adopt a specific madhhab, not because the follower of a particular madhhab believes his Imam is an intrinsic authority – protection is from Allah, the Glorious! – but, because he trusts his knowledge in the Shari‘ah and its proofs more than others, or because knowledge of his madhhab is easier for him with respect to the founders of the other madhhabs. By such adoption of madhhabs, the circumstances of the people – in terms of faithfulness to the Shari‘ah and not following haphazard whims therein – were regulated, because selecting from the opinions of the jurists based on whim and not on the basis of evidence is from that which the scholars, both ancient and recent, have condemned. Imam Ma‘mar ibn Rashid (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “If a man was to adopt the opinion of the people of Madinah on listening to songs and approaching women from their behinds, and the opinion of the people of Makkah on temporary marriage and barter, and the opinion of the people of Kufah on intoxicating substances, he would be from the worst of the slaves of Allah.” (Talkhis al-Habir, 3:187)

Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “An example of this is that a man believes in the validity of the pre-emption^[1] of a neighbour when he demands it, and its invalidity when he is the buyer, because this is not permissible by consensus; and likewise, one who assumes the validity of the guardianship of a sinner in the process of his marriage and assumes the invalidity of his guardianship in the process of his divorce – this is not permissible by consensus of the Muslims. If a particular questioner said: ‘I was not aware of that, and from today I am adhering to this,’ that would not be [accepted] from him because it would open the door to playing with the religion and open the means to legalisation and illegalisation being according to whims.” (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa li Bni Taymiyyah, 32:101)

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

Ibn Khaldun (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Taqlid in all towns came to rest on these four, and muqallids of other than them have disappeared. The people blocked the door of disagreement and its paths when the diversification of the technical terms of the sciences became extensive; and when it became difficult to reach the level of ijtihad; and when it was feared that [somebody] unqualified for it whose opinion and religion are not trusted would be ascribed to it; so they [i.e. scholars] made [their] incapacity and deficiency clear, and they directed people to taqlid of these [four], to all who are specialised therein from the muqallids, and they forbade modification of their taqlid because it would imply frivolity. All that remained after authentication of the basic texts and connecting their chains by narration is transmission of their madhhabs, and each muqallid acting on the madhhab of the one he does taqlid of from them. There is no meaning to jurisprudence today besides this. And the claim of ijtihad in this age is rejected and turned on its heel, and his taqlid is abandoned. The people of Islam have evolved into taqlid of these four Imams.” (Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, p. 430)

Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Know that the people in the first and second centuries were not united on taqlid of one specified madhhab, and after the second century, there appeared amongst them adherence to the madhhabs of specific mujtahids, and those who did not rely on the madhhab of a specific mujtahid became few – and this was the obligation of that time. If you say: How is it that one thing is not obligatory at one time, but obligatory at another time, although the Shari‘ah is one? I say: The original obligation is that there are those in the ummah who are aware of the corollary rulings from their detailed evidences. The people of truth are united on this. And the prelude to an obligation is obligatory. When there are many avenues to that obligation, it is necessary to acquire any avenue from those avenues without particularisation, but when one avenue becomes specified, that one avenue itself becomes obligatory…Based on this, it should be that the result is the obligation of taqlid of a specific imam.” (al-Insaf fi Bayan Asbab al-Ikhtilaf, p. 68, 70)

He said at another place: “Indeed these four codified and refined madhhabs have united the ummah, or those who are noteworthy from them, on the permissibility of taqlid of them, to this day of ours. In this are interests that are not hidden, especially in these days in which aspirations are very shunted and souls are given to desire and every holder of an opinion is impressed by his own opinion.”

Although the mujtahid jurists were widespread in every region of the Muslim regions, it was the will of Allah (Exalted is He) that no madhhab would be codified with a total composition in the way the madhhabs of the four jurists were codified, and their affiliation to them was mass-transmitted, and their pupils who studied them and examined them and drew corollaries from them overflowed. Such a thing did not happen to the other madhhabs. Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “In sum, adopting the madhhab of the mujtahids is a secret that Allah (Exalted is He) inspired to the ‘ulama’, and He united them upon it, whether consciously [on their part] or unconsciously.” (al-Insaf, p. 73)

This is why the ‘ulama’ said that it is obligatory for the non-mujtahid to do taqlid of one of these four madhhabs, and not do taqlid of a madhhab besides them.

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “He does not have the option of adopting the madhhab of any of the imams of the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) and other than them from the early ones, although they were more learned and of a higher rank than those after them, because they did not devote themselves to codifying knowledge, and delineating its principles and its branches, as none of them have a refined, codified and approved madhhab. Only those who came after them took up this [task] from the Imams affiliated with the madhhabs of the Sahabah and the Tabi‘in, who began to lay out the laws of outcomes before their occurrence, and who set out to elucidate their principles and their branches, like Malik, Abu Hanifah, and others.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

Al-Munawi transmitted from Hafiz al-Dhahabi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on them) that he said: “It is necessary for us to believe that the four Imams, the two Sufyans, al-Awza‘i, Dawud al-Zahiri, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, and all the Imams, were upon guidance, and no attention is paid to those who speak against them with what they are free from. The truth in accordance with the majority is that the one who is right in the corollaries is one, and Allah (Exalted is He) has a sign in what He has decreed, and that the mujtahid is given the responsibility of finding it, and that the one who misses it is not sinful, but is rewarded. Thus, the one who is right has two rewards, and the one who errs has one reward. Yes, if the mujtahid is deficient [in his knowledge], he is sinful, by agreement, and [it is necessary] for the non-mujtahid to do taqlid of a specific madhhab…but it is not permissible to do taqlid of the Sahabah and likewise the Tabi‘in, as stated by Imam al-Haramayn, of all whose madhhab has not been codified, so taqlid of other than the four [imams] in judicial decree and fatwa is prohibited, because the four madhhabs have spread and have been codified, such that the conditions of their absolutes and the specifications of their generalities are clear; as distinguished from [madhhabs] besides them due to the extinction of their followers. Imam al-Razi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) transmitted consensus of the verifiers on the prohibition of laypeople doing taqlid of individuals from the Sahabah and their elders.” (Fayd al-Qadir by al-Munawi, 1:210)

Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said in another place: “Know that there is great welfare in adopting these four madhhabs, and in turning away from all of them is great corruption, and we will explain that with reasons…” (‘Iqd al-Jid, p. 53)

He said in another place: “So when an ignorant person is in the lands of India or the lands of Transoxiana, and there is no Shafi‘i, Maliki or Hanbali scholar there, and no book from the books of those madhhabs, it is necessary for him to do taqlid of the madhhab of Abu Hanifah, and it is forbidden for him to leave his madhhab, because by doing so he will release [himself from] the noose of the Shari‘ah and will remain aimless and without purpose; as distinguished from the situation where one is in the two Harams, because there it is easy for him to know all the madhhabs. It is not sufficient for him to adopt [the opinions of the madhhab] by speculation and without assurance, nor to take from the tongues of the commoners, nor to take from an unknown book, all of which are mentioned in al-Nahr al-Fa’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq.” (al-Insaf fi Bayan Asbab al-Ikhtilaf, pp. 77-8)

It is apparent from all of this that the objective is adherence to what has come of the laws of the Shari‘ah in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that it is not usually easy for a non-mujtahid to derive these laws by himself, either because he is unable to understand them, or because the texts hold more than one meaning, or due to the apparent contradiction of evidences, so he relies on the opinion of a mujtahid whose opinion he has trust in over other than him, or the opinion of a mujtahid whose madhhab is well-known in his land. This is adoption of a madhhab (tamadhhub) or individual taqlid (al-taqlid al-shakhsi).

However, adopting a specific madhhab is not negated by a learned scholar – who has insight into the evidences of the laws in an issue from the issues – adopting the opinion of another madhhab, not on the basis of whim, but on the basis of a stronger evidence that appears to him. Based on this, many of the jurists of the Hanafis issue fatwa in many issues according to an opinion that opposes the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him), as they did in the issue of cropsharing (muzara‘ah), and taking payment for teaching the Noble Qur’an, and in the issue of a person duped [in a monetary transaction] having the option [to cancel the deal] and other well-known issues.

This is due to what our ‘ulama’ have stated explicitly that taqlid of a specific Imam is not a ruling of the Shari‘ah per se, but it is only a fatwa that was issued in order to regulate the affairs of religion, and to avoid what was feared in not doing so, of the corruptions of playing [with the religion] and following desires.

I heard my father ‘Allamah Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘ (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) relate numerous times the statement of Shaykh al-Hind Imam Shaykh Mahmud al-Hasan (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him): “Indeed taqlid of a specific madhhab is not a ruling of the Shari‘ah per se, but it is a fatwa that was issued in order the regulate the religion by means of it.”

Imam Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said in one of his sermons: “Thus, we do not believe that individual taqlid is mandatory or obligatory in itself, but we say that the affairs of religion are regulated by individual taqlid, and there is chaos in abandoning taqlid.” (Khutbat Hakim al-Ummat, 6:172)

From the corollaries of this viewpoint is that whenever there is safety from following desires, there is no harm in adopting that which is stronger in evidence for a scholar that is qualified to examine the evidences. Imam Faqih Shaykh Rashid Ahmad al-Gongohi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Indeed the jurists banned the laypeople from non-individual taqlid (which is taqlid of a madhhab in one issue and another in another issue) for the reason of these [corrupt consequences]. However a scholar who is safe from these corrupt consequences, it is permissible for him to exercise non-individual taqlid even today, with the condition that he does not cause confusion and chaos thereby amongst the commoners.” (Tadhkirat al-Rashid, 1:132)

He said in another place: “The upshot is that when it is established that this ruling from our Imam goes against the Book and Sunnah, it is necessary for every believer to leave it, and no one will deny this after it becomes clear, but how is it possible for laypeople to verify this matter?”

The teacher of our teachers, Imam Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him), explained this matter with extreme moderation and balance, so there is no harm in citing his statement with his wording followed by its Arabic translation:

Just as rejecting taqlid is deserving of censure, extremism and rigidity therein is also deserving of condemnation. It has preceded that a mujtahid is not imitated with the belief that he is the lawgiver and bringer of laws, but he is only imitated with the belief that he is a clarifier of the laws and an elucidator of the legislations and one who reveals the intent of Allah (Exalted is He) and the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace). This is why taqlid is only acted upon when a matter negating that belief or eliminating it does not arise.

Thus, if it is clear to a scholar with depth of insight, perception of mind, fairness of temperament, by his investigation, or to a layperson through the medium of that scholar by the testimony of his heart – with the condition that he is fearful [of Allah] (muttaqi) – that the stronger [position] in this issue is another opinion, it will be examined if there is any possibility for the permissibility of acting on the weaker position based on the evidence of the Shari‘ah or not? If there is scope there, and it is feared that in publicising the disagreement there will be tribulation and confusion amongst the commoners, it is better in such a situation to act on the weaker position, to save the common Muslims from division. This is proven by what ‘A’ishah (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with her) narrated, she said: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Do you not see that your people, when they [re-]built the Ka‘bah, they were deficient in [building it on] the foundations of Ibrahim?’ So I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Will you not return it to the foundations of Ibrahim?’ So he said: ‘If it were not for the recentness of your people in disbelief, I would have done [so].’” The Six transmitted it besides Abu Dawud. So despite building the Ka‘bah on the foundations of Ibrahim (upon him peace) being superior, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) opted for the weaker option, for fear of tribulation and confusion, because this weaker option was permissible in the Shari‘ah, even if weak…Likewise it is narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with him) that he prayed four (meaning, in travel), so it was said to him: “You criticise ‘Uthman [for praying four in travel], and then you prayed four?!” He said: “Dissention is evil.” Abu Dawud transmitted it. So despite it being stronger according to Ibn Mas‘ud (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with him) to shorten [the prayer] in travel, he prayed it in full to avoid dissention and evil. Apparently, he believed in the validity of that also, so by this what we mentioned – that if the weaker option is permissible, opting for it is better to avoid tribulation and confusion – is strengthened.

However, if the weaker option does not allow for permissibility, rather it necessitates the omission of an obligation or the performance of a prohibition, and it has no evidence besides analogy, and there is an explicit authentic hadith for the stronger side, it is necessary to act on the hadith without hesitation, and taqlid is not permissible in this situation at all, because the foundation of religion is the Noble Qur’an and the Sunnah, and the objective of taqlid is nothing besides acting on them with ease and safety. So when the harmony between them [i.e. taqlid and acting on the Qur’an and Sunnah] is negated, it is necessary to act on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and rigidity on taqlid in such a situation is the taqlid on which censure has occurred in the Qur’an and Sunnah and the statement of the ‘ulama’. Thus it is narrated from ‘Adiyy ibn Hatim (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with him), he said: “I came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and I heard him recite: ‘They have taken their rabbis and their monks as gods beside Allah’ (9:31) He said: ‘They would not worship them, but when they made anything halal, they considered it halal, and when they made anything haram, they made it haram.’” Al-Tirmidhi transmitted it.

And the practice of the Salaf and the verifiers has always been that whenever it appears to them that their opinion or the opinion of another goes against the command of Allah (Exalted is He) or His Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) they renounce it immediately, as is narrated from Numaylah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him), he said: Ibn ‘Umar (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with them) was asked about eating hedgehog, so he recited: “Say: I do not find, in what has been revealed to me, anything prohibited for anyone who eats” [to the end of] the verse (6:145). So a shaykh next to him said: I heard Abu Hurayrah say: Hedgehog was mentioned before the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and he said: “An impurity from the impurities,” so Ibn ‘Umar said: “If the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said this, it is as he said, as we did not know.” Abu Dawud transmitted it.

The ‘ulama’ of the Hanafis also remained on the practice of this principle, so they left the opinions of their Imam in a number of issues, and by this it becomes clear to every fair person that what some people accuse them of, of fanaticism and rigid taqlid, is a clear error which resulted from looking at the transmissions without understanding…However, it is not permissible, despite abandoning taqlid in this issue, to attack the honour of the mujtahid by lengthening the tongue against his respected self or holding a bad opinion in the heart that he abandoned an authentic hadith, because it is possible that that hadith did not reach him, or it reached him with a weak chain, or that hadith was interpreted by him with an indication of the Shari‘ah. So he is excused. And vilifying the perfection of their knowledge due to being unacquainted with that hadith falls under the totality of lengthening the tongue against them because it is established that some hadiths did not reach some of the senior Sahabah regarding whose perfect knowledge there is no doubt, and that was not considered a deficiency in their perfection. Thus it is narrated from ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) in the story of the seeking of permission by Abu Musa (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with him) the statement of ‘Umar (Allah – Exalted is He – be pleased with him): “This command of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was hidden to me. Trading and markets distracted me.” Al-Bukhari transmitted it.

Likewise when a muqallid of that mujtahid, his breast has not expanded in that issue, and he thinks – due to good opinion of the mujtahid – that his opinion does not go against the hadith, so he continues to do taqlid of him in that issue due to this opinion, and he does not reject the authentic hadith, but he does not understand the agreement of his Imam with that authentic hadith in detail, it is not permissible to blame that muqallid, because he is also adhering to evidence of the Shari‘ah, and he does not aim but adherence to the Shari‘ah; and likewise it is not permissible for that muqallid to condemn that scholar who left taqlid in that issue due to the aforementioned reason, because this variation of theirs is akin to the variation which occurred amongst the Salaf and on which the ‘ulama’ said: “Indeed our madhhab is correct – probabilistically – with the possibility of being incorrect, and the madhhab of others is incorrect – probabilistically – with the possibility of being correct.” So when the other side has the possibility of being correct also, how can it be permissible, because of that, to declare any [of them] misguided, or to declare him a sinner, or to accuse him of bid‘ah, or Wahhabiyyah, and cause envy, rancour, obstinacy, dissension, backbiting, insult, abuse, vilification and curse which are absolutely forbidden?!

Yes, the man who opposes the majority of the Muslims in their beliefs or in matters that are agreed-upon, or he extends his tongue with respect to the righteous Salaf, he is out of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah, because the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah are those who tread the path of the Sahabah, and these matters go against their beliefs, so this man is outside of the Ahl al-Sunnah and included within the people of innovations and passions. And similar is the man who is extreme in his taqlid whereby he rejects the Qur’an and hadith because of it. So it is necessary to avoid and stay clear of these two men while shunning the well-known debates. This is the balanced truth. Anything besides it is error and excess. O Allah! Show us the truth as truth and grant us adherence to it, and show us falsehood as falsehood, and grant us avoidance of it. (al-Iqtisad fi l-Taqlid wa l-Ijtihad, pp. 84-9)

It is clear from this that adopting a specific madhhab and doing taqlid of a mujtahid is not [done] but to arrive at what is established from the rulings of the Shari‘ah from the Book and Sunnah for those who are not able to reconcile between contradictory evidences. This is why the ‘ulama’ have clearly stated that there is no need for taqlid in creed and rulings that are stated explicitly, like the obligation of Salah, fasting, Zakah and Hajj, and the prohibition of wine, swine, usury, lying, deception and treachery, from the rulings in which there is no room for ijtihad, and the texts on them do not hold more than one interpretation. (See al-Dhakhirah by al-Qarafi, 1:148)

Likewise, adopting a madhhab does not mean the ‘ulama’ of that madhhab do not go against the opinion of their Imam in any of the issues. From this is what is narrated from Imam al-Tahawi – and he was a Hanafi in madhhab – that he said: “Abu ‘Ubayd ibn Harbawayh would revise rulings with me. So I answered him one day regarding an issue, and he said to me: ‘This is not the opinion of Abu Hanifah.’ Thereupon, I said to him: ‘O Qadi! Do I take everything Abu Hanifah said?’ He said: ‘I did not think you but a muqallid.’ I said to him: ‘Does any do taqlid besides a fanatic?’ He said to me: ‘Or an idiot.’ Then this statement flew across Egypt until it became a proverb.”

That which al-Tahawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) intended was that adopting a specific madhhab does not negate that a scholar like al-Tahawi adopts an opinion besides the opinion of his Imam in an issue, otherwise he will be a fanatic.

From this, it becomes clear that taqlid has [four] levels:

1. The first level is the taqlid of the layperson who does not have knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah, nor mastery of the sciences derived from them. Those who graduate from the seminars (madaris) and religious universities and have not acquired an ability by which they are able to compare between juristic opinions in light of the Book and Sunnah are included amongst them. The ruling of these [people] is that they adhere to the madhhab of a specific Imam, and they do not adopt [anything] besides the opinions of their Imam, because the opinion of their Imam is a proof with respect to them, and they do not have the right to assess whether the opinions of their Imam are against the Book and Sunnah by their mere opinion, because that which is necessary for such an assessment is not available to them.

2. The second level is the taqlid of the learned scholar, who, although he has not reached the level of complete ijtihad, but because of the expanse of his knowledge of the sciences of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and his mastery in the madhhab of his Imam, and his extensive experience of jurisprudence and fatwa with skilled teachers, he acquired a strong ability to inspect the evidences of the jurisprudential rulings. Although such a scholar does taqlid of his Imam in most of the chapters of jurisprudence, nonetheless, when he finds an opinion of his Imam against a clear text and he does not find, despite his lengthy investigation, anything that contradicts that text, it is permissible for him to leave the opinion of his Imam because of that clear text, as we have mentioned previously from the statement of Imam Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him). Likewise, when such a scholar feels that in the madhhab of his Imam in an issue from the issues there is a severe crisis, and that there is a widespread need to avert this crisis by opting for another juristic madhhab from the four followed madhhabs, it is permissible for him to issue fatwa or act on the opinion of another mujtahid besides his Imam, just as the Hanafis did in the issue of the wife of a lost man and other [issues], as will come – if Allah (Exalted is He) wills – in its place. However, the most precautious [route] in this age in the issues in which there is a widespread affliction is that a man does not act independently in such issues with his individual opinion; rather, he consults other ‘ulama’, and he does not issue a general fatwa except after acquiring the agreement of a body of firmly-grounded scholars.

3. The third level is the taqlid of a mujtahid in the madhhab, and he is the one who, although he is a muqallid of his Imam in the principles, nonetheless, he has acquired a degree of ijtihad in the peripherals or in the jurisprudential cases (nawazil). The scholars of extraction (takhrij) and assessment (tarjih) and the mujtahids in jurisprudential issues (masa’il) are included in this as will come – if Allah (Exalted is He) wills.

4. The fourth level is the taqlid of an absolute mujtahid, because although he is independent in deriving the laws of the Shari‘ah from the Book and Sunnah, but he has no alternative but to [exercise] a degree of taqlid, which is tfhat he examines the statements of the Salaf from the Sahabah and Tabi‘in, and holds to them in the explanation of the rulings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. And at times there is no clear text from the Book and Sunnah, but there is a statement from one of the Sahabah or Tabi‘in, so he gives it preference over his personal opinion. This is just as Abu Hanifah (Allah be pleased with him) often adopted the opinion of Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, and al-Shafi‘i the opinion of Ibn Jurayj, and Malik the opinion of one of the seven jurists of the Illuminated City. ‘Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said about the absolute mujtahid: “His ijtihad does not negate his taqlid of other than him at times, for you will not find any of the Imams, but he is a muqallid of one who is more learned that him in some rulings. And indeed al-Shafi‘i (Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him) said in a place of Hajj: ‘I said this doing taqlid of ‘Ata’.’” (I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in 4:179)

Usul al-Ifta’ wa Adabuh, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, pp 61 – 84

1.“Pre-emption” (shuf‘ah) refers to the right of a partner with a share in a property or a neighbour to cancel a purchase made on the property to a third party so he can have the first choice to buy it. There is disagreement whether a neighbour enjoys this right, although it is agreed that a partner with a share in the property does. [↩]

http://www.deoband.org/2012/07/general/taqlid-and-ijtihad/the-issue-of-taqlid-and-adopting-a-madhhab/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-issue-of-taqlid-and-adopting-a-madhhab

We respect and revere all the four Aimmah Mujtahideen (viz. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad (May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on them all) but follow only one in all matters of jurisprudence. In our case, we have placed our firm conviction on the School of thought of Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on him). The underlying reason for this is that coupled with his piety and sincerity, Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah Ta’ala have mercyon him) devoted his entire life in attaining, mastering and codifying Islamic knowledge. This was in the glorious period when knowledge was at its  pinnacle, memories were strong, Ulama were many and scholarly gatherings abounded. It was generally in this era that authentic Ahadith flourished and the scholars immersed into the depths of every narration. Every action that was practiced had to be based on concrete proofs derived from any of the Islamic sources. Thus, Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on him) use to discuss every ruling with at least forty scholars of whom each were masters in different fields of Islamic knowledge. After much study, scrutiny and discussion on each law, a conclusion used to finally be attained.

Additional to all the above are the efforts of numerous great luminaries who came in the past twelve hundred years. They too traversed the earth, enduring hunger and pains in the quest of knowledge. These great scholars spent their entire lives thoroughly scrutinising every verdict of Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on him) to ensure its authenticity. In this way, the jurisprudence of Imam Abu Hanifa has been scrupulously refined through the united efforts and sacrifices of Mufassireen, Muhadditheen, Fuqahah, Philosophers, Jurists and Academics of twelve centuries. [1] There can now be no doubt in understanding that every ruling of Imam Abu Hanifa (May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on him) is most definitely in conformity with Quran and Hadith. 

It would be highly illogical for us now to independently seek evidences from Quran and Hadith when the cake is already baked. This is an extremely daunting task, which requires years, nay lives of dedication, commitment, perseverance and great effort. In fact, many Ahadith are not even at our disposal today.

When the tartars invaded Baghdad, they burnt down thousands of libraries and destroyed so much literature that the entire river Dajla turned black with the ink. This led to the loss to several narrations.[2] Allah, in his infinite mercy, has made it so easy for us that we follow such individuals who were the true epitomes of Islamic knowledge. By following these illustrious scholars, we can rest assured that ultimately we would be practising on Quran and Hadith.

The above proves how frivolous it is for us now to independently search for proofs directly from the Quran and Ahadith. Thus, we are happy that Allah Ta’ala has made our Deen so easy for us.

May Allah Ta’ala guide us to that which he loves and keep us on the straight part.

Ameen

Hopping from one Mazhab to another

Q: Why do the Ulama say that we need to stick to one mazhab? Can't one apply one's personal understanding and reasoning in choosing the opinion of the mazhab which one regards correct?

f the obligation of a non-mujtahid is only to follow, or make taqlid, of qualified mujtahids, why do scholars insist on the added obligation of restricting one’s taqlid to a single madhhab?

The paper linked below addresses this question, providing a detailed explanation for the necessity of adhering to a single madhhab in all its rulings.

The obligation and its legal basis are supported by statements and opinions from major early authorities across the recognised schools of jurisprudence. It is argued that this ruling is not only more sound in the present context, but is also supported by strong positions from within each of the four madhhabs, with some of the early scholars having quoted consensus.

READ PDF

Answered by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Question: How Do I Choose a Madhhab and Why?

Answer: In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate.

May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon His Messenger Muhammad, his folk, companions, and followers

A madhhab is a school of Islamic law, and each madhhab is based on a systematic methodology of interpreting the Qur’an and Prophetic sunna. Following a madhhab is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to follow the Qur’an and Sunna in a sound, systematic, and sustainable manner.

It is a sound way of following the Qur’an and Sunna, because each madhhab has a sound and tested methodology of understanding, interpreting, and applying the guidance of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the issues of our life.

It is a systematic way, because the scholars have dealt with the issues Muslims face in their worship, dealings, and conduct, and given guidance-based answers that are relevant and reliable.

It is a sustainable way, because the scholars have distinguished between the degrees of emphasis of rulings—between what is obligatory and recommended; between the prohibited and the disliked; between the preferable and less preferable. By following a madhhab, you will not be overwhelmed by the sense of having to “do everything all at once.” Rather, you can bring in religious guidance into your life a step at a time—giving priority to what is most important first. This helps one attain consistency in one’s actions and religious practice, which is a key to being personal transformation.

Which Madhhab Do I Follow?

Any of the four Sunni schools of law are valid to follow, and which one chooses to follow is a matter of personal preference and circumstances. One should consider:

(1)    Which madhhab you can learn properly, given your life circumstances

(2)  Which mahhab you can get your questions answered for

(3)  Your personal inclination, and general life considerations (such as family background, community, and so on).

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani

MMVIII © Faraz Rabbani and SunniPath.
All rights reserved