Abuz Zubair
28th April 2004, 02:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IslamicAwakening.Com Discussion Board: Islaam in general: Topics started in July 2000: Guidelines Concerning al-Madhaahib
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By UmNusayba on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 03:22 am: Edit
By UmNusayba on Sunday, July 30, 2000 - 06:19 pm:
assalaamu 'alaykum
an old post from my list - as requested.
GUIDELINES CONCERNING FOLLOWING MADHAAHIB
Translated By Abu 'Aaliyah
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN SAALIH AL-'UTHAYMEEN
When encountering a difficult issue, do you advise the student of knowledge not to stick to a madhhab, or [do you advise] to turn to a particular madhhab?
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, responded:
"If what is intended by sticking to a madhhab is that a person sticks to that madhhab, and turns away from everything else; whether the correct view lies in his madhhab or another madhhab - then this is not permissible, and is from the blameworthy and bigotted partisanship. But
if a person ascribes to a particular madhhab in order to benefit from its principles and guidelines, but he refers it back to the Book and the Sunnah; [such that] if it becomes clear to him that the preferred view lies in another madhhab, he then adopts that view - then there is no problem with this." (1)
SHAYKH SAALIH AL-FAWZAAN
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, was asked: Is it permissible for one who sticks to a particular madhhab in matters of worship, to turn away from it and stick to another madhhab whenever he wants? Or is it binding upon a Muslim to stick
to just one madhhab until he dies? And is there a difference in how the Prayer should be performed between the four madhhabs or not? And what has been related from the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam concerning how the Prayer should be prayed?
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, responded:
"The issue of sticking to a madhhab has in it some detail. If a person has the ability to know the ruling from its proof, and to deduce the ruling from its proof, then it is not permitted for him to cling to a madhhab. rather, it is
upon him to take the ruling from the evidence - if he has the ability to do so. However, this is rare amongst the people, since this is a quality of the mujtahideen from the people of knowledge; those that have reaced the levels of ijtihaad. As for one who is not like that, then he cannot take the rulings directly from the evidences. And this is the predominant case amongst the people, especially in these latter times. So [in such a case] there is no harm in adopting one of the four madhhabs and making taqleed of one of them.
However, he should not make blind taqleed such that he takes all that is in the madhhab; whether it is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is upon him to take from the madhhab that which - in his view - does not clearly oppose the evidence. As for those views in the madhhab which clearly oppose the evidence, then it is not permissible for the Muslim to take it. Rather it is upon him to adopt what is established by the proof, even if it is in another madhhab. So his leaving the madhhab for another madhhab in order to follow the evidence is something good; this is a matter
which is good - rather it is obligatory; since following the evidence is an obligation.
As for adopting one madhhab sometimes and another at other times, then this moving is from the angle of following one's desires and seeking concessions, and this is not permissible. Meaning, that whatever accords with one's whims
and desires, from the sayings of the people of knowledge, is taken - even if it opposes the proof; and whatever opposes one's whims and desires is left - even if it has a proof. This is the following of whims and desires, and we seek
refuge in Allaah [from that]. Thus, moving from one madhhab to another, due to following one's desires, or due to ease or seeking concession; then this is not permissible. As for moving from one madhhab to another due to following an evidence, or to flee from a saying that does not have a proof, or from an erroneous view - then this is a matter that is encouraged and sought from a Muslim. And Allaah knows best.
As for the issue concerning the differences between the four madhhabs in the Prayer, then the four madhhabs -and all praise is for Allaah - are in agreement about most of the rulings concerning the Prayer, in general. Their differences are in some of the details of the Prayer. From [such
differences] are, for example, that [one of them] may consider something to be prescribed, whilst another may not consider it to be prescribed; one may consider something to be obligatory, whilst another may consider it to be recommended; and so on. So the differences are in the details of the Prayer. But as for the rulings of the Prayer in general, then there is no difference - and all praise is for Allaah ..." (2)
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB
"If a person is learning fiqh from one of the four madhhabs, then he sees a hadeeth that opposes his madhhab; and so he follows it and leaves his madhhab - then this is recommended, rather it is obligatory upon him when the proof
has been made clear to him. This would not be considered as opposing his Imaam that he follows, since they - Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad, radiallaahu 'anhum ajma'een - were all agreed upon this fundamental principle ... As for the case whereby a person does not have any evidence which opposes the view of the scholars of the madhhab, then we hope that it ispermissible to act upon it, since their opinions are better than our own opinions; they
took their proofs from the sayings of the Companions and those who came after them. However, it is notessential to declare with certainty (al-jazm) that this is the Sharee'ah
of Allaah and His Messenger, until the proof that is not contradicted in this issue is made clear. This is the action of the Salaf of this Ummah and its scholars - both previous and recent - as well as that which they criticised: namely having bigotted partisanship for particular madhhabs
(at-ta'assubul-madhaahib) and leaving off following the proof." (3)
SHAYKHUL-ISLAAM IBN TAYMIYYAH
Ibn Taymiyyah was asked: To explain Najmud-Deen Ibn Hamdaani's saying: "Whoever clings to a madhhab is to be criticised if he opposes it without a proof, or taqleed, or any other excuse."
Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullaah, responded by saying:
"Two things are intended by this [saying]:- Firstly: That whoever clings to a specific madhhab, then acts in opposition to it; without making taqleed of the fatwaa of another scholar, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which would necessitate opposing this, nor due toany other Sharee'ah excuse which makes it permissible for him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his whims and desires; acting without [making] ijtihaad or taqleed; and doing something forbidden without a Sharee'ah
excuse. So this is evil; this is what Shaykh Najmud-Deen intended, and there is a text from Imaam Ahmad and others that it is not for anyone to believe a thing to be obligatory or forbidden, then, merely based upon whims and desires, believe that it is not obligatory nor forbidden ... However, if there becomes clear to him something which necessitates preferring one saying over another; either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of the two people to be more
knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety about what he says, and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one - then this is permissible, rather it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad concerning this." (4)
REFERENCES
1. As-Sahwatul-Islaamiyyah (pp.141-142).
2. Muntaqaa min Fataawaa (5/365-366).
3. Ad-Durur-Saniyyah (4/7).
4. Majmoo' Fataawaa (20/220-221).
By Anonymous on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 03:23 am: Edit
By Anonymous on Sunday, July 30, 2000 - 06:52 pm:
sorry but iam quite thick with regards to this topic - but
as a muslim who does not know the arabic language, and
therefore unable to distinguish between a sound and weak
hadith, i thought it would be preferrable or appropraite to
adhere to a particlur madhab. I understand from the above
post that we must follow the stronger proof, but what i
worry about is how to carry out such an act - that is to be
able to determine which is the stronger proof. With so many
deviant groups flying about, is it not better say for
instance, to rely solely on the Hanbali (or other) madhab,
then listen to a 'so called' knoweledgable person in the
21st century with regards to following the stronger proof,
especially if a person like myself is unable to assess the
credentials of that person. I know a number of brothers who
stopped adhering to a particular madhab and started to
follow (supposedly) stronger proofs. Unfortunately since
these bros new nothing with regards to assessing text or
proofs, they ended up reying on some deviant person to point
out the stronger proof, thus innovating much on the deen -
and eventually following their desires. If I follow a
particular madhab, but acknowledge that all other madhabs
are also safe to follow thus avoiding partisanship - am I
really so deviant that i deserve the hellfire (just over
that) as one salafi brother told me yesterday. I found that
quite distressing.
IslamicAwakening.Com Discussion Board: Islaam in general: Topics started in July 2000: Guidelines Concerning al-Madhaahib
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By UmNusayba on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 03:22 am: Edit
By UmNusayba on Sunday, July 30, 2000 - 06:19 pm:
assalaamu 'alaykum
an old post from my list - as requested.
GUIDELINES CONCERNING FOLLOWING MADHAAHIB
Translated By Abu 'Aaliyah
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN SAALIH AL-'UTHAYMEEN
When encountering a difficult issue, do you advise the student of knowledge not to stick to a madhhab, or [do you advise] to turn to a particular madhhab?
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, responded:
"If what is intended by sticking to a madhhab is that a person sticks to that madhhab, and turns away from everything else; whether the correct view lies in his madhhab or another madhhab - then this is not permissible, and is from the blameworthy and bigotted partisanship. But
if a person ascribes to a particular madhhab in order to benefit from its principles and guidelines, but he refers it back to the Book and the Sunnah; [such that] if it becomes clear to him that the preferred view lies in another madhhab, he then adopts that view - then there is no problem with this." (1)
SHAYKH SAALIH AL-FAWZAAN
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, was asked: Is it permissible for one who sticks to a particular madhhab in matters of worship, to turn away from it and stick to another madhhab whenever he wants? Or is it binding upon a Muslim to stick
to just one madhhab until he dies? And is there a difference in how the Prayer should be performed between the four madhhabs or not? And what has been related from the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam concerning how the Prayer should be prayed?
The Shaykh, hafidhahullaah, responded:
"The issue of sticking to a madhhab has in it some detail. If a person has the ability to know the ruling from its proof, and to deduce the ruling from its proof, then it is not permitted for him to cling to a madhhab. rather, it is
upon him to take the ruling from the evidence - if he has the ability to do so. However, this is rare amongst the people, since this is a quality of the mujtahideen from the people of knowledge; those that have reaced the levels of ijtihaad. As for one who is not like that, then he cannot take the rulings directly from the evidences. And this is the predominant case amongst the people, especially in these latter times. So [in such a case] there is no harm in adopting one of the four madhhabs and making taqleed of one of them.
However, he should not make blind taqleed such that he takes all that is in the madhhab; whether it is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is upon him to take from the madhhab that which - in his view - does not clearly oppose the evidence. As for those views in the madhhab which clearly oppose the evidence, then it is not permissible for the Muslim to take it. Rather it is upon him to adopt what is established by the proof, even if it is in another madhhab. So his leaving the madhhab for another madhhab in order to follow the evidence is something good; this is a matter
which is good - rather it is obligatory; since following the evidence is an obligation.
As for adopting one madhhab sometimes and another at other times, then this moving is from the angle of following one's desires and seeking concessions, and this is not permissible. Meaning, that whatever accords with one's whims
and desires, from the sayings of the people of knowledge, is taken - even if it opposes the proof; and whatever opposes one's whims and desires is left - even if it has a proof. This is the following of whims and desires, and we seek
refuge in Allaah [from that]. Thus, moving from one madhhab to another, due to following one's desires, or due to ease or seeking concession; then this is not permissible. As for moving from one madhhab to another due to following an evidence, or to flee from a saying that does not have a proof, or from an erroneous view - then this is a matter that is encouraged and sought from a Muslim. And Allaah knows best.
As for the issue concerning the differences between the four madhhabs in the Prayer, then the four madhhabs -and all praise is for Allaah - are in agreement about most of the rulings concerning the Prayer, in general. Their differences are in some of the details of the Prayer. From [such
differences] are, for example, that [one of them] may consider something to be prescribed, whilst another may not consider it to be prescribed; one may consider something to be obligatory, whilst another may consider it to be recommended; and so on. So the differences are in the details of the Prayer. But as for the rulings of the Prayer in general, then there is no difference - and all praise is for Allaah ..." (2)
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD IBN ABDUL-WAHHAAB
"If a person is learning fiqh from one of the four madhhabs, then he sees a hadeeth that opposes his madhhab; and so he follows it and leaves his madhhab - then this is recommended, rather it is obligatory upon him when the proof
has been made clear to him. This would not be considered as opposing his Imaam that he follows, since they - Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad, radiallaahu 'anhum ajma'een - were all agreed upon this fundamental principle ... As for the case whereby a person does not have any evidence which opposes the view of the scholars of the madhhab, then we hope that it ispermissible to act upon it, since their opinions are better than our own opinions; they
took their proofs from the sayings of the Companions and those who came after them. However, it is notessential to declare with certainty (al-jazm) that this is the Sharee'ah
of Allaah and His Messenger, until the proof that is not contradicted in this issue is made clear. This is the action of the Salaf of this Ummah and its scholars - both previous and recent - as well as that which they criticised: namely having bigotted partisanship for particular madhhabs
(at-ta'assubul-madhaahib) and leaving off following the proof." (3)
SHAYKHUL-ISLAAM IBN TAYMIYYAH
Ibn Taymiyyah was asked: To explain Najmud-Deen Ibn Hamdaani's saying: "Whoever clings to a madhhab is to be criticised if he opposes it without a proof, or taqleed, or any other excuse."
Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullaah, responded by saying:
"Two things are intended by this [saying]:- Firstly: That whoever clings to a specific madhhab, then acts in opposition to it; without making taqleed of the fatwaa of another scholar, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which would necessitate opposing this, nor due toany other Sharee'ah excuse which makes it permissible for him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his whims and desires; acting without [making] ijtihaad or taqleed; and doing something forbidden without a Sharee'ah
excuse. So this is evil; this is what Shaykh Najmud-Deen intended, and there is a text from Imaam Ahmad and others that it is not for anyone to believe a thing to be obligatory or forbidden, then, merely based upon whims and desires, believe that it is not obligatory nor forbidden ... However, if there becomes clear to him something which necessitates preferring one saying over another; either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of the two people to be more
knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety about what he says, and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one - then this is permissible, rather it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad concerning this." (4)
REFERENCES
1. As-Sahwatul-Islaamiyyah (pp.141-142).
2. Muntaqaa min Fataawaa (5/365-366).
3. Ad-Durur-Saniyyah (4/7).
4. Majmoo' Fataawaa (20/220-221).
By Anonymous on Friday, September 08, 2000 - 03:23 am: Edit
By Anonymous on Sunday, July 30, 2000 - 06:52 pm:
sorry but iam quite thick with regards to this topic - but
as a muslim who does not know the arabic language, and
therefore unable to distinguish between a sound and weak
hadith, i thought it would be preferrable or appropraite to
adhere to a particlur madhab. I understand from the above
post that we must follow the stronger proof, but what i
worry about is how to carry out such an act - that is to be
able to determine which is the stronger proof. With so many
deviant groups flying about, is it not better say for
instance, to rely solely on the Hanbali (or other) madhab,
then listen to a 'so called' knoweledgable person in the
21st century with regards to following the stronger proof,
especially if a person like myself is unable to assess the
credentials of that person. I know a number of brothers who
stopped adhering to a particular madhab and started to
follow (supposedly) stronger proofs. Unfortunately since
these bros new nothing with regards to assessing text or
proofs, they ended up reying on some deviant person to point
out the stronger proof, thus innovating much on the deen -
and eventually following their desires. If I follow a
particular madhab, but acknowledge that all other madhabs
are also safe to follow thus avoiding partisanship - am I
really so deviant that i deserve the hellfire (just over
that) as one salafi brother told me yesterday. I found that
quite distressing.