PDA

View Full Version : Help Refute: Asking for "Evidences" is a Clear Daleel of Your Ignorance


aburasheed
19th October 2006, 06:11 PM
Can someone help me out regarding points and approach to refute this article, or maybe any existing articles that already have refutation of this kind of mentality. It seems to promote ignorance within the ummah.

http://shaykhibrahiminstitute.org/Site/Article%20Ridhwan%20Saleem.html

"Asking for "Evidences" is a Clear Daleel of Your Ignorance…"

By Shaykh Ridhwan Saleem

In the name of Allah. All praise is for Him, our Lord and Protector, and may peace and mercy be upon His final prophet.

The following comments are not intended to offend anyone. We love all our brothers, who love Allah and His messenger (mercy of Allah and peace be upon him), and are working sincerely for this deen, no matter which orientation they take. If the following words are seen to be a little harsh on some, it was in view of the serious nature of the age we live in that we felt it was time to get to the point.

The following brief comment arose as a result of my being asked the legal ruling on a certain issue. The questioner also wanted to know the "evidences" for the ruling. I realized that they intended to compare the "evidences" from different people they asked and come to their own conclusion as to which opinion was "strongest".

I felt that presenting the "evidence" from the Hanafi legal school on this issue to such a layperson was inappropriate. I will try and explain why.

I mentioned the ruling from the Hanafi legal school, and said: Such a fatwa, if it comes from one of the four legal schools of ahlis-sunnah wal-jamaa'ah , is the result of the study, research, and ijtihad of hundreds of the greatest scholars of this ummah, who contributed to, and revised the legal rulings of each school . They were masters of the Islamic disciplines, many of whom memorized over one hundred thousand hadiths of the beloved Prophet (mercy of Allah and peace be upon him). Many scholars of the Hanafi legal school reached this respected rank known as 'Guardian ( Hafidh ) of the Hadith'.

In addition to this they were people of the highest levels of piety and fear of Allah, which is absolutely confirmed from their biographies. Therefore we gladly accept the verdicts they gave without having to question them for their "evidences" , and we do not turn to those who do not submit to the authority of these great scholars of this ummah, and want to examine the "evidence" for every ruling, despite the fact most of them have not even had a basic training in the Islamic sciences, or even studied any of the authentic books of hadith with a teacher.

For such a layperson to ask for "evidence" is ridiculous. It's like someone who hasn't even studied GCSE science arguing about the theory of relativity with a professor of physics. Or like someone who has not even the basic knowledge of biology or chemistry arguing with a leading physician about which medicine is better for a particular disease.

Such a person would be a laughed at! Do you think a professor would even pay any attention to him?
He wouldn't even waste his time engaging him in a discussion. Such a person, if he really wishes to give his opinions on theoretical physics, should first go and study his GCSEs for two years, then do his A-levels for two years, then get a degree (3 years), then a masters (1-2 years), then a PhD (3-5 years). Finally, he will be in a position to begin a discussion with the professor!

Similar, or worse, is the Muslim who hasn't even studied a basic curriculum in Islamic Law, and yet steps forward to challenge the greatest scholars of Law, of the salaf and khalaf of this ummah! He does not even have the basic tools to understand or evaluate an "evidence".

Do you think giving opinions on Islamic Law is easier than giving opinions in theoretical physics?

The very fact that you ask for "evidence" is itself a clear daleel of your ignorance of what the process of ijtihad involves.

Do you think getting an "evidence" is as simple as being told a verse of Qur'an or a single hadith?
Your job as a layperson or a beginner in the sacred knowledge is not to ask for the legal rulings on an issue along with "evidences". Rather, your job is just to ask for the legal rulings alone, from one of the four accepted legal schools, and to know that the rulings are based on a deep knowledge and study of the sources.

If you really are interested in the "evidences" please step forward to study the sacred knowledge. You are most welcome! Just to get to a basic level will take at least 5-8 years of serious study. That's just a basic graduate; you haven't even begun to specialize yet!

Trust me, the "evidences" are there for each of the legal schools. The encyclopaedic reference works which discuss detailed evidences for the rulings of the Hanafi legal school are numerous and well-known, written by great masters of Hadith and Jurisprudence. Please feel free to consult them any time you wish to see the "evidence" for a legal ruling. But an untrained person, such as yourself, reading such works will not be able to make sense of them, like a GCSE science student trying to read advanced research papers in quantum physics, or cutting-edge medical research. He'll end up more confused than anything else.

It is time to be humble. If you are a GCSE student, you need to study the basics, and accept what your teachers tell you for now. In many years time, if you are an intelligent student, and put in lots of hard work, you may be in a position to discuss complicated theories and form your own opinions.

Unfortunately, as part of the reprehensible innovations of modern times, a movement has developed within our ummah which rejects the following of the four established legal schools , and encourages laypersons to question every legal ruling, so they can form their own opinions and forge their own way! (This may well be the sunnah of the American singer, Frank Sinatra, who sang "I did it my way", but it certainly isn't the sunnah of the scholars of the salaf .) If you believe that as a GCSE student you can give opinions on quantum theory, then ahlan wa sahlan!

You should be warned however that what you are doing is completely haraam ie. giving a fatwa/legal ruling directly from the sources without being qualified to do so. If everyone was automatically qualified to issue/choose legal rulings, it would lead to disruption and chaos in the sacred law. (By the way, just because you are an Arab or speak Arabic doesn't make you an automatically-qualified mufti either!) All disciplines have curricula and methodologies for their study. Islamic Law and Juristic Methodology is one of the most difficult disciplines which takes many years to become proficient in.

To become a barrister, for example, you have to get excellent A-level results, then get a Law degree. Even after that you need to pass the Bar examinations. Still that is not enough! You then have to spend a further several years training with a barrister before you are allowed to practice for yourself. This is merely to become a junior barrister! After that how many years of continuing research and experience are required for one to become a QC, or a high-court judge?

Strange then it is that every Tom, Dick and Hamza from our ummah considers himself qualified to issue Islamic legal rulings after reading a few verses of Qur'an and a summarized version of al-Saheeh of al-Bukhari! It is a reflection of our deep ignorance of what it is we are dealing with. You haven't even entered Law school and you want to pass legal judgements!

You are a GCSE science student and you want to enter a discussion between professors!

Be humble! If you want to discuss issues of Islamic Law, go and sit at the feet of the scholars, the inheritors of the prophets (may peace be upon them), and study with them. Learn from their good character as well as their knowledge, purify yourself, so that you may become a worthy recipient of the light that is the sacred knowledge.

If you have spent your life studying engineering or medicine, or pursuing business ventures, instead of seeking the sacred knowledge, and now, in your older age, you have decided to get a bit "religious", start coming to the masjid, and so on, please don't think you can do a "crash course" in the deen by reading "Fiqh us-Sunnah" or the Tafseer of Mawdudi, and come to a level where you can debate with the scholars. Please leave the matters of the deen to those who actually did spend their youth and sacrifice many years of their lives to the study of the sacred disciplines.

As one of my teachers often says: " this is the deen, not teen (fig)!! " This is the teaching of Islam that you are dealing with! It's not the plaything of every common person. It is our western conditioning that makes everyone arrogant enough to believe they can give their opinions on all issues, from theology to Islamic Law.
The plain truth is you are not in any position to evaluate "evidences" for a legal ruling and come to a conclusion for yourself as to which opinion is the "strongest".

I remember once entering a discussion with an 18 year old, clean-shaven youth, dressed in jeans and a leather jacket, outside my local masjid. He had started practicing two years previously. He was quite soberly explaining to me how he examines the "evidences" put forward by the different legal schools on each "issue" and then is able to conclude for himself which is the strongest opinion! The fact that he didn't know a word of Arabic was not enough to deter his scholastic pursuits – he would get everything translated into English of course!

Unfortunately, such poor brothers have no idea of how complicated many legal rulings are, and how extensive the discussions between the legal schools on each issue can be. Don't they realize that they are merely "blindly following" whichever "scholar" has presented to them the information on this particular "issue". They haven't even checked the sources themselves, e.g. the reference books of the four legal schools, to see what they say in their discussion on the issue. It is well known that you cannot take Hanafi rulings from a Shafa'i text, or vice versa, because they often give inaccurate presentations of another legal school – you have to go to the texts of the school itself.

I will just give you one simple, commonly-seen, example where the poor brother/sister thinks that they have done a great "ijtihad", and come to their "own" conclusions on an issue (having realized that all the four legal schools got it wrong for the last 1,424 years). This is the issue of where to place the hands in the prayer. It is quite usual now to see Muslims praying while placing their hands on their chests or necks rather than the traditional above-or-below the navel position, which was the practice of the Muslims for over a thousand years until recent times. Indeed all four legal schools agree that the hands should be just above or below the navel – definitely not on the chest (except for women in the Hanafi school), and especially not on the neck! (Some of the Maliki's hold that the sunnah is to place the hands at the sides).

However the young mujtahids of the 21st century know better. Obviously all those great legal experts of the four schools didn't have access to " Fiqh us-Sunnah ", that essential guide for all budding mujtahids! It's even available in a handy translated version for non-Arabic mujtahids! You simply flick open the relevant chapter on: "Sunnah acts of prayer, The Position of the Hands" (vol.1 p.132) and you will discover that al-Tirmidhi narrates a hadith that the Prophet (mercy of Allah and peace be upon him) prayed with his hands on his chest, and that al-Tirmidhi grades this hadith "as hassan". Also you will read that a similar hadith is found in "The Saheeh" of Ibn Khuzayma, and that Ibn Khuzayma "considers it as sahih".

That's it! The young mujtahid has done his job! Obviously there are sahih hadiths about this! (Don't know who that Ibn Khuzayma guy is…but he sounds important!) The four legal schools got it all wrong! Thereafter the brother is seen in the local masjid placing his hands high up on his chest, looking rather scornfully at those who "blindly" follow the legal schools.

Now let's have a closer look at the "evidences" given above in "Fiqh us-Sunnah". We make some startling discoveries.

First of all, those who actually studied "al-Jaami'" of al-Tirmidhi itself would realise that al-Tirmidhi does NOT even mention a hadith that the Prophet (mercy of Allah and peace be upon him) prayed with his hands on his chest! Let alone grade it as hassan!! A very serious mistake on the part of the author of "Fiqh us-Sunnah".

Second major mistake: although Ibn Khuzayma (may Allah have mercy on him) does mention a hadith of the Prophet (mercy of Allah and peace be upon him) placing his hands on his chest, he DOES NOT consider it to be saheeh. In fact Ibn Khuzayma makes no comment on the authenticity of the hadiths that he narrates in his book. But those who know Ibn Khuzayma's methodology will see that all indications are that he did not consider this narration as sound. First of all he does not mention placing the hands on the chest in the chapter heading of that chapter (which is his usual method of indicating his understanding of the legal implications of the narrations in the chapter). Secondly, he places the narration at the end of the chapter, which also indicates its weakness.

Anyhow, a look at the chain of narrators of this hadith will show that it contains Mu'ammal ibn Isma'il, who most scholars of hadith say is a weak narrator, pointing out that he had a terrible memory! Imam al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) actually says he is "munkar al-hadith", meaning his hadith are totally rejected! There are also further criticisms of this narration possible but we will not delve into these right now.

Now we see the problem. The young mujtahid was not really a mujtahid after all! He was the worst type of "blind follower" . He read a chapter from "Fiqh us-Sunnah" and accepted what he read "blindly", all the while thinking that he had done a great ijtihad! Imagine how many more mistakes this book contains. And it is one of the most popular books nowadays amongst Muslims! The type of mistakes pointed out above are serious errors. One of my teachers said that these are not the type of slips you would see sometimes in the writings of scholars. Rather they indicate a real ignorance in the author that is inexcusable.

At the end of the day, the reality is that you are a muqallid, whether you know it or not . The choice simply remains as to whom you follow: is it going to be the author of "Fiqh us-Sunnah", or al-Albaani, or one on the four legal schools. In the end, studying evidences for legal rulings is not wrong in itself, but it has a certain context and place.

Other comments may be made regarding these matters, but we will suffice with what has been stated, praying to Allah that He covers us all in His mercy and guides us to the truth in all matters, and enables us to follow it, and act according to what pleases Him at all times. And may peace and the mercy of Allah be upon His beloved messenger, his family, and all his companions. And all praise is to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.

Written by,
servant of the sacred knowledge,
Ridhwan ibn Muhammad Saleem.
Damascus , Ramadhan 1424 H


Further reading:

1. "Refutation of those who follow other than the four legal schools" ("radd 'ala man ittaba'a ghayr al madhahib al arba'ah"), by Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (Arabic)

2. "Non-madhhabism: The most dangerous innovation threatening the Islamic Law" ("La madhhabiyyah: akhtar al-bid'ah tohaddidu al-sharee'ah al-islamiyyah"), by Shaykh Dr. Muhammad
Sa'eed Ramadhan al-Bouti (Head of the dept. of Sharee'ah, University of Damascus )(Arabic)

3. "The legal status of following a madhhab", by Justice Shaykh Taqi 'Uthmani (Chief Qadi of Pakistan ) (English)

4. "The Four Madhhabs", by Shaykh Abdul-Hakeem Murad (English)

5. "Benefits of the sciences of jurisprudence" ("fawaa'id 'uloom al-fiqh"), introduction to "'ilaa ul-
sunan", by Shaykh Kayranwi (Arabic)

6. "Meaning of the saying of the Muttalibi Imam: 'If a hadith is authentic, then it is my madhhab'", ("ma'na qawl al-imam al-muttalib: itha sahha al-hadith fa huwa madhhabi"), by Shaykh ul-Islam, Imam Taqi ul-Deen al-Subki (Arabic)

7. "Fatwa Concerning the Obligation of Following Rightly Guided Scholars", by Shaykh Murabit al-Haajj and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (Arabic/English)

sunnih
20th October 2006, 05:10 PM
Salam alaikum. The responce to this article and others like it from the rampant mukalleeds could be short or long delailed or general and the schoolars have writen about it. However there is a short response to this article that Allah sent his prophets and messengers to bring people from darkness into light, from utter ignorance into clear truth and Allah gives his messengers proof for what they preach. The kufar are the most ignorant of people yet Allah gives proof for tawheed and the futility of shirk. Also in the grave after you are asked who is your Lord, your religion and your prophet you will be asked what proof do you have? The answer accepted is not the sheikh told me but as the hadith says, I read the Kur'an and I believed and followed it....Rather the one who will say I heard so and so....will be doomed (See the hadith of the punnishment in the grave and the various riwayahs of it in the book of Albani about the janazah).This "learned man" who considers the individuals ignorants does not see it necessary to present his arguments to the "layman" while Allah and His messengers did see it necessary to do so. This "sheikh" who is "well versed" in hanafi fiqh only quotes opinions of whoever is more knowlegable than him therefore he too is a jaheel as according to his rule the jaheel does not receive proof but accepts. And since he unswers with what the others said he admits that he is jaheel by impication therefore he does not know the dalil also. So we have a jaheel answering a jaheel. In his madhhab dhis is forbiden as well. What a shame! He calls himself hanafi while Abu Hanifa said thet it is not permisible for anyone to say what we say without knowing where we took from (our dalil). What a shame! What a dissgrace!

aburasheed
21st October 2006, 03:50 AM
Jazakallah Kheir Brother sunnih. This helps a lot.

sunnih
21st October 2006, 01:20 PM
Salam alaikum. Wa eyeke akhee.

ÚõÈóíúÏõ ÑóÈøöåö
22nd October 2006, 01:11 PM
Al Salamu 'alaikum

Well, actually, the answer might be in some more need of detail, cause I believe that that answer of "sunnih" is what the article is refuting. These are the type of answers that the writer and those who have his view are amazed at and criticising.

I have understood that the main arguements of them are that a madhab in fiqh has always judged according to the usul of the imam of that madhab, who is a mujtahid mutlaq i.e. he is capable and has the right to come up with usul that are used to deriving rulings from the Quran and Sunnah. By time, the ulama of that madhab have come across all of the ahadith that they might have missed in the early times and analyzed them with the usul of that mujtahid imam who made the madhab (they say that what madhab means is the usul of a mujtahid mutlaq) and therefore having not really missed any ahadith as their opponents may say.
If it seems that they are not acting according to a hadith, then that, according to them, only means that because of the usul of their madhab they have interpreted the hadith in other than it's obvious meaning which appears to somebody who doesn't read it "wearing the eyeglasses of their usul".

So, in this sense, they explain that a common person who is not on the level of this mujtahid imam, by who all the ahadith are judged on (even after his death, cause his usul are what the later imams of that madhab are judging by) has no right to criticise the rulings in the madhab cause then he would be criticising the usul of a mujtahid mutlaq and nobody else can do this except another mujtahid mutlaq...for other than them there is only submission to their usul and judging by one of the usul of these absolute mujtahids.

I have understood that they say that the sayings of the imams: "if the hadith is sahih then that's my madhab" and "don't follow me if it contradicts the proof" are for their students who were judging by their usul and capable to do that, not for any layman...and they use Imam Nawawi's words where he comments on this.

I used to follow this ideology for two years or so, after having followed that which they are refuting, but lately i've been having some suspicion. They use texts from older ulama who say "as for other than a mujtahid, there is only taqlid" for example. For some reason though, lately, I've been thinking what they really mean with this taqlid here. I was sort of waiting for Abu Al-Zubair's text on Ibn Rajab's position and his texts on taqlid in general as well, to get some more clarification on this issue.

sunnih
22nd October 2006, 02:18 PM
Salam alaikum.

Dear brother Abu Nuh.

As I said in the begining of my post there are different approaches in refuting the article and I only mentioned a very short one and the meaning of it is that the saying of the writer that the dalil is not to be given to the jaheel is refuted by what I wrote and not the whole article.

But if you was to go into deeper details about shuch then if you take his own words and apply them to each madhhab form the 4 madhhabs which he accepts as established then you get him to explain why we should choose the hanafi madhhab and not the others while they are all qualified to the same standard and the Shaf'i and Hanbali imams are even more qualified than the rest of the imams in hadith.

This as far as the knowledge of hadith is concerned. With regarding the fiqh and usul, it is true that the madhhabs differ but so do the schoolars differ in applying them within the same madhhab. So Abu Yusuf and Shaebanee differ even with Abu Hanifa himself and all the hanafi schoolars of repute differ in particular issues. So even without going out of the hanafi madhhab itself, what makes us follow the position of lets say Abu Yusuf instead of the position of Shaebanee? Are we not still unqualified to choose?! Why it is safe to choose between these two schoolars ang not others?

Even if we accept the argument that these schoolars differ but their usul is one, where is the dalil that there should only be only the usul of one madhhab be followed? The Kur'an says as they quote ask those who know if you know not. Ahlul dhikr, does it apply only to one person or more than one? Even if they say that the hanafi ulama are more then one, we say that their usul is one so they all took from the same person Abu Hanifa.

If they say that there were mujtaheeds mutlaq within their madhhab, then we say that so are the mujtaheeds of other madhhabs. And the argument can be long and depends on the answers he gives so we can not answer for all situations. He even brings examples of doctor and the patient, teachers...etc but really he applies them as he likes and not justly.

So if the doctor gives you a drug about wich there are four different positions of the major scientists from where these doctors take their knowledge from will it be unreasunable to ask for the dalil and will the doctor refuse to give evidence? Or if it comes to the surgical operation of lets say intervention in the heart will he not explain what the chances are and all the possible damages are? So why does he not give you the possibility of his view being wrong also?! Who gave him authority to judge which madhhab is right and wrong? What makes his words better than those of his same level sheikhs of other madhhabs? Or is it because we asked him we should follow the hanafi view?

If so lets start from saying I just become muslim now I said the shahadah and before me are the four madhhabs, which one do I choose and as they are all qualified and I am unqualified how do i choose?! Is it up to me to decide? If so then if I can choose which madhhab to choose (which usul) why can I not follow also between the answers of the schoolars? These usul only were established after the sahabah can they say that whoever came into islam in the time of the sahabah only was allowed to ask one sahabi and not others? Can they say that whoever took from Ibn Mas'ud was not alloewd for him to take from Ibn Abas or Ibn Umar? and so on and so forth.

ÚõÈóíúÏõ ÑóÈøöåö
23rd October 2006, 09:28 AM
I don't think that they say that any madhab of the four is better than the other. They say that they are all equal.

They also say, that you you can mix between madhabs as long as you don't mix in one type of 'ibadah in a way that the result would not be accepted by any of the four madahib (like making wudu by the minimum requirements of one madhab and then praying according to another madhab which wouldn't consider his wudu walid). I've always been wondering about this and asking for a text from the classical scholars on this, but so far I have not got it. Maybe someone can clarify. If possible, with some sayings from the scholars of the past.

There's also some things which caused me to doubt, and that is the saying of Al-Nawawi for example where he says that the shafi'i madhab is the best choise because it's late and has analyzed the proofs the most (his personal view ofcourse). I'm not a stundent at all, but I understood from that that it's not just "the madahib are all from mujtahid's so they are all equal in ruling's beeing right" but it's also a matter of proof, even though they all made ijtihad. This kind of saying also seems to go against what they say about the imams of a madhab checking all proofs as time went on and therefore beeing all equal in beeing aware of the proofs...cause Nawawi wasn't SO early, that proof's weren't gathered yet, right? Or is he just talking to some developed readers who should apply this only? Just thinking, it may have no point and it may be stupid, but it's bothering me really and preventing me from benefitting from alot of 'ilm that is opening to me.

sunnih
23rd October 2006, 12:46 PM
Salam alaikum.

Dear brother.

In regarding the following of the schoolars there are two views and they are both wrong and we hold the position between them which is the balanced opinion.

The first is that the schoolars should be followed unrestrictidly and unquestionably as they are the specialists so they know better. The other opinion is that we do not take nothing from the schoolars at all as we are men as they are. Both these opinions are wrong and rejected.

The third opinion is that we look at the evidences of the schoolars and their opinions and we do our best to understand them and try to follow the one closest to the truth. It is true that not everyone can arrive to a decission regarding the strongest position of the shoolars and for these it is permited to follow schoolars of repute who are known for their adherence to the proof, however we do not say that these people do not need to be told the proof rather we make our best to teach them the proof as we try to raise the level of knowlege in the ummah.

In regard to the usul and the principles that the madhaheebs are based upon it is true that they are based on proof and knowledge but they are not to be taken as unmistakable or as un-opposable as the mujtaheeds themselves did not see them as such even though they adviced to follow them as in the case of Nawawi r.a. that you mention.

However Shafi' has clearly stated that: "We build our principles and it might be that without intending it we might contradict a sahih hadith therefore if a hadith is found sahih, follow the hadith and leave my principle. So if the one who build the usul says to leave these if found contradicting the hadith than surely he knows better than those who follow him.

Of course we do not say that anyone who finds a hadith comes and opposes the usul or the oppinion of the schoolars as the hadith must be a correct one to act upon and not for example an abrogated hadith. For this reason imam Melik when he was asked if it is correct to act upon a sahih hadith he said: "No wallahi unless this is correct".

However if someone does not know the opinion of the schoolars on a matter and here he finds a hadith in this regard and he has no access to schoolars should he act upon the hadith or not?! Subki has answered correctly and has said that he should act upon it until he knows the correct verdict and there is no blame on him as he is just like the one who just heard the saying of the Messenger so he obeys it, even if this is not a hadith upon which we act.

And as you see this matter is broad and not strict but we do respect the words of the schoolars no matter which madhhab they follow as long as it is in accordance with the truth. If we were to follow a madhhab then we would recomend the hanbali madhhab as it is the most rich in ahadith but they too have mistakes as the others have and the saying of Nawawi to choose the shafi' madhhab is based on the fact that while the hanafi madhhab chooses the easyest option the shafi' one chooses the safest even though it is more difficult (of course not in all matters).

So in truth there is no superiority of one madhhab over the other but all of them together in what is correct contain the sunnah. As well as the opinions of the other fuqaha. Therefore evryone of us should strive to learn as much as he/she can from the proof and the words of the schoolars and you may quote the word of a schoolar in a matter but as Ibn Uthaymeen r.a says: "The word of a schoolar may be quoted as evidence, just like evidence may be quoted against this schoolar and the saying of one schoolar does not invalidate the saying of other schoolars".

And this matter becomes easy for the one for whom Allah makes it easy. We ask Allah to give us benefitial knowledge and to make our deeds whitnesses of our words.

ÚõÈóíúÏõ ÑóÈøöåö
24th October 2006, 05:15 PM
Could you or someone else please send me some texts in arabic (not just a reference, cause i dont have an accest to a library here) proving clearly that

1. the arguement about the usul is wrong i.e. a non mujtahid is capable to actually criticise a verdict of a madhab which was reached by the usul of a mujtahid and the evidences had reached them because of time having passed.

2. a non mujtahid can use a hadith to criticise the usul of a mujtahid and therefore know the correct opinion.

This for a starting. I have to admit that I am confused and very thirsty for answers ...if you got the time.

sunnih
24th October 2006, 10:59 PM
Salam Alaikum.

Dear brother Abu Nuh. You wrote:Could you or someone else please send me some texts in arabic (not just a reference, cause i dont have an accest to a library here) proving clearly that

1. the arguement about the usul is wrong i.e. a non mujtahid is capable to actually criticise a verdict of a madhab which was reached by the usul of a mujtahid and the evidences had reached them because of time having passed.

2. a non mujtahid can use a hadith to criticise the usul of a mujtahid and therefore know the correct opinion.

This for a starting. I have to admit that I am confused and very thirsty for answers ...if you got the time.

Regarding the texts in arabic may be the other brothers can help you with that as I only can point you the book titles but inshallah some brother can help you with that.

Regarding the argument of the usul:

I am not denying the validity of the usul but what I am denying is the use of the usul itself as evidence against specific proof i.e sahih hadith.

The hanafi madhhab take the usul as the criterion and by it they judge the evidences and this is wrong. The usul is there only as guidelines and that is only a mean to achieve the objective itself which is the daleel itself.

The usul was founded upon daleel therefore we do not object to that. What we object is the use of the means against the objective of the means itself.

So if you use usul this is only to facilitate you in using and undersatnding the daleel but not to oppose the daleel itself.

What the hanafis do is that they cling to the usul and don't see anything opposing it therefore they reject ahadith based upon this or interpret them based on their usul.

This has led them and others to the principle of exclusion or preference amongst the daleel so they choose one hadith and abandon the other while the rest of the people of knowledge join the evidences and try to use them and one of the principles of abrogating ang the abrogated is that first of all there must be tried to accomodate all the daleel as the basis is that some speech or action of the Messenger can not contradict the rest of the words or actions of the Messenger and if such happens than it could be due to a difference in circumstances or one is specific and the other general or due to the presence of certain factors...etc. So the usul or the principles of the usul must be used only as means and not the object itself.

Regarding the second point. Even the mujtaheeds themselves contradict their usul in certain matters that is why you will find many examples in the writtings of the followers saying that such is the saying of the mujtaheed but this contradicts the usul of the mujtaheed and a book where you will see a lot of these is "bidayat..." of Ibn Rushd

The mujtaheeds themselves did not apply these usul strictly and they did not take them as evidence in and of themselves but they were only principles as guidelines and helpers in deriving the hukm from the evidence but not neccessary they are correct at every instance i.e.

Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah mentions regarding the principle of abrogating and the abrogated that the rule laid down by the people of knowledge is that the abrogating text does not change twice.

So if let's say something is haram by a text if a text comes after it to abrogate it, this second text can not have another text after it which abrogates this bringing the hukm back to the first stance.

This is a briliant principle and works most of the time but as with any principle there are exceptions and to this rule I will mention as exception the temporary marriage.

It was haram, then it was made halal, then it became haram again till the day of judgement.

So the principles and the usul are not to be rejected but are to be used correctly with the daleel and not against the daleel. I hope this helps.

ÚõÈóíúÏõ ÑóÈøöåö
27th October 2006, 06:43 PM
This was good, if it is correct (I have not yet started studying usul al-fiqh). Could you then point me to some titles atleast, I will try to get acces to them insha-Allah.

sunnih
27th October 2006, 07:38 PM
Salam alaikum. First of all brother I am pleased to help as much as I can. Second I would really point something which helps to create the proper grounds for correct knowledge.

There have been different aproaches to seeking knowledge and each of them has it's supporters from the schoolars. However the best way to fiqh and usul el-fiqh is to start by studying fiqh first and then studying usul because the usul is what has been derived by the fiqh and although it can be started the other way around as well, this method (fiqh first) is the best method as it gives you the gorunds first and it teaches you how to approach the daleels and from what it has been found with those who study usul first is that they are limited in their knowledge and often get stuck and drown in a drop of water while the other group is more founded. Then the best way to aquire fiqh is the one which is based upon hadith because you see in it the daleel and how it was dealt with it by the fuqaha. The schoolars of old used to study hadeeth before studying fiqh and in our days we have the hadeeth classified for us so it is easier for us so we can start to memorise hadeeth and create a wide ground by this for the fiqh. So first I would advice everyone to memorise hadeeth as much as he can. It could also be studied at the same time as fiqh and usul el-fiqh and there is nothing wrong with it but it is better to delay a bit the usul and concentrate more on the hadeeth and fiqh. As a first book to start in usul el-fiqh I would say is "Er-Risalah" of Shafi' with checking of other schoolars such as Ahmed Shakir. But it is not that easy and it would help if it is studied with someone who can explain it. But I would say that it is better to start with something easy first such as studying the fatawah of the trusted schoolars first and especially those who do not cling blindly to their madhhab such as the hanbali schoolars. I do not say that the hanbali madhhab is the best but it has fewer errors than the others and if reading from those who don't cling blindly to their madhhab helps such as Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Kajjim (especially zad ul mea'd) and form our day schoolars I would mention Ibn Uthaymeen and Ibn Baz from the hijazee and hanbali based schoolars. At the same time a must read is "Bidayat el mujtaheed wa nihayat el muqtaseed" of Ibn Rushd by leaving aside the introduction at first and starting at the text. Also the book that Abu Zubair has started in fiqh does help a lot. But in usul el-fiqh the very first book to start should be "Er-Risalah" of Shafi' and verily there is no better book to start in usul and if grasped well will give the reader a firm ground in the basics of usul. Really I do not recommend any other book before reading this one first and Allah knows better.

Break The Cross
3rd November 2006, 12:33 PM
salaamu alaikum

Sunnih, the books you mentioned are in English also yes? And this might be a dumb question but what came first, fiqh or usulul fiqh?

sunnih
3rd November 2006, 09:11 PM
Salam alaikum. Yes brother they are available in english also. And I have mentioned in my earlier posts that fiqh came before the usul in the established form. However as for it's existence they co-existed and there are narrations from our Prophet in that matter (that also mention usul principles although not directly). Hope it helps.