Itiba not taqleed

[waziri]

ASsalamualaykum,

I want to know is there a difference between itiba and taqleed?The way I understand it is that taqleed has to be performed by the layman who asks the scholars and makes taqleed upon the rulings issued by them as explained by brother Abu Zubair."This is our job as laymen, to blind follow our muftis."

Taqleed is to blind follow so how does itiba differ from taqleed Ive read that Imam Shawkani was against taqleed alltogeather and did not allow it is this a accurate description of Imam shawkani's position?

JazakAllah khair.

wasalam

[waziri]

Brother could you please shed some light on this matter,I have been having a discussion with a brother about taqleed and he has quoted Imam shawkani as saying taqleed is forbidden and that what is required of the layman is to do "Itiba"ie to ask for evidence and then follow the evidence.

Ive tried explaining to the respected brother that its not always as simple as knowing a hadith or two which shows on what basis a paticular fiqhi ruling was issued and that to make taqleed in matters of fiqh is allowed,but the brother is having none of it its even got to the point where he has accused me of calling to the following of men over and above the following of Allah and his Rasul(saw).

What would be the best way to explain to the brother that to follow ulema without knowing the dalil for their fatawas is permissible.

JazakAllah khair

[Abuz Zubair]

To be honest, I am not 100% sure about the concept of ittiba' myself and how it differs from taqlid.

If one says that a Muslim is not making taqlid but simply following (i.e. ittiba) a dalil, then surely the person is, in other words, a mujtahid in that issue.

According to the opinion that ijtihad is divisible, which is the majority opinion, a layman can be a mujtahid in certain issues, such as knowing that we must pray five times a day, or the wujub of siyam and zakah, etc.

There were some scholars who held that ittiba is a level between ijtihad and taqlid. These scholars include Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others.

Other scholars, and I believe most if not all the Hanafis divide the people only into two categories: Mujtahid and the laymen. They do not recognise ittiba is another category, rather they deem it to be a type of taqleed.

However, just recently reading a work by one of the scholars of deoband, edited and published by Muhammad b. Adam al-Kawthari, I came across a statement, the dhahir of which is that they DO make distinction between taqleed and ittiba', whether they realise it or not.

This is when the author states about his school that they make taqlid of Imam Abu Hanifa in fiqh, and make ittiba' of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi in 'aqida.

He had to be carefull with his words because he could not have said: 'we make taqlid of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi', because taqlid in 'aqida for them is Haram. So he said, instead, 'ittiba' as if it is a seperate category from taqlid!

It would now be absurd for them to claim at the same time that there is no difference between taqlid and ittiba'.

[waziri]

JazakAllahkhair brother for responding.

What would be the best way to explain to the brother that taqleed is prermissible(in fiqh)bro.

Mind you I think that this bro has made up his mind that it is haram and no matter what Evidence I put to him he rejects it.

I do want the brother to understand that it is not an obligation to know the dalil for each and every masala,so if you have any sugestions then I would be greatfull if you could let me know JazakAllah khair once again brother.

wasalam

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, if the brother has chosen to be a mujtahid mutlaq, then 'good luck' to him. If I was him, I would start by reading the works on Usul, and in particular the last section on ijtihad and taqlid ;)

[wazeerey]

JazakAllah khair for your response Brother.

[waziri]

Akhi Abu Zubair, the brother accepts that he is not in a position to derive legal rulings from the texts,but his argument is that one takes the ruling from the ulema but also asks as to what the ruling is based on.So he states that it's a condition on the layman to know from the alim who gives the ruling as to which narration or ayah he has based the ruling on.
In that way the one seeking the fatawa is acting upon the narration(dalil)and not the saying of the alim,and this is itiba where as the one who acts on the ruling without knowing the basis for the ruling is making taqlid which according to him is wrong.

wasalam

[عُبَيْدُ رَبِّهِ]

I understood from 'Abd Allah Al-Turki's book called Usul Madhab Al-Imam Ahmad that ittiba' is really just taqlid by knowing the proof that the mujtahid used and the logic behind it (and ofcourse one may not really even grasp the logic behind it), whereas taqlid is known to be accepting the saying of somebody else without knowing the proof.

I also read from his opinion that ittiba' is wajib and taqlid is only when one is incapable to do ittiba' and he brought some sayings of the scholars to prove his point. Seems that this is also what your brother is suggesting.

[Abuz Zubair]

Is it the right of the layman to demand the proofs from his mufti, or not?

Majority opinion is that it is not his right, and if Mufti wishes, he may or may not give him the proofs. So if the Mufti thinks that the question is a student of knowledge, and that proofs will be of benefit to him, then he should mention the proofs. But if the Mufti thinks that the questioner would not fathom or understand the proofs, then he is under no obligation to give fatwa along with proofs.

Minority opinion is that it is the right of the layman to ask the mufti for evidences, and therefore, a mufti must provide evidences with his response, but I personally find this opinion weak, wallahu alam.

[NAveed]

Bro abu zubair,

Was it al-muhannad you read edited by the deobandi alim ibn adam al .kawthari?

What are your views on the deobandis?
|DO you guys classify them as ahlus sunnah?

[Logic lover]

How could Deobani Asharis be from Ahlus Sunnah?

[Abuz Zubair]

Bro abu zubair,

Was it al-muhannad you read edited by the deobandi alim ibn adam al .kawthari?

What are your views on the deobandis?
|DO you guys classify them as ahlus sunnah?
Yes, it is al-Muhannad, edited by Deobandi Talib Muhammad b. Adam.

Deoband is just a name of a place, where the students rarely concentrate on 'aqida at all, however, the majority of them are Maturidis in 'aqida. Those of them who are maturidis are not Sunnis, generally speaking. A person individually is as much a Sunni as much he adheres to the Sunna.

[NAveed]

The book which is attested to by the major deobandi akabir,
is a sign of the minhaaj of the Deobandi school.

Let me re-pharse the question.

What is your assessment of the deobandi minhaaj then?

[abusufyaan]

I don't intend to sidetrack the discussion, but can anyone confirm the authenticity of the Wikipedia entry on Deoband (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deoband) quoted below?

Deoband
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deoband (Hindi: देवबन्द, Urdu: دیوبند, Devband) is a small city located in Saharanpur district in the upper Doab region, of Uttar Pradesh. The name of the town is Latinised from the original Devband or Devaband in Hindi-Urdu. The name Devaband itself is derived from devi vandan, referring to an association of the goddess Durga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga) with the area.

Deoband is about 150 km from Delhi. It is best known for the presence of the Darul Uloom of Deoband, one of the most important and influential schools of Islamic Studies.

Also can anyone confirm what is found in the Wikipedia entry on Darul Uloom Deoband (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darul_Uloom_Deoband) that I have quoted below?

Controversies

It gained public attention after it received Indian government financial and political support at the behest of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the first education minister of then newly-partitioned and eighty percent Hindu India.[verification needed]

Nadwatul Ulema Deoband, The foundation stone was laid by Sir. John Briscott Hewitt, Lt. Governor of India on 28 Nov 1906. (Al-Nadwa, Lucknow, Vol 5, No. 11, Dec 1908, Page 2. This stands in stark opposition of popular stance by Deoband scholars that they were the stalwarts of anti-colonial activities during British raj.

The famous mutiny of 1857 has been used by all Muslim quarters in India as their struggle against the British, but the Deobandi history reveals a few interesting facts. For instance, stated in Arwah e Salasah, pp. 445/446. Marginal Note. Revised by Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi published with notes and commentary by the Deobandi leader Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi: 'Many a divine of India were against the Mutiny. They did not accept the rebellion as Jihad and Meer Mehboob Ali Sahib was one of those divines who was opposed to the revolt. He dissuaded the Muslims from participating in the disturbances.'

Maulvi Ashiq Ali of Deoband states in relation to Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of the Nidawatul Ulama: (Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Tadhkirah al Rasheed, pp. 74/75) 'During these days (of Mutiny), he had to fight the gangs of miscreants who roamed the country. He used to carry a sword with him to protect himself and he would attack like a lion amidst a barrage of bullets. Once, while in the company of Maulana Qasim al Uloom, Hadhrat Haji Sahib [Haji lmadullah Makki] and Hafiz Zaamin, the Maulana and his companions were confronted by a gang of Hindu rebels. However, this small group of patriots were not prepared to either run or surrender to the mutinying traitors of their Movement

'They stood before the rebels like a rock and prepared themselves to sacrifice their lives for their Government. The courage shown by these people under such heavy odds was incredible. The situation could have easily caused fright in the hearts of the bravest of men. But, this small band of ascetics stood their ground and fought against the rebels. They were fired upon by the enemy and Hadhrat Hafiz Sahib was hit by a bullet. He died as a result of the wound sustained by him

Also, in Qaisar a' Tawreekh, vol.2, p.351 'After the suppression of the Indian mutiny, the Sultan ul Ulama, Syed Muhammad Ahmad, a leading divine of Lucknow was also among those generously rewarded by the British. He was granted a pension of Rs. 800 per month and this pension was subject to inheritance by his succeeding generations

[Abuz Zubair]

Let me re-pharse the question.
You mean: 'let me ask another question', sure, go ahead.

What is your assessment of the deobandi minhaaj then?One book is not enough to analyse a people.

But from my own reading of al-Muhannad, it seems that they are being accused of Wahhabism for censuring bid'a and 'belittling' the prophet. In return they are simply defending themselves with haqq and batil. And yes, it is quite obvious that the person who complained about the deobandis was none other than Barelwi, and what a liar he was.

[NAveed]

Al Muhannad is testified to by most deobandi ulema
as being the relied upon opinion in those matters about which
the dispute was.

The manhaj of deoband
is hanafi in fiqh
maturidi in aqeeda
chishti in tasawuf

but with an emphasis on tahqeeq in removing bid'aat and shirk from tasawuf
and focusing on the primary texts in a manner encouraged by shah waliullah(alayhi rahmah)

[NAveed]

Akhi abu zubair?? aNY response.

The reason I ask is that I have found a number
of uk salafis becoming a lot more comfortable
with the deobandis
like abu eesa nimatullah, abu aaliya
and abu muntasir etc

[Abuz Zubair]

I am all for co-operation on righteousness and piety. In fact, there are many deobandi brothers and mashaykh I have great respect for (primarily because I saw them censuring the bida in masajid, etc, and showing great respect for Ibn Taymiyya).

I believe many of them are good brothers such that if they are shown the correct beliefs, they will wholeheartedly accept, inshaaAllah, or at least this is what I expect of them.

But it does not mean that we stay silent about incorrect beliefs that contradict the the orthodox beliefs.

I don't think, the three brothers you mentioned, would like anyone to describe them as Salafis.

[Logic lover]

With due respect, Abu Muntasir and Abu Aaliya have become more of Muslim Council of Britain type UK Muslim as opposed to 'Salafis'.

As for the Deobandi Aqeedah and Manhaj - do not appear to me to be from that of the Sahaba. One of the prominent Sheikhs of the Deobandis - Mufti Desai has ruled out the 'Wahhabis' (Salafis in another words) to be from Ahlus Sunnah due to Aqeedah issues. Evidence may be provided on request.

Allah knows best.

[NAveed]

Abu eesa
is not salafi??

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu eesa
is not salafi??
Ask him, he would tell you ;)

[defenderofbusharraf]

as mentioned earlier, it can be confirmed that the overwhelming majority of deobandi scholars r maturidi in aqeedah and hanafi in fiqh. and they also have seriously strong links to sufism in their manner of ibadah and dhikr.

those scholars who have been educated at deoband and have come to the truth have largely joined the ahle hadeeth movement in pakistan and india. ahle hadeeth is a pure athari/salafi movement in the indo-pak region. they reject blind following also and any use at all of weak, strange narrations and always use the books of the great scholars of the salaffiyah in the past.

there r some issues between the salafis in middle east and the ahle hadeeth/salafis of indo pak region, but that is to do with rulership and dealing with the sinful rulers blah blah blah blah..... they r one in aqeedah from a purely theoretical point of view, rejecting any theological speculation.

anyways, coming back to deobandis, as a whole, their aqeedah is most definetely not that of our beloved prophet Muhammad saws. the deobandis in addition to being maturidis hold all sorts of sufi creeds, most of them openly known and celebrated by them.......example, Allah swt being everywhere, dead men can help u etc etc etc........they r also known for publishing vehemently anti salafi documents and they r well known for throwing around the "wahabi" slogan all the time.

[NAveed]

Most people i meet nowadays in UK
dont say im salafi..except the sp lot

They say im hanbali

Which is interesting because it appears the awaam have changed
their stance on taqleed,now allowing it for the awaam

Or maybe I just didnt know salafis much a few years ago

[abusufyaan]

I am not personally familiar with the situation in India, but you will find in Pakistan that from those who are most vocal against Deobandis from the Ahl-e-Hadees (i.e. Ahl as-Sunnah) are those scholars who used to be Deobandis themselves - such as Shaykh Taalib ar-Rahmaan (hafidhahullah) - who has written a large, detailed refutation of Deobandis. Similar is the case with scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah there who were formerly Barailwis, they are from the most vocal against the Barailwiyyah.

[Tauheed]

as mentioned earlier, it can be confirmed that the overwhelming majority of deobandi scholars r maturidi in aqeedah and hanafi in fiqh. and they also have seriously strong links to sufism in their manner of ibadah and dhikr.

those scholars who have been educated at deoband and have come to the truth have largely joined the ahle hadeeth movement in pakistan and india. ahle hadeeth is a pure athari/salafi movement in the indo-pak region. they reject blind following also and any use at all of weak, strange narrations and always use the books of the great scholars of the salaffiyah in the past.

there r some issues between the salafis in middle east and the ahle hadeeth/salafis of indo pak region, but that is to do with rulership and dealing with the sinful rulers blah blah blah blah..... they r one in aqeedah from a purely theoretical point of view, rejecting any theological speculation.

anyways, coming back to deobandis, as a whole, their aqeedah is most definetely not that of our beloved prophet Muhammad saws. the deobandis in addition to being maturidis hold all sorts of sufi creeds, most of them openly known and celebrated by them.......example, Allah swt being everywhere, dead men can help u etc etc etc........they r also known for publishing vehemently anti salafi documents and they r well known for throwing around the "wahabi" slogan all the time.

I don't think it is correct to put all deobandi in one pot as you have the likes of Sheikh Shabir who teaches in Dundee and is a gradute from Saudi who is Salafi in aqqedah and Hanafi fiqh and I know of others like this.

[Logic lover]

In that case the person named is not a true 'Deobandi' then.

[Tauheed]

In that case the person named is not a true 'Deobandi' then.

Remember Deobandi are in reality Hanafi the term came about after the establish of the Madrasa in Deoband and those who came out of there were referred to Deobandi's.

I used the term Salafi aqqedah to make a distinction. However in reality anyone who wishes to follow the Salaf are Salafi whether they be Hanafi, Shafi etc.

What do think of the likes of Shah Ismaeel Shaheed (Insha'Allah) the author of Taqwiaatul iman?

[Logic lover]

I heard of him, but do not know about his works (which have been) verified by a qualified person to make comment about him.

[waziri]

Darul uloom Deoband is a university, not an independent ‘Aqīdah by itself. It is like Azhar in Egypt. Azhar is a university which was founded in Egypt and its branches are widespread. Yet, not every graduate from Azhar is Shāfi’ī in Math’hab, and Ash’arī in ‘Aqīdah. So ‘Ulamā graduate from Azhar who are upon Salafiyyah, and ‘Ulamā of the Ahl al-Hadīth. Just like that is the situation of the University of Deoband. So the University of Deoband is influenced – to a certain extent - by the ‘Aqīdah and path of its founder.

Those who graduate from deoband do not all have the same aqeeda.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
T
However, just recently reading a work by one of the scholars of deoband, edited and published by Muhammad b. Adam al-Kawthari, I came across a statement, the dhahir of which is that they DO make distinction between taqleed and ittiba', whether they realise it or not.

that is the opinion of ashraf 'ali thanvi rahimahullah and also of sarfaraz safdar deobandi hayati. I will try to scan the exact quote of both, insha'Allah (in urdu)

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Darul uloom Deoband is a university, not an independent ‘Aqīdah by itself. It is like Azhar in Egypt. Azhar is a university which was founded in Egypt and its branches are widespread. Yet, not every graduate from Azhar is Shāfi’ī in Math’hab, and Ash’arī in ‘Aqīdah. So ‘Ulamā graduate from Azhar who are upon Salafiyyah, and ‘Ulamā of the Ahl al-Hadīth. Just like that is the situation of the University of Deoband. So the University of Deoband is influenced – to a certain extent - by the ‘Aqīdah and path of its founder.

Those who graduate from deoband do not all have the same aqeeda.

I think this is not a fair comparison. How many madhahib are taught at deoband or by extention deobandi madaris in general? What books on aqidah are taught there and with whose sharah? If u read how sh sanaullah amritsari was treated during and after his study there u will conclude that the comparison does not exist. Listen to this:
http://www.quransunnah.com/modules.php?name=Lectures&d_op=viewdownload2&cid=49
the above is not a one off. Scholars after scholars have suffered the way he suferred.