The schools of thought

[BedouinCEO]

asalamu alaykum warahmatallahi wabaraktu

I was looking for some information about schools of thought and if it is wajib amongst the ummah to ascribe to a particular school of fiqh?

[Abuz Zubair]

as-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Most of the people I have come across have gone to extremes with regards to this issue. Those who oblige every layman to adhere to a Madhab, and those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad.

I read into this issue deeply last year while studying the manners of seeking Fatwa as dealt with by the early and latter and scholars, and what I paste below is just a small section of my study, which I hope proves beneficial to us all, InshaaAllah.

==========================================

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi’i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi’i - said: “The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi’i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him”

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: “What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.”

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i says in his al-Tahqiqat, “The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu’ al-rukhas).”

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi’i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.”

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma’sumi): “Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger  has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger  did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.”

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ‘Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: “It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.”

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu’, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi’is, saying: “It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion”. Al-Mardawi comments: “And this is the correct opinion”.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: “A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab…”

Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger  made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger  oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.”

Ibn Taymiyah says: “If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah’s and His Messenger’s  Shari’ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says” - to his words - “For one to follow someone’s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar’i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar’ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger  have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.”

He also says: “There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi’i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.”

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ‘the migrant for Umm Qais’, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet  said: “Indeed actions are based on intentions…”. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger .

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah’s ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:
By ‘devising opinions’ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi’i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi’is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi’is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini’s book “’Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq”.

Following allowances (Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas) is for a person to “pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself”, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: “If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut’ah), he would be considered a Fasiq”. Sulayman al-Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you”.

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi’is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: “Ibn ‘Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma’) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others”. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ‘Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: “Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara’i) which would absolve one of their Shar’i responsibility.”

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

Point of Benefit:
Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: “It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it”; or that of Malik: “I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it”; or that of al-Shafi’i: “If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah  then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah  and leave what I said”; or that of Ahmad: “Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi’i, nor al-Awza’i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took”.

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: “[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus’ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.”

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu’ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu’ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I’lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

[Abuz Zubair]

The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab:
This is a minority opinion from the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, and a weak opinion, unworthy of being followed, due to the following reasons:

a) There is absolutely no evidence from the sources of Islam - the Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma’) and analogy (qiyas) - nor a statement from one of the four Imams in support of this position.

Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger  to oblige the people with that.”

b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of ‘blocking the means’ (Sadd al-Dhara’i) for the layman to pick and choose whatever he likes from opinions, and thereby, freeing himself from Shari’ responsibilities, resulting in chaos. However, the one who looks at this issue justly, realises that this is merely a case of extending Sadd al-Dhara’i beyond that which is necessary, like for one to prohibit the growing of grapes, in case people use it to make wine. Moreover, the Hanafis and Shafi’is - if they do not deny its use altogether - are extremely lenient in applying this principle, so how can they use this as a support for their position. On the other hand, most of those who do not oblige the layman, with that which Allah did not oblige him, explicitly forbid a layman from seeking and following allowances. Moreover, following allowances is as much applicable to a Mujtahid as it is to a layman, as is apparent from the opinion of al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la (see footnote #52) and therefore, obliging the layman alone with adherence to a Madhab is not a solution to the problem.

c) This opinion necessitates that a person may only ask a Mufti of his own Madhab, even if the Mufti of a different Madhab is more knowledgeable and pious, and the truth lies with him. This also makes unnecessary restrictions on the Mustafti and causes him unnecessary hardship.

Ibn Taymiyah says: “Sticking to a Madhab necessitates obedience of other than the Prophet  in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma’).”

Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This opinion necessitates the prohibition of asking the scholars of Madhabs different to his, as it equally necessitates the prohibition of adhering to a Madhab similar to, or better than, that of his Imam, as well as other things that this approach entails, the invalidity of which points to the invalidity of the opinion itself. In fact, it necessitates that if he sees a text from the Messenger of Allah  or an opinion of the four Caliphs, aiding someone other than his Imam, that he should abandon the text and the opinions of the Companions, and give precedence to the one to whom he attributes himself.”

d) Those who oblige the layman with Taqleed of a Madhab say that he must make Ijtihad in choosing a Madhab and then follow it. Moreover, Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi from the Shafi’is and Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbalis say that the layman should not simply pick and choose a Madhab as he wishes, nor should he incline to the Madhab of his fore fathers. Undoubtedly, this opinion obliges something on a layman which he is unable to accomplish, since, for a layman to be capable of comparing between Madhabs requires him to possess knowledge of the principles of each Madhab, as well as some background information on its founder, his companions, some of the major books, and generally how close each of the Madhabs are to the revelation, and this, as is apparent, is obliging the Muqallid with that which is far beyond his capacity. Moreover, a layman must also look at the Madhab predominantly followed in his land; for if a layman decides to make Taqleed of the Hanbali Madhab, because he believes it closest to the truth, whilst he is a resident in a country which is predominantly Hanafi, then his ‘Ijtihad’ in finding the most suitable Madhab will be pointless. Surely, the difficulty and inappropriateness of this methodology is only too obvious, as well as it being a divergence from what the layman is required to learn from the basics of the five pillars, to that which is of no benefit to him in this world or the next.

e) From the evil consequences of obliging the layman to compare between Madhabs is the spread of sectarianism and fanaticism in adherence to a Madhab. One cannot but notice sectarianism amongst the scholars who oblige the layman to make Taqleed of one of the Madhabs. Hence, Ibn al-Salah al-Shafi’i, while discussing this issue, claims to simplify the process of choosing the right Madhab, by arguing that because al-Shafi’i came after the great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik and others, he was able to look into their opinions, compare and evaluate, nor was he followed by someone else of his calibre; therefore, it follows that his Madhab is more worthy of being followed. Then came al-Nawawi, who summarised the work of Ibn al-Salah and included it in his Majmu’, using Ibn al-Salah’s argument in preferring the Shafi’i Madhab. Then came Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, who relied much on Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi’s work, except that he replaced ‘al-Shafi’i’ with ‘Ahmad ibn Hanbal’, and further refuted the Shafi’is in their preference of the Shafi’i Madhab over other Madhabs, arguing that since Ahmad was the last of the Imams, he was able to investigate into the opinions of Abu Hanifah, Malik as well as al-Shafi’i, and then compare and evaluate them; and since there is none after Ahmad of his calibre, it follows that Ahmad’s Madhab is the most worthy of being followed!

Whereas the truth, as Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiya said, is that: “Most of the people speak out of conjecture and what the hearts desire, for they do not know the reality of the levels of Imams and Sheikhs, nor do they intend to follow the truth completely; rather, everyone’s heart desires that he favours the one he follows, and so he prefers him (over other Imams) based on conjecture, even if he has no proof for that. Sometimes, it may even lead to quarrelling, fighting and disunity, which is something Allah and His Messenger  prohibited.”

Indeed, it led to wars amongst the Hanafis and the Shafi’is in Asfahan that resulted in the burning and destruction of the city as reported in Mu’jam al-Buldan 1/209. Hanafis and Shafi’is are known for their rivalry throughout Islamic history. It was their fanaticism, which lead some of Hanafis to say: “It is allowed for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi’i woman, but it is not allowed for a Shafi’i to marry a Hanafi woman. We regard them to be like the people of the Book”. Another fanatic, who was a Hanafi, saw in a dream that the Shafi’is will enter paradise before the Hanafis, so he became a Shafi’i. Even Imams such as al-Juwaini, wrote a book insulting the Hanafi Madhab and obliging everyone to follow the Shafi’i Madhab, which al-Kawthari - the “Abu Hanifah fanatic” – rebutted, insulting the Shafi’i Madhab; indeed, in some books, he went further than that and would even cast doubt on his lineage (as he did in his Ta’neeb), while the Prophet explicitly considered such behaviour to be from the acts of Jahiliyah!

Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: “If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi’is”. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that ‘Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah’s grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: “You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven”!

Amongst the signs of such fanaticism in the ranks of the Shafi’is is what al-Nawawi reported from al-Isfara’ini, that a Shafi’i may not pray behind a Hanafi, due to the Hanafis not fulfilling the conditions of Wudu as affirmed by the Shafi’is. Another Shafi’i, al-Subki, claims that Allah told him to adhere to the Madhab of al-Shafi’i in his dream.

Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab.

If this is the condition of the learned men amongst the jurists, then what is expected of the layman? Therefore, if the principle of Sadd al-Dhara’i is to be applied, then surely it is more worthy of being applied here, in order to prevent internal conflicts between Madhabs and for the promotion of unity.

f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person’s attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab?

Ibn al-Humam says in his Tahrir (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “…majority of the Muqallids say: I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi’i, while having no knowledge about the path of his Imam, hence, he does not become so by merely a claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or an author; he does not become as such, by merely a claim, whilst he is far distant from the life of his Imam. Therefore, how can such attribution be valid, by merely a claim, and futile speech without any meaning?!”

Ibn al-Qayyim says: “A layman cannot have a Madhab even if he adheres to one, for the layman has no Madhab. This is because the Madhab is only for the one who has some insight and a way of deducing rulings, who also has insight into Madhabs befitting his level, or the one who studies a book in the applied Fiqh of that Madhab, and knows the verdicts of his Imam and his sayings. As for the one who has not accomplished any of that, yet says: I am a Shafi’i or a Hanbali, or other than that, then he does not become that merely by his claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or a grammarian, or an author, he does not become one merely by a claim.

What makes it clearer is that the one, who says he is Shafi’i or a Maliki, or a Hanafi, actually claims that he is the follower of that Imam, adhering to his way. This can only be true for him if he were to tread his path in knowledge, understanding and deduction. As for one who is ignorant and distant from the life of the Imam, his knowledge and his path, how can his attribution to him be correct, with merely a claim, and futile speech in every sense?”

Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab’s Position:
There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book ‘al-Radd ‘ala Man Ittaba’a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba’ah’ (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion.

Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a “Mujtahid” in his Dha’il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion.

(See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu’ah 20/161, Mawsu’at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I’lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)

[Abu Ilyas]

Jazakhallah khair Akhee,

Very comprehensive and Informative, masha'allah..should be an article.There is an article flying around,by certain sufis who have gone to one extreme in this issue and they are using the work of Ibn Rajab which was mentioned as a basis.

Out of Interest , Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah was mentioned..is this the same Abu Ghuddah who was a student of Al Kawthari (who I understand was a very rigid Hanafi) or have I mistaken him with someone else?

Was Salaam

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, it is the same Abu Ghuddah.

Although, to my knowledge, who was not at all like his dear Sheikh al-Kawthari, for he had much respect for Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. He published quite a few of their works.

He was in fact requested to teach in the KSA by Sh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim himself.

I have read criticisms directed towards him by many senior scholars (such as al-Albani and Bakr Abu Zaid), but justice dictates, that they had nothing against him except his unconditional love and admiration for his teacher, al-Kawthari; which in and of itself, isn't enough to brush aside his scholarship.

As the Hadeeth goes: "When water reaches the amount of al-Qallatain, it cannot be contaminated with Najis", and Allah knows best.

[BedouinCEO]

as-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Most of the people I have come across have gone to extremes with regards to this issue. Those who oblige every layman to adhere to a Madhab, and those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad.

I read into this issue deeply last year while studying the manners of seeking Fatwa as dealt with by the early and latter and scholars, and what I paste below is just a small section of my study, which I hope proves beneficial to us all, InshaaAllah.

==========================================

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.


(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu’ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu’ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I’lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

Barakallahu feek ya aba Zubair, this was truly beneficial, because I've came across individuals who felt like it was wajib in the matter and I wanted to do more research on the matter. Also it's sad that some of the muslims that I've came across with has this certain arrogance about if you don't follow a madhahib you're not a part of ahlul sunnah wal jammah

[terrorthreat]

Yeah I have even heard some muftis say that the one who does not follow a madhab is not from Ahlus sunnah wal jammah.

The above really clarifies things.

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum brother abu zubair,


can you clarify what you mean from your book.

do you mean to say that if someone who is a muqalid says

'i follow the hanafi madhab'

is wrong in saying so, because he himself doesnt know the rules of the madhab? (i see your point! )

in saying this

can you 'also' say HE IS RIGHT IN ONE WAY in terms of when he says the he follows the hanafi madhab he MEANS that

he is following the hanafi madhab because the imam of the mosque does, and the imam of the mosque has studied hanafi fiqh

SO IN THAT SENSE OF THE WORD he is a follower of the madhab (because he is attached by those who have studied by the madhab who in turn attached to abu hanifah)

so when he says he follows a madhab, it depends what he means and what he INTENDS,

you are correct when some followers of madhab are so taqleedi, but what they learned was cultural and they probably dont even know the rules of let alone where the imaam was born!

and SECONDLY

from ibn rajab's book one can say (or can he not)
that the 4 madhaibs are all correct in one way, yes some opinions may be stronger then others, but generally they are all correct.

that will include praying beneath your navel(according to some hanafees and some imaams like Muhammed ibn abdul wahab (hanbalee), you said that in one of your lectures)

it will also mean that some posistions within the madhab like shaving your beard to what the shafees say (imam nawawi) are also correct.


PLEASE CONFIRM AND WRITE AS SHORT AS YOU WANT, AS LONG AS THEY ARE CLARiFIED.


What you wrote was very good mashAllah,and you hit the nail on the HEAD as always, may Allah reward you walahi.

but i fear even the 'moderate' salafees may use that(what you wrote) as an excuse to create unneccesary confusion amongst the muslims who adhere to madhabs.

i know some peopel who read sheikh al alabanis prayer book, and think that it is the final word in the issue, from there theyw ill say that e.g praying below your navel is a BIDAH( not weak but a BIDAH!!)

and the shafiis have NO evidence to say that touching a woman breaks your wudu

so on one hand you got very taqleedi al-albani followers

and on the other hand you got very taqleedi hanafi followers.

like one brother (a hanafi one) said to me the other day, while he caused a fitnah in the university campus that those who wipe over their socks cant be prayed over ( or he was relectant too because ''all i know is that im hanafi'!)

and so the arguments starting to occur with some salafees saying

''oh but brother follow that what is SAHIH, IF ITS SAHIH THEN THATS IT''

and then another brother says '' I THINK WE SHOULD JUST FOLLOW THE PROPHET'' { as if the 4 imams didnt!)

SIGH SIGH SIGH .lol

i hope you get my point

jazak Allah khairun and ASSALAAMULEKUM WR WB.

[Break The Cross]

as salaamu 'alaykum

I am looking for sincere advice on this issue, I know the thread is a little old but if someoen could help me with this it would be very good. All this madhhab issues such as peopel claiming "my madhhab says this and that" or people claiming and preaching their own madhhabs have caused me to dislike and discard ALL of them. One could even say I have started growing a little bit of enmity for these followers. Is there any possible way to study the Deen without dwelling into madhhabs? As far as I checked is that most if nto all of the "popular" madhaahib have agreed that the rulings are derived from Qur'aan, Sunnah and Ijma of Sahaabas. Any possible way to stick with these 3 and not go beyond that unless a situation arises where a certain matter is not mentioned in these 3 than either weak ahadeeth or a analogy based upon authentic text could be taken into play. This may sound a bunch of jibberish, but if anyone could state some insight and try to discuss this with me it would be very helpful Insh'Allaah.

[Abuz Zubair]

'alaikum as-salaam,

Did you carefully read post #2 and #3 in this thread?

Do you have any questions about it?

[Break The Cross]

Alhumdoolillaah I read post #2 and it was very simple.

From this post, I accumulated the following conclusions (correct me if Im wrong):

- For a regular layman, an average Muslim, it is not obligatory to follow a madhhab but he should ask whomever gives verdicts with Taqwa in conformity with the Qur'aan and Sunnah or what is closest to it.

* My questions are the following: If a person would like to study fiqh, does he have to chose a madhhab? Is there anyway to study Usool ul fiqh without following a particular schools principles?

- It is not permissible to pick and chose different opinions from diverse madhaahib, while it will result in a haraam act. An example whichw as given was following the Hanafi opinion by marrying without a wali while including the Maailiki opinion of not having witnesses, the end result would be zina'.

* My question is the following: People say that there are "valid" opinions, such as the ones stated above. How do we know what is a valid opinion and does it not have to have authentic evidence behind it?

Now I will read #3 Insh'Allaah...

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,

Can I ask pls,

I have read this fantastic article on madhabs many times, added to thios the article about the careless mustafti, Its been atremoundous help, after all if Imam shafii says ask the people of knowledge, then what about us and how we sapeak about the Deen, never did I argue about any fiqh issue after this.

But some questions have arisen on this topic, after some discussions .


1. Im right in thinking arent I , that if a jahil, non scholar comes to you nad says 'here this hadeeth is sahih follow it' that he should not be followed, after all, most of these people dont even know arabic and have never checked one hadeeth isnad right?

2. What now if you hear a scholar give you a hadeeth which is contrary to a opinion of what your scholar said.

e.g,

You ring sheikh abdullah, and he says that you should pray beneath your navel, ( i.e hands) but then you go to a talk and some sheikh says a hadeeth about putting hands on chest.

So must you follow that hadeeth , if after all the muqalid follows any scholar irrespctive of his madhab.

OR do you take that hadeeth, and take it to sheikh Abdullah, and see what he has to say on it?

What if Sh Abdullah has now reply to the hadeeth, should you follow the other scholar?


3. I find it preferable to follow one Imaam, rather then going to many, I like to stick to hanbali fiqh...is there anythingw rong with that? After all I find them more precise and if I follow many opinions, then I get confused.

Also,

If now we must follow scholars irrespective of their madhab, then in the UK, where we have so many schools, wouldn't that lead to catastrophy? so in one instance, you ask for the ruling about touching a woman, and then one scholar gives you a hanafi opinion, then on another instance, you ask about where to pray with your hands, so the shafii scholar says, pray on your chest.

What do you do?

JA
WS

[moubeen]

as salaamu 'alaykum

I am looking for sincere advice on this issue, I know the thread is a little old but if someoen could help me with this it would be very good. All this madhhab issues such as peopel claiming "my madhhab says this and that" or people claiming and preaching their own madhhabs have caused me to dislike and discard ALL of them. One could even say I have started growing a little bit of enmity for these followers. Is there any possible way to study the Deen without dwelling into madhhabs? As far as I checked is that most if nto all of the "popular" madhaahib have agreed that the rulings are derived from Qur'aan, Sunnah and Ijma of Sahaabas. Any possible way to stick with these 3 and not go beyond that unless a situation arises where a certain matter is not mentioned in these 3 than either weak ahadeeth or a analogy based upon authentic text could be taken into play. This may sound a bunch of jibberish, but if anyone could state some insight and try to discuss this with me it would be very helpful Insh'Allaah.

Sound a bit like Ibn Hazm rahimahullah...

[Abuz Zubair]

* My questions are the following: If a person would like to study fiqh, does he have to chose a madhhab? Is there anyway to study Usool ul fiqh without following a particular schools principles?
He should chose a madhab to study, not due to usul, but due to fiqh itself. Usul, you can pretty much study from any madhabs.

* My question is the following: People say that there are "valid" opinions, such as the ones stated above. How do we know what is a valid opinion and does it not have to have authentic evidence behind it?
There are some opinions that not only the scholars criticised, but actually fiercely attacked, such as those who allow the drinking of wine, riba al-fadhl, music, etc. These are the opinions a person should stay away from. These are called the genuine errors, or slips of the scholars.

1. Im right in thinking arent I , that if a jahil, non scholar comes to you nad says 'here this hadeeth is sahih follow it' that he should not be followed, after all, most of these people dont even know arabic and have never checked one hadeeth isnad right?

Depends. If the issue is of difference of opinion, and you do not know which of the opinion is or is not right, then yes, you can conveniently say to the brother: ‘thank you’, and move on.

But if you know of no difference over an opinion, but it is in fact something very new to you; for instance, you do not know whether or not to drink while standing up, and someone tells you of a hadeeth, then you should act on the hadeeth.

Your excuse for not acting on the hadeeth is only when you know that there exists another opinion, and therefore, the issue involves more than just a hadeeth.

2. What now if you hear a scholar give you a hadeeth which is contrary to a opinion of what your scholar said.
Don’t forget the golden rule of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam: Ask your heart, even if they give you fatwa after a fatwa.

If you feel in your heart that the scholar who quoted to you the hadeeth has a stronger argument, then you should follow his fatwa. If, for some reason, you do not trust him with respect to his knowledge of hadeeth and fiqh, then you should simply put your trust in the scholar you think is more knowledge and has more taqwa.

OR do you take that hadeeth, and take it to sheikh Abdullah, and see what he has to say on it?

What if Sh Abdullah has now reply to the hadeeth, should you follow the other scholar?
Yes, fatwa is not binding upon a person, so you can easily go to the other Shaykh and mention to him the hadeeth.

If the Shaykh thinks you are intellectually able to handle a fiqhi discussion, then he may decide to discuss with you. Otherwise, he is under no obligation to give you a detailed response, and likewise, you are under no obligation to follow all of his fatwas. You follow the fatwa of them one you feel your heart is settled on.

The bottom line is, so long as you have done your job – i.e. asked a qualified mufti, you are free in the sight of Allah. (meaning, in Allah’s judgement, not that Allah does NOT have a sight!)

3. I find it preferable to follow one Imaam, rather then going to many, I like to stick to hanbali fiqh...is there anythingw rong with that? After all I find them more precise and if I follow many opinions, then I get confused.
There is nothing wrong with that, but you will make your life difficult for no reason. Imagine, if you are travelling from city to city, and you have decided to stick to the hanbali madhab, what if you cannot locate a Hanbali mufti? What would you do? Why go down that wrote anyway, when your obligation is simpler, just ask any mufti.

Also,

If now we must follow scholars irrespective of their madhab, then in the UK, where we have so many schools, wouldn't that lead to catastrophy? so in one instance, you ask for the ruling about touching a woman, and then one scholar gives you a hanafi opinion, then on another instance, you ask about where to pray with your hands, so the shafii scholar says, pray on your chest.

So following Hanafi opinion with respect to touching a woman, and shafi’i opinion with respect to placing the hands between your chest and the navel (and not on the chest), would cause catastrophe? How is that?

[Tuwaylib]

Jazakhallah khair Akhee,

Very comprehensive and Informative, masha'allah..should be an article.There is an article flying around,by certain sufis who have gone to one extreme in this issue and they are using the work of Ibn Rajab which was mentioned as a basis.

Out of Interest , Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah was mentioned..is this the same Abu Ghuddah who was a student of Al Kawthari (who I understand was a very rigid Hanafi) or have I mistaken him with someone else?

Was Salaam

assalamu alaikum abuz zubair,

although, sh. abdul Fattah is much different than his teacher al kawthari, do you know if abdul fattah was influenced by his shaykh in terms of aqeedah? I mean was he upon the sunnah or was he ashari/ matureedi?

jazakAllahu khair

[asharee_salafi]

He should chose a madhab to study, not due to usul, but due to fiqh itself. Usul, you can pretty much study from any madhabs.


There are some opinions that not only the scholars criticised, but actually fiercely attacked, such as those who allow the drinking of wine, riba al-fadhl, music, etc. These are the opinions a person should stay away from. These are called the genuine errors, or slips of the scholars.



Depends. If the issue is of difference of opinion, and you do not know which of the opinion is or is not right, then yes, you can conveniently say to the brother: ‘thank you’, and move on.

But if you know of no difference over an opinion, but it is in fact something very new to you; for instance, you do not know whether or not to drink while standing up, and someone tells you of a hadeeth, then you should act on the hadeeth.

But what if teh person who quoted the hadeeth is a jahil salafi, or hanafi, or someone whom you don't trust because he is not a mufti?



Don’t forget the golden rule of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam: Ask your heart, even if they give you fatwa after a fatwa.

If you feel in your heart that the scholar who quoted to you the hadeeth has a stronger argument, then you should follow his fatwa. If, for some reason, you do not trust him with respect to his knowledge of hadeeth and fiqh, then you should simply put your trust in the scholar you think is more knowledge and has more taqwa.

True but , I don't just want to follow a scholar and then thats that. I want to bring back teh arguments he puts forth and take it my scholar and see what he says, if my scholar can't answer, then I should follow that opinion right?


Yes, fatwa is not binding upon a person, so you can easily go to the other Shaykh and mention to him the hadeeth.

If the Shaykh thinks you are intellectually able to handle a fiqhi discussion, then he may decide to discuss with you. Otherwise, he is under no obligation to give you a detailed response, and likewise, you are under no obligation to follow all of his fatwas. You follow the fatwa of them one you feel your heart is settled on.

Okay, so he doesn't argue the hadeeth with me, what should I do?

Lets say that the hadeeth I heard was from someone whom I dont trust as much as another Sheikh,

So there is some sheikh , though is aqeedah is sound, he quotes loads of hadeeth on a fiqh issue, but MY sheikh, who I beleive is more knowldegable has a diffrence of opinion butd oesn't discuss it with me, can I follow MY sheikh in order to save confusion, and also I trust him more, even though he wont debate the evidence?

Isn't this a blind following similar to that of the sufis?




The bottom line is, so long as you have done your job – i.e. asked a qualified mufti, you are free in the sight of Allah. (meaning, in Allah’s judgement, not that Allah does NOT have a sight!)

What if I just stick to the madhab ?





There is nothing wrong with that, but you will make your life difficult for no reason. Imagine, if you are travelling from city to city, and you have decided to stick to the hanbali madhab, what if you cannot locate a Hanbali mufti? What would you do? Why go down that wrote anyway, when your obligation is simpler, just ask any mufti.

Ahh then I will follow the local mufti and change the way I pray.


Btw Why are all these salafees making a big deal out of these issues? Why are they they known for this?

So following Hanafi opinion with respect to touching a woman, and shafi’i opinion with respect to placing the hands between your chest and the navel (and not on the chest), would cause catastrophe? How is that?

Lol. Yeah, but you know what I mean!
what kind of a prayer would that be?!?!?!

Half hanafi, half shafi??

That would be unheard of wouldn't it?

[waziri]

Asalamualaykum,

The madhab issue has been magnified way to much in my opinion,it is one of the main causes of confusion for reverts and those who start practicing.

I still cant understand the argument of those who say "dont blind follow a madhab",at first it seems to make sense but when you look into the issue this argument just falls to pieces.

I mean if we are supposed to just ask a mufti irrespective of his madhab we would still be blind following him unless ofcourse he has the time to explain in detail all the evidences for a paticular ruling and even then we would have to blind follow what he says and trust everything he has said is correct unless we could get all references off him and go and check in minute detail to make sure,(could anyone do this for every single ruling in the deen?)but what if we cant read arabic?and also how can we have access to all the books needed to check up.This drastic approach just isnt a option in reality.

So it looks like blind following is the only option for a layman like me,so I think the best I can do is to blind follow a agreed upon ruling which many many scholars have researched and agreed upon ie the rulings of the madhabs simple no more confusion.

Those people who go around calling people blind followeres are usually the biggest blind followers of the lot who think because they know a few ahadeth that they are mujtahids.

As far as Im concerned all the madhabs have evidences for their rulings so to follow the position of a madhab is the best way.

wasalam

ps a good book to read is "The legal status of following a madhab"by mufti Taqi Uthmani.clears up all the confusion.

[Abuz Zubair]

assalamu alaikum abuz zubair,

although, sh. abdul Fattah is much different than his teacher al kawthari, do you know if abdul fattah was influenced by his shaykh in terms of aqeedah? I mean was he upon the sunnah or was he ashari/ matureedi? ‘alaikum as-salaam wa-rahamtullah,

As I said elsewhere:
Abu Ghudda on the other hand wrote a small book in rebuttal of al-Albani, admitting that although he was a student and an admirer of al-Kawthari, he does not agree with him in many of his views. Not only that, but he also defended Ibn Taymiya’s status by writing to one of the Hanafi scholars of India whilst he was in prison in Syria. He also published several works by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, often referring to the former as Sheikh al-Islam. He explicitly stated that he is on the beliefs of the Salaf by affirming all the Attributes without exception, without Ta’til or Tashbih. He also explicitly stated that he regards Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as the A’imma of Da’wah, and that he has absolutely no qualms about division of Tawheed into 3 categories.

The point is that in this rebuttal, he quite clearly established his Salafi inclinations without doubt.
Brother Ash’ari Salafi (do you want me to change your username? lol)

But what if teh person who quoted the hadeeth is a jahil salafi, or hanafi, or someone whom you don't trust because he is not a mufti? Same thing. It depends on situation to situation. If you know of no difference of opinion with respect to what he is saying, then as a Muslim you are responsible for acting on a hadeeth. If you think he may be misquoting, then you can ask him to show you the text. At the end, it boils down to your belief. If you believe that that is the hukm of Allah and His Messenger, you have no choice but to act accordingly.

True but , I don't just want to follow a scholar and then thats that. I want to bring back teh arguments he puts forth and take it my scholar and see what he says, if my scholar can't answer, then I should follow that opinion right? This also depends. If the person who gives you arguments is a mufti, then yes you can follow his fatwa. But if he is not a mufti, but just a layman who brings you arguments, and you know that people have differed over it, then you shouldn’t follow what this layman has to say. Just stick to a mufti, even if he does not give you the arguments for his fatwa.

This is because it is haram for you to make taqlid of a non-mufti, and wajib to make taqlid of only a mufti.

So there is some sheikh , though is aqeedah is sound, he quotes loads of hadeeth on a fiqh issue, but MY sheikh, who I beleive is more knowldegable has a diffrence of opinion butd oesn't discuss it with me, can I follow MY sheikh in order to save confusion, and also I trust him more, even though he wont debate the evidence? Yes you can follow your mufti you trust, even if he does not give you any proof, because we as laymen have nothing to do with proofs. Our proofs are our muftis.

Isn't this a blind following similar to that of the sufis? No it is not. The Sufis oblige the murids to adhere to their Shaykhs in issues that are against Islam by consensus.

Yet, a layman is not allowed to blind follow scholars were they have clearly erred, and have been censured for that. For instance, you cannot make taqlid of a Shaykh with respect to permissibility of music, when the community of scholars have shunned and severely criticised this opinion, and you can say the same about riba being applied on bank notes, etc.

What if I just stick to the madhab ? Then you would have opposed the vast majority of the scholars from four madhabs, apart from creating unnecessary hardships for yourself.

Ahh then I will follow the local mufti and change the way I pray. … and leave the madhab you decided to adhere to at first. Why go down that route, anyway? Especially in modern times when you have so many issues on which there is no ruling to be found from the classical four madhabs? Deen is simple, so let us keep it simple. Ask any mufti you want and act accordingly. It cannot get simpler than that.

Btw Why are all these salafees making a big deal out of these issues? Why are they they known for this? There are excesses on both sides on this, the Salafis and the hardcore muqallids and the truth is in the middle. They are both guilty of speaking without knowledge, and they are both guilty making a big deal out of these issues.

Lol. Yeah, but you know what I mean!
what kind of a prayer would that be?!?!?!

Half hanafi, half shafi??

That would be unheard of wouldn't it?
What’s wrong with Salah being half hanafi and half Shafi’i? So long as the end result is not something haram by consensus, talfiq, or mixing up of madhabs I permissible; nay, it is inevitable, because practically speaking, a layman cannot adhere to the mufti of one madhab all his life. So issues arise where the mufti of his madhab is not available, and in that situation he must ask any mufti around. Most of the people end up mixing madhabs. In fact, this is what used to happen at the time of the companions. None amongst them ever thought that if he is referring to Ibn ‘Abbas with respect to Salah, then it is haram to go to Ibn ‘Umar and ask him other fatwas about Salah. Talfiq was an unknown phenomena.

Dear brother waziri,

‘alaikum as-salaam wrt,

The madhab issue has been magnified way to much in my opinion,it is one of the main causes of confusion for reverts and those who start practicing. This is true. This is why a layman should never be told of a madhab. It is none of his business. Let him refer to his local imam and that is the end of his duty.

I mean if we are supposed to just ask a mufti irrespective of his madhab we would still be blind following Of course. This is our job as laymen, to blind follow our muftis.

So it looks like blind following is the only option for a layman like me,so I think the best I can do is to blind follow a agreed upon ruling which many many scholars have researched and agreed upon ie the rulings of the madhabs simple no more confusion. This is the door to confusion. If you read the early posts in this thread, you will see that those who argued that a layman must follow a madhab, say that it is not enough for him to simply follow whatever madhab his father was following. Rather, he should look into each of the four madhabs and decide for himself as to which of them is the strongest. This defeats the purpose of taqlid because we do not want the layman to be making ijtihad as to which o fthe madhabs is stronger. His only duty is to ask a mufti – any mufti.

As far as Im concerned all the madhabs have evidences for their rulings so to follow the position of a madhab is the best way. Well, if a person strictly wants to follow a madhab, then he cannot. Why? Because the madhabs tell him NOT to follow a madhab :)

[abu hafs]

Salaamualaikum Dear Abuz Zubair,
How exactly is it possible to give da'wah to a barlewi/quboori if what a muslim is obligated is - to blind follow a Mufti .He could reply to what ever u say as My mufti is more educated than u in interpreting the Quran, Sunnah and the athar of the salaf ,seems like a deadlock.?

I do see that every layman of every sect does taqleed ....but the question iswhere do we draw the line and is a layman guilty if a mufti (mis)guides him to shirk or are these the aspects of religion which are known by necessity and not to be be blind followed ?

[Abuz Zubair]

Very simple.

There is no taqleed in the asl of iman, that is tawheed and shirk. This is why one is not to be excused for ignorance with respect to tawhid and shirk issues. This is the basis of our religion.

[asharee_salafi]

Thanks for your reply bro,

I may have the odd reply to come back but you generally cleaned up the issue for me,
It is simple, just ask a scholar!

This is most sensible , after all Allah does say to ask teh peopel of knowldge if you don't know

[Salahadeen]

Killer thread. May Allah [swt] reward you, Brother Abuz Z. Maybe you should put this on the Saheefah website insha-Allah.

[Nu7]

Yeah it's one of my fav. threads. The evidence that the layman has no madhab seems to be too strong to ignore. And I never really understood how laypeople could refer to themselves as "Shafi'i" or "Hanafi" etc.. Wouldn't that be like someone who hasn't studied medicine claiming to be a doctor???

[anam]

as-Salaamu 'Alaikum,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Most of the people I have come across have gone to extremes with regards to this issue. Those who oblige every layman to adhere to a Madhab, and those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad.

I read into this issue deeply last year while studying the manners of seeking Fatwa as dealt with by the early and latter and scholars, and what I paste below is just a small section of my study, which I hope proves beneficial to us all, InshaaAllah.

==========================================

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi’i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi’i - said: “The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi’i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him”

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: “What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.”

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i says in his al-Tahqiqat, “The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu’ al-rukhas).”

Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi’i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.”

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma’sumi): “Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger  has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger  did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.”

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ‘Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: “It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.”

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu’, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi’is, saying: “It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion”. Al-Mardawi comments: “And this is the correct opinion”.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: “A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab…”

Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger  made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger  oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.”

Ibn Taymiyah says: “If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah’s and His Messenger’s  Shari’ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says” - to his words - “For one to follow someone’s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar’i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar’ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger  have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.”

He also says: “There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi’i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.”

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ‘the migrant for Umm Qais’, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet  said: “Indeed actions are based on intentions…”. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger .

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah’s ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:
By ‘devising opinions’ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi’i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi’is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi’is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini’s book “’Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq”.

Following allowances (Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas) is for a person to “pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself”, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: “If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut’ah), he would be considered a Fasiq”. Sulayman al-Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you”.

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi’is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: “Ibn ‘Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma’) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others”. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ‘Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: “Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara’i) which would absolve one of their Shar’i responsibility.”

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

Point of Benefit:
Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: “It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it”; or that of Malik: “I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it”; or that of al-Shafi’i: “If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah  then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah  and leave what I said”; or that of Ahmad: “Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi’i, nor al-Awza’i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took”.

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: “[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus’ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.”

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu’ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu’ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I’lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)


Subhan Allaah !!

What a valuable bump of a thread...

[anam]

Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: “If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi’is”. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that ‘Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah’s grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: “You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven”!


Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab.


f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person’s attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab?

)

Subhan Allaah

the last thing we need is a return to personalities and madhabs!!!

we should be jealous of the knowledgable but never imitate anyone but our Prophet [sws]

[anam]

Quote:
As far as Im concerned all the madhabs have evidences for their rulings so to follow the position of a madhab is the best way.




Well, if a person strictly wants to follow a madhab, then he cannot. Why? Because the madhabs tell him NOT to follow a madhab

Classic!

[Abuz Zubair]

The article isn't properly done and there is A LOT MORE to be added to it. This was just something I compiled as part of another project about four years ago...

Perhaps, I should start adding here all the new material I have come across since yet didn't include in the original compilation...

Here is Wahbat al-Zuhayli - the hanafi scholar of Syria from his work al-Fiqh al-Islami:

الفرع الثاني ـ هل التزام مذهب معين أمر مطلوب أصولياً؟
انقسم الأصوليون في هذه المسألة على آراء ثلاثة:
1 - فقال بعضهم: يجب التزام مذهب إمام معين، لأنه اعتقد أنه حق، فيجب عليه العمل بمقتضى اعتقاده.
2- وقال أكثر العلماء: لايجب تقليد إمام معين في كل المسائل والحوادث التي تعرض، بل يجوز أن يقلد أي مجتهد شاء، فلو التزم مذهباً معيناً كمذهب أبي حنيفة أو الشافعي أو غيرهما، لايلزمه الاستمرار عليه، بل يجوز له الانتقال منه إلى مذهب آخر، إذ لا واجب إلا ما أوجبه الله ورسوله، ولم يوجب الله تعالى ولا رسوله على أحد أن يتمذهب بمذهب رجل من الأئمة، وإنما أوجب الله تعالى اتباع العلماء من غير تخصيص بواحد دون آخر، فقال عز وجل: {فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لاتعلمون} [الأنبياء:7/21]، ولأن المستفتين في عصر الصحابة والتابعين، لم يكونوا ملتزمين بمذهب معين، بل كانوا يسألون من تهيأ لهم دون تقيد بواحد دون آخر، فكان هذا إجماعاً منهم على عدم وجوب تقليد إمام، أو اتباع مذهب معين في كل المسائل.
ثم إن القول بالتزام مذهب ما، يؤدي إلى الحرج والضيق، مع أن المذاهب نعمة وفضيلة ورحمة للأمة.
وهذا القول هو الراجح عند علماء الأصول.
3 - وفصل الآمدي والكمال بن الهمام في المسألة فقال: إن عمل الشخص بما التزمه في بعض المسائل بمذهب معين، فلا يجوز له تقليد الغير فيها، وإن لم يعمل في بعضها الآخر جاز له اتباع غيره فيها، إذ إنه لم يوجد في الشرع مايوجب عليه اتباع ماالتزمه، وإنما أوجب الشرع عليه اتباع العلماء دون تخصيص عالم دون آخر (1) .
يتلخص من هذا أن القول الأصح الراجح عند علماء الأصول (2) : هو عدم ضرورة الالتزام بمذهب معين، وجواز مخالفة إمام المذهب، والأخذ بقول غيره، لأن التزام المذهب غير ملزم، كما بينا. وبناء عليه فلا مانع إطلاقاً من حيث المبدأ في العصر الحاضر من اختيار بعض الأحكام الشرعية المقررة لدى علماء المذاهب، دون تقيد بجملة المذهب أو بتفصيلاته.
__________
(1) راجع فواتح الرحموت شرح مسلم الثبوت لابن عبد الشكور:402/2 ، مسلم الثبوت: 355/2، شرح المحلي على جمع الجوامع: 328/2، والإحكام في أصول الأحكام للآمدي: 3174، التقرير والتحبير: 344/3، شرح الإسنوي: 266/3، المدخل إلى مذهب الإمام أحمد: ص 193، ارشاد الفحول: ص 240، فتاوى الشيخ عليش: 60/1
(2) قال الشافعية: الأصح من كلام المتأخرين كالشيخ ابن حجر وغيره أنه يجوز الانتقال من مذهب إلى مذهب من المذاهب المدونة، ولو بمجرد التشهي، سواء انتقل دواماً أو في بعض الحادثة، وإن أفتى أو حكم أو عمل بخلافه مالم يلزم منه التلفيق ( الفوائد المكية فيما يحتاجه طلبة الشافعية من المسائل والضوابط والقواعد الكلية للسيد علوي بن أحمد السقّاف: ص51، ط البابي الحلبي ).

i.e. The opinion that a person does not have to adhere to a madhab is the majority and the correct opinion amongst the Usulis. He also points out that latter Shafi'is such as Ibn Hajar and others state that it is permissible for a man to change his madhab in various issues, EVEN IF HE DOES SO WHIMSICALLY! Not something I agree with, but I am mentioning this just for the record.

-------------------------------

He also says that Talfiq is allowed since the layman has no madhab:

ومجال التلفيق كمجال التقليد محصور في المسائل الاجتهادية الظنية. أما كل ما علم من الدين بالضرورة ـ أي بالبداهة ـ من متعلَّقات الحكم الشرعي، وهو ماأجمع عليه المسلمون ويكفر جاحده، فلا يصح فيه التقليد والتلفيق، وعلى هذا فلا يجوز التلفيق المؤدي إلى إباحة المحرمات كالنبيذ والزنا مثلاً. هذا وإن قضية التلفيق بين المذاهب اشترط عدمها لجواز تقليد مذاهب الغير أكثر المتأخرين من العلماء بعد انتهاء القرن العاشر الهجري، ولم يتكلم فيها قبل القرن السابع.
وجواز التلفيق مبني على ما قررناه من أنه لا يجب التزام مذهب معين في جميع المسائل، فمن لم يكن ملتزماً مذهباً معيناً، جاز له التلفيق، وإلا أدى الأمر إلى بطلان عبادات العوام، لأن العامي لا مذهب له ولو تمذهب به، ومذهبه في كل قضية هو مذهب من أفتاه بها. كما أن القول بجواز التلفيق يعتبر من باب التيسير على الناس.
وتقليد إمام في جزئية أو مسألة لايمنع من تقليد إمام آخر في مسألة أخرى، ولايقال: إن المقلد وصل إلى حقيقة لم يقل بها كلا الإمامين، وإنما يعد ذلك من قبيل تداخل أقوال المفتين (أي المجتهدين) بعضها في بعض في عمل المستفتي تداخلاً غير مقصود، كتداخل اللغات بعضها ببعض في لسان العرب. فالمقلد لم يقلد كل إمام في مجموع عمله، وإنما قلد كلا من الإمامين في مسألة معينة غير التي قلد فيها غيره، ومجموع العمل لم يوجب أحد النظر إليه لا في اجتهاد ولا في تقليد.
وأما اشتراط بعض العلماء لجواز التلفيق ضرورة مراعاة الخلاف بين المذاهب، فهو أمر عسير، سواء في العبادات أو في المعاملات، وذلك يتنافى مع سماحة الشريعة ويسرها ومسايرتها لمصالح الناس.

وأما ادعاء وجود الإجماع (من قِبَل ابن حجر وغيره من بعض علماء الحنفية) على عدم جواز التلفيق، فيحتاج إلى دليل، وليس أدل على عدم قيام مثل هذا الإجماع من وجود اختلاف واضح بين العلماء في مسألة التلفيق. قال الشفشاوني في تركيب مسألة من مذهبين أو أكثر: «إن الأصوليين اختلفوا في هذه المسألة، والصحيح من جهة النظر جوازه » وحكى الثقات الخلاف أيضاً كالفهامة الأمير والفاضل البيجوري. هذا وإن مثل هذا الإجماع المدعى المنقول بطريق الآحاد لايوجب العمل عند جمهور العلماء، ولعل المراد بهذا الإجماع هو اتفاق الأكثر أو أهل مذهب ما.
وسأذكر هنا بإيجاز أقوال علماء المذاهب في إباحة التلفيق (1) :
1 - الحنفية: قال الكمال بن الهمام وتلميذه ابن أمير الحاج في التحرير وشرحه: إن المقلد له أن يقلد من شاء، وإن أخذ العامي في كل مسألة بقول مجتهد أخف عليه لا أدري ما يمنعه من النقل أو العقل، وكون الإنسان يتتبع ما هو الأخف عليه من قول مجتهد مسوغ له الاجتهاد، ما علمت من الشرائع ذمه عليه، وكان صلّى الله عليه وسلم يحب ما خفف عن أمته.

وجاء في تنقيح الفتاوى الحامدية لابن عابدين ما يفيد أن في منية المفتي ما يفيد جواز الحكم المركب، وأن القاضي الطرسوسي (المتوفى سنة 758 هـ) مشى على الجواز. وأفتى مفتي الروم أبو السعود العمادي (المتوفى سنة 983 هـ) في فتاويه بالجواز. وجزم ابن نجيم المصري (المتوفى سنة 970 هـ) في رسالته ( في بيع الوقف بغبن فاحش ) بأن المذهب جواز التلفيق، ونقل الجواز عن الفتاوى البزازية. وذهب أمير باد شاه (المتوفى سنة 972 هـ) إلى جواز التلفيق بكل قوته. وألف مفتي نابلس منيب أفندي الهاشمي رسالة في التقليد عام ( 1307 هـ) أيد فيها التقليد مطلقاً، وقال عنها فقيه عصره الشيخ عبد الرحمن البحراوي: «أن المؤلف قد بين الحق على الوجه الصحيح» . والخلاصة: أن الشائع المشهور أن التلفيق باطل، لكن العلماء خلاف ذلك وأنه جائز بأدلة كثيرة ناطقة على صحته.
2 ـ المالكية: الأصح والمرجح عند المتأخرين من فقهاء المالكية هو جواز التلفيق، فقد صحح الجواز ابن عرفة المالكي في حاشيته على الشرح الكبير للدردير، وأفتى العلامة العدوي بالجواز، ورجح الدسوقي الجواز، ونقل الأمير الكبير عن شيوخه أن الصحيح جواز التلفيق وهو فسحة.
3 ـ الشافعية: منع بعضهم كل صور التلفيق، واقتصر بعضهم الآخر على حظر حالات التلفيق الممنوع الآتي بيانها، وأجاز آخرون التلفيق إذا جمعت في المسألة شروط المذاهب المقلدة.
4 ـ الحنابلة: نقل الطرسوسي أن القضاة الحنابلة نفذوا الأحكام الصادرة بالتلفيق.
هذا ولم أذكر أقوال المخالفين من علماء هذه المذاهب، سواء في قضية الأخذ بأيسر المذاهب أو في تتبع الرخص، ولأن أقوال المخالفين لا تلزمنا، لعدم وجود دليل شرعي راجح لها.

------------------


And of course, al-Imam al-'Allamah Bab b. al-Shaykh Sidi al-Shanqiti al-Maliki in Irshad al-Muqallidin p.257:

Can a layman make taqlid of someone else? Or make taqlid of someone else in another issue? Such as making taqlid of Abu Hanifa in one issue and making Taqlid of another scholar in another issue?

The correct opinion is what al-Aamidi and Ibn al-Hajib have mentioned: Yes without any doubt, and we say this after a complete and thorough study of the fact that the commoners in all ages, from the time of the companions up until now, a person would sometimes ask one person, and then at other times ask someone else, without restricting themselves to one Mufti. This has become very widespread and occurred repeatedly, without receiving any condemnation. This is valid if a commoner does not adhere to one specific Madhab.

But if he were to adhere to one specific madhab, such as that of Abu Hanifa or al-Shafi'i, he is obliged to continue following that madhab such that he may not leave the madhab even in one legal issue?

It is said: He is obliged, since by committing himself to a madhab makes him an adherent thereof. It is similar to the case where he adheres to a particular madhab in a particular instance, and also because he believes that the madhab he adheres to is correct, and henceforth, he must act in accordance with his belief.

It is also said: He is not obliged, and this is the most correct opinion, as mentioned in al-Rafi'i and elsewhere. This is because he is not obliged to adhere to a madhab, since nothing becomes obligatory on a person except what Allah and His Messenger - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam - has made obligatory. Here, neither Allah nor His Messenger obliged anyone to adhere to the madhab of any particular person in the Ummah, such that he must blind-follow him in everything he brings or leaves, and leave everyone else.

Even though, Ibn Hazm has said, 'The Muslims have agreed that it is not allowed for a judge or a mufti to make Taqlid of another person, such that he neither gives a judgement nor a verdict except in accordance with his madhab'

The blessed generations passed away without having this belief (of taqlid of one person only). As a matter of fact, it is not valid for a layman to have a madhab even if he adheres to one, because the madhab is for those who have some ability to research into opinions and deduce rulings, and are aware of the madhab as it is, or someone who has studied a legal work in that madhab, and is aware of the fatwas of his Imam and his opinions. But as for the one who is not qualified in any of this at all, rather, he merely says: I am a hanafi, or a Shafi'i, and so on, he does not become one just by claiming to be one. It is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, a grammarian, a writer, he does not become one just by his claim.

What clarifies this further is that the person claims that he is a follower of that Imam, taking his path towards knowledge and deducing laws, then knowing his ignorance, his distance from the life of his Imam, his knowledge and his way, how can it be valid for him to attribute himself to the Imam merely by a claim, and meaningless statement?

[Salahadeen]

Please do compile it because this is one of the so-called Traditionalists main arguments, i.e. that the layperson must follow a madhab.

[abu hafs]

al-Imam al-'Allamah Bab b. al-Shaykh Sidi al-Shanqiti al-Maliki
a brief bio notice perhaps ?

[Abuz Zubair]

a brief bio notice perhaps ?
He is considered the reviver of the 14th Islamic century by some. He was born and brought up in a well known Mauritanian-Maliki family called Aal al-Shaykh Sidi. Both his father and grandfather were scholars. He studied under Sh Muhammad b. al-Salim al-Bu Husni, Sh Ahmad al-Dumyani. He died in year 1342/1923. He was one of the Sunni Malikis and not Ash'ari.

[suhail]

When people say that layman have to have a madhab makes no sense rationally. First of all he does not have access to books and does not have time to read all the material to know the ruling of the madhab. Secondly a ignorant layman does not read Quran everyday and then asking him to read the books of fiqh and usul is something which is impractical.

The opinion that a Layman should ask the mufti available to him and follow him is the most rational because it is practical and a major opinion among the scholars.

If you are a student of knowledge who are learning the madhab per se than yes you can follow it but telling that a layman has to follow a madhab is totally impractical at best.

[anam]

join a madhab movement is to catch the people and restrict them to groups we know has bida and haram irjaa' etc involved..

the movement is full of anti wahabis:)

so it seems they dont see the dangers of shirk in telling a Muslim to just blind follow their madhab or shiekh..

[waziri]

join a madhab movement is to catch the people and restrict them to groups we know has bida and haram irjaa' etc involved..

the movement is full of anti wahabis:)

so it seems they dont see the dangers of shirk in telling a Muslim to just blind follow their madhab or shiekh..

Thats a very simplistic way of loking at it.

Someone could adhere to a madhab in the sense that they follow its rulings and still be regarded as being salafi or Wahabi.

[anam]

no doubt ya waziri

im talking about the movement that calls for going back to madhab following

plus many of us have madhabs but were not fanatical in that respect or encourage this for all..

[Captain]

If as a lay man, I am faced with two different opinions on one particular issue, then which do i choose?

(given the fact that i do not have the qualities to determine which is the "stronger" opinion)

Also whats the difference between someone making Taqleed on thier local imam, and making taqleed on the opinions of a medhab?

Given the fact that the opinions of the medhab have been long establishes and well documented, is it not safer for a lay parson to make taqleed on the medhab instead of the local imam?

also (living in the west) it is not practical for most of the muslims to make taqleed on one particular local imam on EVERY issue-- as we do not have access to them 24/7. whereas the opinions of a medhab are usually well known and readily available.

again on this count isn't it safer and better to make taqleed on a medhab then a local imam?

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Very good article masha'Allah. Despite being on this forum for quite some time now, this is the first time i read it. Shud be a sticky, so it does not go down by other threads. Also change the name of the thread. Its a mountain under a mole hill.

Questions:
In the article u said:
and those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad.
who actually recommends that? Even ibn hazam does not say that, if u read the muhalla vol 1.
In fact i was willing to compile an article containing quotes of ahle hadith, dhahiri and non-madhabist (ameer yamani,shawkani, albani, ahmad shakir and likes) scholars to show what form of taqlid they actually condemn and whether there is a difference of terminology or more.

I think the sticking point between what u have mentioned and what some of the non-madhabist (NOT anti-madhabists) say is the mufti must declare his evidence to the mustafti. First this is i believe a minority opinion among them, and this is NOT what ibn hazam says. Infact ibn hazam's view is the almost the same as ibn taymiyyah's:
If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah’s and His Messenger’s Shari’ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from.
of course he does not put it so mildly.

Also a question that needs adressing is, ok we agree that a layman (and even students of knowledge!) cannot possibly look into each and every mas'ala and its evidences, but does it mean that he is not encouraged to research the issue at all? If that is so why is he encouraged to read into aqeedah matters, even though some of them are more complicated than whether to do raf'ul yadein or not. I mean some of those aqeedah issues include authentication of narrations, and opposing sayings of salaf, which need to be authenticated for making tarjeeh between ta'arudh. If the layman is allowed to research or atleast read into that, nay encouraged to do so. why not 'ibadaat? I mean these are not 2 seperate deens, but part of the same Islam. I am not advocating that the layman should open up books to see whether this is halaal or haraam et al. Infact he must immediately ask a trustworthy scholar available asap, as commanded in the Qur'aan. But is he discouraged to look for evidence for the ruling or recommended?

[Abuz Zubair]

If as a lay man, I am faced with two different opinions on one particular issue, then which do i choose?

(given the fact that i do not have the qualities to determine which is the "stronger" opinion)

You follow the scholar you think is more knowledgeable and therefore more likely to be correct.

Also whats the difference between someone making Taqleed on thier local imam, and making taqleed on the opinions of a medhab?

The difference is huge:

The local Imam could be just a muqallid, a mufti of the madhab, or even a mujtahid in various issues. The madhab is just a set of rulings on everything that don't even necessarily represent the opinions of the Imam.

Given the fact that the opinions of the medhab have been long establishes and well documented, is it not safer for a lay parson to make taqleed on the medhab instead of the local imam?


No, because whatever the fatwa the local Imam will give you, it wouldn't most probably fall beyond the four madhabs anyway.

also (living in the west) it is not practical for most of the muslims to make taqleed on one particular local imam on EVERY issue-- as we do not have access to them 24/7. whereas the opinions of a medhab are usually well known and readily available.

It is impossible because the Imams do not have the knowledge of every single issue. For instance, when it comes to Halal financing, you will have to refer to a financial expert and not every local Imam is an expert there. Most of the issues we deal with today are relatively new issues that haven't been dealt with by the madhahibs. In those issues you have to go out of your way to ask someone who knows. Besides, the previous generations never stuck to just one man to take all the haram and halal rulings from.

Also, the madhab rulings are not usually all well known, and they are most definitely not readily available to the layman.

who actually recommends that? Even ibn hazam does not say that, if u read the muhalla vol 1.

I have to go back to that since it has been four years since I wrote this. But I think it may be based on the fact that we don't differentiate between ittiba' and taqleed.

Also a question that needs adressing is, ok we agree that a layman (and even students of knowledge!) cannot possibly look into each and every mas'ala and its evidences, but does it mean that he is not encouraged to research the issue at all?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Like the current mas'a issue, eg...

If that is so why is he encouraged to read into aqeedah matters, even though some of them are more complicated than whether to do raf'ul yadein or not

The same is also applied to aqeeda issues, even though many of the aqeeda issues require conviction and not taqleed.

I mean some of those aqeedah issues include authentication of narrations, and opposing sayings of salaf, which need to be authenticated for making tarjeeh between ta'arudh. If the layman is allowed to research or atleast read into that, nay encouraged to do so. why not 'ibadaat?

Depends on the intellectual capacity of the layman. If he can handle the controversies and intricacies of the argument they yes he should be encouraged to arrive at an answer himself. Otherwise, he can make taqleed of one of the Salaf whose opinion was accept to be valid (and not something that was wholeheartedly rejected by the Salaf and considered misguidance/shaadh). Point being, he can still make taqleed in 'aqeeda, because this is all he can do.

But is he discouraged to look for evidence for the ruling or recommended?

He is recommended and sometimes obliged to seek knowledge. But the way of seeking knowledge is different to the way of asking for a fatwa. Hence, when one is seeking knowledge, he can question the Shaykh and ask him for proofs, obviously, not to challenge him but to benefit from him knowledge.

But when a layman (who isn't a talib al-'ilm) is asking for a fatwa, then it is generally considered bad manners for him to ask: What's your daleel?!

He can still ask him for a daleel but in a different sitting, so that it doesn't look rude. He should also remember that the Mufti is well within his rights not to give him the daleel if he thinks he cannot fathom it.

[Abu Maryam PK]

But when a layman (who isn't a talib al-'ilm) is asking for a fatwa, then it is generally considered bad manners for him to ask: What's your daleel?!

He can still ask him for a daleel but in a different sitting, so that it doesn't look rude. He should also remember that the Mufti is well within his rights not to give him the daleel if he thinks he cannot fathom it.

i remember asking one of the younger muftis in bab 'abdul 'aziz in haram in makkah about an issue. When he told me his opinion i remembered a hadith on the issue and tried to ascertain whether he remembered the hadith on the issue or why was it not applicable. He somehow got very upset and asked repeatedly r u a mujtahid? i said well no, but i would still like to know your evidence, and he insisted on not telling me. Anyway i did what he asked and later found that he was actually correct. But i still dont know why people get annoyed if u ask them for the evidence, since in this case there was no crowd of questioners. Anyway he was one of a kind. All the other mashaykh here, including sh munajjid is happy to detail their evidence.

[Abuz Zubair]

I think one of the reasons why many people react this way is because of the culture a strand of Salafism has created, where a person who has just got his hands on Sh al-Albani's prayer book goes around challenging people who have studied under scholars for decades asking them, 'What's your evidence for placing your hands below your navel, brother?!'

Because of this culture, the one asking for proofs, even if he is completely innocent, is by default painted with the same brush.

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

i remember asking one of the younger muftis in bab 'abdul 'aziz in haram in makkah about an issue. When he told me his opinion i remembered a hadith on the issue and tried to ascertain whether he remembered the hadith on the issue or why was it not applicable. He somehow got very upset and asked repeatedly r u a mujtahid? i said well no, but i would still like to know your evidence, and he insisted on not telling me. Anyway i did what he asked and later found that he was actually correct. But i still dont know why people get annoyed if u ask them for the evidence, since in this case there was no crowd of questioners. Anyway he was one of a kind. All the other mashaykh here, including sh munajjid is happy to detail their evidence.

The position of the person asking for Daleel is very simple:

"I want to tell this Fatwa to others back in my country, but if they do not know you, I want to present them Daleel as well"

Knowledge should not be concealed, period. This argument does not work only with famous figures like Imam Malik (who was well known for quite harsh treatment of people asking for Daleel), who were well known at that time.

[Captain]

You follow the scholar you think is more knowledgeable and therefore more likely to be correct.



The difference is huge:

The local Imam could be just a muqallid, a mufti of the madhab, or even a mujtahid in various issues. The madhab is just a set of rulings on everything that don't even necessarily represent the opinions of the Imam.



No, because whatever the fatwa the local Imam will give you, it wouldn't most probably fall beyond the four madhabs anyway.



It is impossible because the Imams do not have the knowledge of every single issue. For instance, when it comes to Halal financing, you will have to refer to a financial expert and not every local Imam is an expert there. Most of the issues we deal with today are relatively new issues that haven't been dealt with by the madhahibs. In those issues you have to go out of your way to ask someone who knows. Besides, the previous generations never stuck to just one man to take all the haram and halal rulings from.

Also, the madhab rulings are not usually all well known, and they are most definitely not readily available to the layman.




Salam...

But what if you trust both the scholars-- and feel both are extremly knolwedgable?

This is the problem I have on a personal level. For instance, one of my teachers told me that i can make dua in sujood in english-- then another tells me no, and then another tells me I can but only in sunnah salah. I think I face this problem because I live in london, and have different teachers for different science.

You see, because of this problem, I tend to just stick to the medhab's opinion-- as I know that the imams of the medhab have used the same usool when looking at these different issues- thereby being consistent.

Also I agree fully with you that most of the new issues that are arising, such as finance, copy-right etc-- the medhabs do not have an answer (well maybe not yet).. but I was talking more of the established issues, such as prayer etc.

I just feel for a lay person like myself-- I should either do taqleed on one scholar that I know-- or on a medhab. this is to avoid mixing and matching, which people might do out of lineancy..

Br. Abu Zubair-- i'm bit confused, what are you suggesting? to do taqleed on only one scholar that we know?

Speaking from personal experience-- unless you are very close to the sheikh, it is not always possible to ask the same Sheikh for all the rulings on a particular issue like salah. Thats why we end up relying on many scholars, some local, others from the internet etc. And in doing so we might be mixing and matching so much that the act becomes invalid. like for instance the example you once gave of marriage. Where someone can take the maliki opinion for witness, the hanafi for wali, the other opinion for mahr etc.

I remember listening to Sheikh Yasir Qadhi's "Fiqh of Marriage". In it he goes through the different aspects along with the various opinions of the different medhabs and then gives his opinion as to which is the strongest. At the end of it we are left with "fiqh of marriage" ACCORDING to sheikh Yasir Qadhi.

What is the difference between someone follwing Sheikh Yasir Qadhi's "fiqh of marriage" and the person follwing, lets say, the fiqh according to the maliki medhab?

I just don't see the difference.. please help me.

[Salahadeen]

Brother Abuz Z,

I read an article on MuslimMatters.org about this topic...did you happen to read it? What was your opinion of it?

In that article, they specifically said that a scholar should NOT provide his daleel to a layperson, and how this is the proper Salafi position.

But this REALLY bothers me. If you follow a scholar who says that you should ask the dead for things, then how can you ever know that he is wrong unless the daleel is presented to you and you compare evidences? If no layperson was allowed to ask for daleel, then I'm afraid that I'd never have become Salafi, and I'd still be following bidati scholars. And Shia laypersons would remain Shia, and Sufis would remain Sufis, etc etc.

I understand that people might say that this is aqeedah and not fiqh...but still, let's say that I did taqleed of a certain Salafi scholar...and let's say that he tells me that I can shave my beard...if daleel was never to be provided to laypersons, then I'd be shaving my beard....

Anyways, what is your opinion on this? The idea that a scholar MUST NOT provide his daleel to laypersons?

[Abuz Zubair]

The position of the person asking for Daleel is very simple:

"I want to tell this Fatwa to others back in my country, but if they do not know you, I want to present them Daleel as well"

Knowledge should not be concealed, period. This argument does not work only with famous figures like Imam Malik (who was well known for quite harsh treatment of people asking for Daleel), who were well known at that time.
No dear brother... This is the majority opinion as documented in the works of fiqh by the four schools, and of course works dedicated as manuals for muftis. They clearly state what to do when a layman asks for proof.

['Abd al-Kareem]

I think one of the reasons why many people react this way is because of the culture a strand of Salafism has created, where a person who has just got his hands on Sh al-Albani's prayer book goes around challenging people who have studied under scholars for decades asking them, 'What's your evidence for placing your hands below your navel, brother?!'

Because of this culture, the one asking for proofs, even if he is completely innocent, is by default painted with the same brush.

Barak Allahu feek ya akhi,

may Allah forgive us for the ignorant arrogant mistakes we've made in the past and continue to make...

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Let me first clarify that i am not a dhahiri. Why i am reproducing the below is that i feel some people misinterpret him to say that he allowed laymen to perform ijtihad as we understand it and to reject taqlid in all shape and form, as unserstood by most today.
I caution against his sharp pen, as this does not happen to be my own.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Imam Abu Muhammad 'Ali bin Hazam writes in Al-Muhallaa bil 'Athaar, vol 1:

- مسألة - ولا يحل لا حد أن يقلد أحدا لا حيا ولا ميتا وعلى كل أحد من الاجتهاد حسب طاقته، فمن سأل عن دينه فانما يريد معرفة ما ألزمه الله عزوجل في هذا الدين، ففرض عليه إن كان أجهل البرية أن يسأل عن أعلم أهل موضعه بالدين الذى جاء به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فإذا دل عليه سأله، فإذا أفتاه قال له: هكذا قال الله عزوجل ورسوله؟ فان قال له نعم أخذ بذلك وعمل به أبدا، وان قال له هذا رأيى أو هذا قياس أو هذا قول فلان وذكر له صاحبا أو تابعا أو فقيها قديما أو حديثا أو سكت أو انتهره أو قال له لا أدرى، فلا يحل له أن يأخذ بقوله ولكنه يسأل غيره<o></o>
برهان ذلك قول الله عزوجل (أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولى الامر منكم) فلم يأمرنا عزوجل قط بطاعة بعض أولي الامر، فمن قلد عالما أو جماعة علماء فلم يطع الله تعالى ولا رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أولى الامر، وإذا لم يرد إلى من ذكرنا فقد خالف أمر الله عزوجل ولم يأمر الله عزوجل قط بطاعة بعض اولي الامر دون بعض
Issue: It is not permissible for anyone to make taqlid of any other person, dead or alive. Everyone must excercise ijtihad according to his ability. So the one who asks about his religion, he only intends to know what Allah had obligated upon him in this religion. So it is obligatory upon him, (even) if he is the most ignorant of all creation, to ask the most knowledgeable scholar in his locality, the most knowledgeable in terms of the religion that the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam brought. If he is told about this scholar, he should ask him, and then when he gives him a verdict, he should ask him "Is this what Allah and His Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam said?". If he says yes, he should accept it and act upon it always. But if he (the scholar) says "This is my personal opinion or analogy i drew upon (Qayaas..remember ibn hazam rejects most of Qayaas, here he probably means al-qayas al-khafi) or that this is the saying of so-and-so and names a Companion or a Follower (sahabi or tab'ai) or a Faqih, old or new or remains silent or scolds him or says i dont know", then he should not take his verdict, but ask someone else.
The evidence for this is the saying of Allah "Obey Allah and His Messenger and the Uloo Al-Amr (scholars or rulers) among you", so Allah did not tell us to obey (only) specific scholars (to the exception of all others), so he who makes taqlid of some (specific) scholar or a (specific) group of scholars, then he neither obeys Allah nor his Messenger sallallaho'alaihiwasallam nor the Uloo Al-Amr (scholars or rulers). So if he does not do that (ask other scholar), he has disobeyed Allah, because Allah never Commanded to obey some scholars to the exclusion of other scholars
_______________________________________

Points to be noted:

1)Apart from his obvious rejection of Qayas and sayings of campanions [which is not acceptable to us, except with pre-conditions], he does not require the layman to perform ijtihad in the sense that he derives rulings himself. Rather he requires him to refer to the most knowledgeable, which is what he terms his ijtihad (striving).
2) If taqlid is taken to be 'asking any scholar XYZ', then he does not see it as a problem. He is NOT against what Mufti Taqi Uthmani (taqleed ki shar'ii haisiyyat) calls Al-Taqleed Al-Mutlaq. He is only against Al-Taqleed Al-Shakhsi (asking only specific group of scholars or madhab always).
3) He says that the layman should ascertain that this is actually the ruling of Allah and His Messenger sallallaho'alaihiwasallam, not someone's opinion. We must look at the background of this condition. Actually he brings a series of quotes on fatwa based on rai' (opinions not backed by known evidence). And he mentions that when sahabah used to issue fatwa they would elaborate if this is their own opinion or saying of Allah and His Messenger sallallaho'alaihiwasallam. In latter times this practice stopped and hence he must know that the ruling he is seeking is from Allah's religion.
4) He does not require the mufti to detail the evidence, only to ascertain that his verdict is backed by Qur'aan and Sunnah.
5) He obviously does not envision a scenario where a person is in such a situation that he does not have multiple scholars or the case that a scholar gives a verdict but does not know anything in this matter except the sayings of salaf and companions, and not actual Qur'aan and Sunnah.
____________________________

If u have questions shoot, but wait a little till i get over with translating the rest of his thoughts in Al-Muhallah and Al-Ihkaam.
Later i would insha'Allah present thoughts of Albani and Ahmad Shakir, and lastly Ahle Hadith scholars. My contention is that none requires or even reccomends laymen to foresake asking scholars or to take it upon their feeeble shoulders to derive rulings by opening Bukhari and Muslim.


To be continued.....

[Salahadeen]

Bismillah
Let me first clarify that i am not a dhahiri.

Can you explain what a dhahiri is?

[Abu Maryam PK]

Bismillah
Can you explain what a dhahiri is?

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1172&highlight=dhahiri

[waziri]

If u have questions shoot, but wait a little till i get over with translating the rest of his thoughts in Al-Muhallah and Al-Ihkaam.
Later i would insha'Allah present thoughts of Albani and Ahmad Shakir, and lastly Ahle Hadith scholars. My contention is that none requires or even reccomends laymen to foresake asking scholars or to take it upon their feeeble shoulders to derive rulings by opening Bukhari and Muslim.



Asalamualaykum,


As we see none of the great ulema of the past (or very few) had a problem with a layman performing taqlid of qualified ulema in complex fiqhi matters.

Yet we see many from amongst the ahlu hadith (for those who dont know Im refering to the pakistani/indian jamat by that name and not ahlu hadith in the classical sense of the term) who regard taqlid to be a reprehensible action.Even the word taqlid holds negative connotations amongst such groups and for someone to be refered to as a muqalid is an insult.

Such individuals have caused great confusion in the ummah with regards to the subject of taqlid.

Its interesting to note that even the ulema who are regarded as being anti taqlid by many such as shaykh Albani etc were never against it,infact they regarded taqlid to be a must for the layman.



wasalam

[junaid123]

Its interesting to note that even the ulema who are regarded as being anti taqlid by many such as shaykh Albani etc were never against it,infact they regarded taqlid to be a must for the layman.

wasalam

i never knew that sheikh albani said that its must for a laymen. But his dawah was to be a ghair muqallid but not anti muqallid.
Ghair muqallid were present always , but since anti muqallid s are there ummah is in confusion.

[waziri]

i never knew that sheikh albani said that its must for a laymen. But his dawah was to be a ghair muqallid but not anti muqallid.
Ghair muqallid were present always , but since anti muqallid s are there ummah is in confusion.

Akhi explain what you think is ghair muqalid and anti muqalid JazakAllah khair.

As for shaykh Albani regarding taqlid a must,


Cassette no. 27 from the "Silsilah Fataawaa Jeddah"

Question:

We face a difficulty in that it is said that you reject blind following of the Scholars, but you make taqleed of Yahyaa bin Ma`een and Ahmad in their sayings, or [in] the sayings of them both, such as, "So and so is da`eef", "So and so is thiqah", and we want to listen in this manner, so is the acceptance of the saying of the Scholars about a narrator that he is da`eef or thiqah pure taqleed, or is it built upon something knowledge-based that is not to be labelled taqleed for example, and there is another question that is built upon this one.

Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah):

" I say that this matter has been treated by as-San`aanee in his risaalah and he tends to the view that this is not taqleed. And personally I am not satisfied with that [i.e. as-San`aanee's view in not calling it taqleed], I am not satisfied with this[1], however, can a person reject taqleed? As for me then I do not reject taqleed, rather I affirm it, rather, I obligate it, even if one besides me might oppose me, then he can, no doubt."

.................................................. .


NOTE
[1] What the Shaykh means, judging by the other quotations, is that he does not agree with as-San`aanee negating that this is taqleed, because he does consider it taqleed, but it is not something blameworthy, rather it is taqleed that is permissible, and that whether you call it Ittibaa` or Taqleed, does not change the reality behind it, namely, that it is only a representation of doing what Allaah commanded when he said, "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know...", this is the essence of what is found in the other quotations (to follow inshaa'Allaah) that explain what the Shaykh means here,


Allaah knows best.




Also here is what shaykh Uthaymeen had to say


The Place of Taqleed:


Taqleed is done in two cases:


1) when the muqallid is an 'aamee (a common person) who does not have the ability to aquire knowledge of the sharee'ah ruling by himself. SO TAQLEED IS OBLIGATORY UPON HIM, due to the saying of Allaah - The Most High, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." So he does taqleed of one whom he considers to be a person of knowledge and piety. If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.

2) The mujtahid when he encounters a new situation, for which an immediate solution is required, but it is not possible for him to research into this matter. So in this case he is permitted to perform taqleed.

Some stipulate as a condition for the permissibility of taqleed, that the matter is not from the fundamentals of the deen - those matters which must be held as aqueedah - since matters of aqueedah require certainty, whereas taqleed only amounts to dhann (knowledge which is not certain).

However the correct saying in this matter is that this is not a condition, due to the generality of his - the Most High's - saying, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And this verse is in the context of affirming the Messengership - which is from the fundamentals of the deen. And also because the common person cannot acquire knowledge of the sharee'ah rulings with it's proofs by himself. So if he is unable to arrive at the truth by himself, then nothing remains for him except taqleed, due to the saying of Allaah - the most High, "fear Allaah as much as you can"



wasalam

[aboo ayaat al hindee]

any info on the dhahiri madhab? give me all you got. i want authentic stuff not wiki. you can post or pm me.

[aboo ayaat al hindee]

since we are on the topic of taqleed. lets say you're born into a muslim family in a muslim country but do not practice. one day you decide to be a real muslim so you go to the local masjid for some basic info, wudhu, salaat, basic aqeedah issues like belief in allaah, his angels and what not.

say you don't know about the divisions and differences amongst the ummah and you assume all muslims believe in the same thing and do things the same way. you have no reason to doubt the imam or fear that he may be lying to you or may be misleading you, intentionally or not.

so my question is: if you go to the imam for a fatwa and he misleads you are you accountable for this since you didn't seek a second opinion or read up on the issue from other sources though you have the ability to do so?

again, in your current state you have no reason to doubt another muslim especially one who is known as an alim.

[Abdullah Abbas]

any info on the dhahiri madhab? give me all you got. i want authentic stuff not wiki. you can post or pm me.

Zaahiri (literalist)

The Zaahiri madhhab is well known. It is the madhhab followed by Dawood ibn ‘Ali al-Zaahiri and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm and those who follow their line of thought.

What it means is following the apparent meaning of the texts and not looking at the basis of rulings, and they do not believe in making analogies. Rather they go by the apparent meaning of commands and prohibitions and they do not pay attention to the basis and reasons behind these rulings. They are called Zaahiris (literalists) for this reason, because they go by the apparent meaning and do not pay attention to shar’iah bases, wisdom and analogies which are indicated by the Qur’an and Sunnah. But in general their way is better than the way of those who only refer to reasoning, analogy and arguments, and who do not pay much attention to the shar’iah evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But they are falling short and are to be criticized for focusing only on the apparent meanings of the texts and not paying enough attention to the bases, wisdom and reasoning which the Lawgiver referred to and the objects which sharee’ah aimed to achieve, hence they made mistakes with regard to many issues which are referred to by the Qur’an and Sunnah.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/2




this is what i found about the Dhaahiri/Zaahiri Madhhab

[Abdullah Abbas]

THE DHAAHIREE MADH-HAB

The Founder: Imaam Daawood (815-883 CE)
The founder of this school of thought, Daawood ibn ‘Alee,
was born in Kufah in the year 815 CE. His early Fiqh studies were
under Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee’s students, but he later inclined towards
the study of Hadeeth and joined the Hadeeth circle of Imaam Ahmad
ibn Hambal. He continued to study under Ahmad until he was
expelled from Ahmad’s classes because he voiced the opinion that
the Quraan was Muhdath (newly existent) and therefore created.
After his expulsion, he took and independent path of reasoning based
on the obvious and literal meanings (DHaahir) of the texts of the
Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Because of this approach, his Madh-hab
was called the DHaahiree Madh-hab and he became known as
Daawood adH-DHaahiree.

148 Taareekh at-Tashree’ al-Islaamee, pp. 181, 182

The Qur’aan and the Sunnah
Like all of the other Imaams, Daawood considered the
Qur’aan to be the foremost source of Islamic law follwed by the
Sunnah. However, only literal interpretations of their texts were
insidered by him to be valid . that is, they were only to be applied in
the particular circumstances which they described