what makes one a follower of a madhab

[asharee_salafi]

assalam'ualykum,

if someone is a hanbali, and he contradicts some fiqh rulings, he is a part of that madhab.

i ask because i heard a saudi salafi lecture who said that we shouldn;t call ibn taymiyyah a hanbali, but rather salafi,

is there any quotes from ibn kathir i can use?

and how can he still be hanbali if he contradicts some of their fiqh rulings.

thanks

[Abuz Zubair]

i ask because i heard a saudi salafi lecture who said that we shouldn;t call ibn taymiyyah a hanbali, but rather salafi,

Anti-madhabism was one of the main reasons for the 'downfall' of salafiyya.

Ibn Taymiyya was hardcore hanbali, yet not a fanatic, and like the muhaqqiqin from other schools he had many of his own ikhtiyarat.

Salafi and Hanbali are synonymous terms.

Who was this speaker?

[Um Abdullah M.]

anti madhhabism isn't salafiyyah

salafiyyah is against ta'assub to the madhhab.
I think it is called partsinship or something like that in ENglish (excuse the spelling)

[abu hafs]

Anti-madhabism was one of the main reasons for the 'downfall' of salafiyya.

Intresting comment , but werent anti-madhabis the ones who were salafis in many places like Indian and Yemen and almost every where except the Jazeerah .

I would like to know one more thing What is the Medinah uni curriculum for fiqh? because many of their graduates in foreign lands seems very "anti-madhabistic"

[Abu_Zahid]

Anti-madhabism was one of the main reasons for the 'downfall' of salafiyya.

Ibn Taymiyya was hardcore hanbali, yet not a fanatic, and like the muhaqqiqin from other schools he had many of his own ikhtiyarat.

Salafi and Hanbali are synonymous terms.

Who was this speaker?

Why is it that most salafis follow the Hanbali madhab?
I've also come across many excellent ahlus sunnah brothers who follow the shafa'i madhab...
never really the other 2 tho..
what are the reasons for this?

Is the Hanbali madhab, generally speaking, considered closest to the Qur'an and Sunnah in its opinons?

I was brought up as a Hanafi, i became practising some years back alhamdulillah, n eventually realised that the concept of "sticking to one madhab only and not leaving it for anything" is wrong...that was about a year ago..now I pray differently, try n avoid bidah in my daily activities, and whenever there is a need to find out the islamic verdict on a certain issue, i'll go to sources i trust who i know are not partisan towards a particular madhab.

But what does that make me then? I'm not really upon any madhab!!
This is something i've been meaning to discuss with a scholar in person, but I haven't done so yet.

[gag order]

abu hanifa said to the nearest meaning: when a hadith is found to be shahih then that is my madhab

[Abuz Zubair]

In some respects Salafiyya is a very loose term, as there were scholars who were staunch madhabist and salafis in creed, as well as free thinking modernist type who shunned all the innovations and accepted the beliefs of the Salaf, as there were those who shunned all madhabs altogether, from India and yemen as pointed out.

To my knowledge Madina Uni does not have a typical madhab based curriculum, since they get students from all over the world and different madhab, so they teach comparative fiqh works like bidayat al-mujtahid.

The reason why most of the Salafis are Hanbalis is precisely because nearly all of the Hanbalis are Salafis. And if it wasn't for the mu'tazili and/or maturidi hijacking of the Hanafi madhab, and Ash'ari hijacking of the Shafi'i and Maliki madhab, the vast majority of them, too, would be Salafis.

As for what it makes you? Well, aren't you pleased with being a Muslim, who follows the Sunnah of Allah's Messenger - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam?

Madhabs are only for those learning fiqh. So if you are learning fiqh, choose one of the four madhabs. Otherwise, madhabs become irrelevant to the general masses who are NOT traditionally learning fiqh...

[aboosafar]

Akhi Abuz Zubair, I was wondering, does the catergorization of bid'ah in acts of worship fall under fiqh or 'aqidah, because I'm trying to learn and practice shafi'i fiqh and the shafi'i fuquha' like Sultan al 'Ulama' al 'Izz ibn 'Abdis Salam, and Shaykh Jalal ad Din as Suyuti as well as I believe, Imam an Nawawi hold a different catergorization and understanding of bid'ah in worship then then hanbali's like ibn Taymiyah as laid out in Iqtidha' as Sirat al Mustaqim.

Would I be incorrect in following the shafi'i fuquha's understanding of the concept of bid'ah in 'ibadah, or can I take from them in that, as long as I stay away from deviations in 'aqidah?

I'm confused because I don't know if bid'ah in worship is somehow related to 'aqidah and I would rather ask instead of just going by assumptions due to the gravity of the issue.

Allah yajzeekal khair.

[Abuz Zubair]

In reality there is no difference between the two opinions and the maliki scholar al-Shatibi demonstrates that clearly.

When al-'Izz b. 'Abd al-Salam categorise bid'a into five categories, he means bid'a in its linguistic sense.

based on that he gave many verdicts declaring certain practises to be bid'a simply because the salaf did not perform them.

Yes, he did consider some practises to have asl in the sharia, but then again, what does or does not have asl in sharia is relative. This is why most of these scholars who allowed some bid'as yet forbade others do not have a firm dhabit to go by.

But in principle they all agree, and the difference is only semantics and some forms of implementation.

[Deenin']

I want to be a shaafi'ee. How do I become one? Please help me.

[Abuz Zubair]

Be a Hanbali instead, and the same goes for you Abu Safar ;)

أنا حنبلي ما حييت فإن أمت **** فوصيتي للناس أن يتحنبلوا

Great madhab, great Imam, great ashab, great history, great heritage... oh, and great fiqh :)

[Deenin']

Well, I will be a Hanbalee if you be my ustaadh, but otherwise I'm going to become a hardcore non-soofee shaafi'ee one day.

[Deenin']

I jsut need to figure out how to become a shaafi'ee first.

[aboosafar]

Allah yajzeekumul khair.

Akhi Deenin', I think the starting point would be studying a matn in shafi'i fiqh.

There are many mutun to choose from, but I intend to focus on 'Umdat as Salik insha'allah.

There is also matn Abi Shuja' but many smaller mutun are studied before these, like Safinatun Naja', ar Risalah al Jami'ah etc.

I'll try and find some links for you if you want but the place to start is a matn in ahkam and then just practice it and study it with a shaykh if you can, if not try and find some online courses or cassettes, and if not, then just read a clear text until you can find a better means insha'allah.

You might have to study fiqh with scholars who are ash'ari in 'aqidah from what I've been told because it can be hard to find an athar shafi'i scholar today but may Allah make us of them, aameen.

I like the quote by the way "fa wasiyati lin nas an yatahnbaloo", but I say nasihati lin nas an yatashafa'oo!!!:D

[Abu Faaris As-Sumalee]

Asalamu 'Alaykum

on a side note, is it me or is the hanbali madhab the new fasion now days?

Nothing against the madh-hab, it is excellent and their scholars are ,masha Allah tabarak wa ta'ala , amazing ,but we can say the same for other madhahib.

If its the aqeeda issue, then no one says that you cant take aqeeda from the scholars who are known to be from other madh-habs.

Infact i think it would be amazing if the brothers who have the correct understanding in aqeeda and where raised on the hanafi madh-hab to stick with it. Allah knows we need authoritys in the hanafi madh-hab who can affectivly guide the berwelvis back into the fold of islam and destroy a few habits in the indo-pak region.

I was in a berwelvi masjid and i asked one of the uncles why they were doing their group ZIKR at the end of the salah. He took me to this extra room in the masjid ,and after telling him that i have never heard of the sahabah doing this, he said somthing on the lines of


" ....brother, rasul ,salallahu 'Alayhi wa salam, and his companions were fighting jihad most of their lives so they didnt have time to teach us how to do Zikr, but abdul-qaadir al-jilaani tought us this ......"

at this point i knew the damage was too deep for me to do anything, but he continues

"...and brother their was a studie done at al-azhar university where they got a select number of sick people, some of them were treated with medicine while the others where told to say ALLAHU and HUU , they found that the ones who said HUU and ALLAHU were cured in a couple of days...."

And this isnt one of the harmless masjids, this is a hardcore berwelvi masjid, wich has had its fair share of fights in the past , i mean some of the arab brothers would go crazy and try to take down the ya muhamad sighns while these berwelvis would go crazy, shockingly crazy, i have seen people who are like 80 years old shouting and stamping on peoples legs ,walahi stamping on peoples legs !!!.

but i digress...the point im trying to make is that if people from their own blood studied their own fiqh and became authoritys then we will see great change insha Allah.

[Abuz Zubair]

To say it is hard to find Shafi'i Athari scholars might not be accurate... You will find many in Saudi... Ask multaqa Ahl al-hadeeth for the list of Salafi Shafi'i scholars I am sure they can point you to a thread that lists them all...

[Abuz Zubair]

Well you can be whatever madhab, so long as you are a hanbali in spirit :)

[Um Abdullah M.]

there are quite a few Shafi'i scholars of past who were on correct aqeedah (aqeedah of the Salaf).
Like Imam al A'imah Ibn Khuzaima
Imam Abu Uthman as Sabuni
Imam Ibn Jarir at Tabari

and wasn't al Hafidh Ibn Kathir also a Shafi'i in fiqh?
rahimahum Allah

These are just a few that came to my mind, there are more.

[Abuz Zubair]

Good ole' Multaqa:

من هم الشافعية الذين لم يتأثّروا بعقيدة الأشاعرة ؟ (http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=47079&highlight=%C7%E1%D4%C7%DD%DA%ED%C9+%C7%E1%D0%ED%E4 +%ED%CA%C3%CB%F8%D1%E6%C7+%C8%DA%DE%ED%CF%C9+%C7%E 1%C3%D4%C7%DA%D1%C9)

[aboosafar]

To say it is hard to find Shafi'i Athari scholars might not be accurate... You will find many in Saudi... Ask multaqa Ahl al-hadeeth for the list of Salafi Shafi'i scholars I am sure they can point you to a thread that lists them all...

Al hamdu lillah, I did ask a question similar to this but so far I haven't gotten an answer about any shafi'i athari scholars in Saudi or otherwise. I'd be very interested to find out about any shafi'i' athari scholars so I could benefit from them insha'allah.

I'll have to keep trying.

Thanks for the link too. That was very good.

And akhi Abu Faaris, I couldn't agree more with what you said. That is one of the reasons I am sticking with the shafi'i madhhab insha'allah.

Allahi baarak feekum.

[Abu_Zahid]

JazaakAllah khairan for the clarification..

It's very baffling, because whilst in Pakistan last year, I was speaking to my cousin, who is an aalim (from a deobandi madrassa), he told me that "Ahl-e-hadeeth dont believe in following ANY IMAMS!!"

I told him that that isnt the case, and that they do follow imams, but just dont have partisanship. He said "No way" tho basically, he was certain that they are ppl who refuse to make taqlid of any of the 4 schools..

I remmeber then reading somewhere recently (cant remember where, nor can i remember details), about how in pakistan, that is what the ppl who call themselves "Ahl-e-hadeeth" are...i.e., as my cousin described.

Why is this? And why are ppl who refer to themselves as "ahl-e-hadeeth" different here and different over there? Or have i just got it wrong?

ALso to further clarify..IS the term "Ahl-e-hadeeth" understood by ppl to be synonymous with the terms "salafi" etc..? I just am sometimes under the impression that diffferent ppl have different understandings of these same terms...would be nice if u could clear this all up for me once and for all inshaAllah! :D

Alhamdulillah Abuz-Zubayr, i take ur point..its a blessing alhamdulillah to just be a muslim who is trying to stick to the sunnah :) in fact it is after a lot of, sometimes baffling n confusing, research, that i came to the conclusion some time ago to forget about going too deep into these issues..lest i just start piling up knowledge which is of no real benefit to me..

but now that we're on the topic, I would like to know, just so i have a better understanding of the Pakistani mentality when i go back there next inshaAllah :) ..and the other little things that have been niggling in my mind for a while ; )


(btw Abu Faaris good to see u back on here akhi :D i thought u had left us!)

[bamshaheed]

How can the madhahib only be relevant to those learning fiqh? If the shari'a is the source we extrapolate Allah's (azza wa jall) Will from, and in turn submit to that Will, it seems that usul al-fiqh is indeed relevant to the "general masses", therefore, the madhahib are relevant as well. It has always been, as I have understood, the position of the modern day salafiyya movement to follow the evidence and not the madhab. The question for me is not whether the madhahib are relevant, but whether or not we fall into hizbiyya when we adhere to a madhab, or even to a group that claims to follow no madhab and by doing so becomes a madhab itself. The Prophet (sal allahu 'alayhi wa salaam) has clearly warned against hizbiyya.

[Abuz Zubair]

Forget about hizbiyya, ta'assub, or madhabism.

People are ranked into three categories:

1) Mujtahids, even if it be in an issue. These people must make ijtihad in issues in which they are qualified without resorting to taqlid, which for them is haram.

2) Student of knowledge. They study a particular madhab in order to eventually reach the status of a mujtahid even if it be in one issue. In issues in which they remain non-Mujtahids, what's obligatory on them is what is obligatory on the rest of the laymen, and that is to ask any mufti they trust and make taqlid, irrespective of whatever madhab he may be from.

3) layman (all of us here). They have absolutely nothing to do with any madhab at all whatsoever. Their entire responsibility is to approach a mufti they trust and simply make taqlid of his fatwa, irrespective of whatever madhab he is from.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

there are quite a few Shafi'i scholars of past who were on correct aqeedah (aqeedah of the Salaf).
Like Imam al A'imah Ibn Khuzaima
Imam Abu Uthman as Sabuni
Imam Ibn Jarir at Tabari

and wasn't al Hafidh Ibn Kathir also a Shafi'i in fiqh?
rahimahum Allah

These are just a few that came to my mind, there are more.

don't forget Imaam al-ajuree author of the athari 'aqeeda book "ash-sharee'ah"

yes ibn kathir, and adh-dhahabee, al-mizzi, rahimahumullah

[Abuz Zubair]

al-Aajurri is claimed by both groups... Hanbalis and Shafi'is. Let's make him hanbali ;)

[abu hafs]

the following is from brother Sharif Abu Jafar's mailing list

m: "abdoellah_moulay" <moulay_ghzili@...>
Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 12:04 pm
Subject: al-Shafi'iyyah versus the Ash'aris abdoellah_mo...
al-Salamu alaikum,

Al-Shafi'iyyah vs the Ash'aris:
The True Legacy of Imam al-Shafi'i and his Followers in Opposing the
people of Kalam in general and the Ash'ariyyah in particular

Part One: Imam al-Shafi'i and his Students

Imam al-Shafi'i's opposition against `speculative theology', or
Kalam, is well-known. Reports of him in which he says that
Mutakallimun should be beaten with palm rods, that not any
participant in Kalam ever succeeds, and statements similar to these
are abundantly reported by scholars from different parties; so well
received that even Ibn `Asakir, propagandist of Kalam in the Ash'ari
form, confirmed this in a way taking it for granted by saying: "If
nobody else then al-Shafi'i has censured Kalam, it would be enough".
(1)
This observation is so obvious, as it was for Imam al-Shafi'i's
contemporaries, except for some of al-Shafi'i's followers among the
later scholars and laymen.
Imam al-Shafi'i's aversion to Kalam hasn't the same effect on some of
his students. It's reported that al-Muzani, Abu Thawr, and especially
al-Karabisi as students of Imam al-Shafi'i have indulged themselves
in Kalam. (2) Fortunately, this does not count for other students of
Imam al-Shafi'i, such as Abu `Ubayd, Ahmad b. Hanbal and al-Muradi
from the earliest generation Shafi'iyyah. (3) Also the later
Shafi'is, especially the prominent ones, kept back of Kalam. Ibn
Taymiyyah, probably the best medieval historicus of Muslim sects,
stressed this very well in his trials about his beliefs: "I said to
those leading Shafi'is who adressed me, `Look, I will make clear that
what I have stated is the position of the Salaf and the leading
scholars, among the followers of al-Shafi'i'", speaking about
his `Aqidah that's free of Kalam, "I will cite the doctrine of al-
Ash'ari and the leading scholars among his disciples, which will
refute the position of these opponents. Every Shafi'i will gain a
victory". (4) Ibn Taymiyyah, and his silent witnesses who mostly
adhered to the Shafi'i Madhab, were aware of this observation. At
least, until Taj al-Din al-Subki released his propaganda in which he
claimed that almost every Shafi'i followed the Ash'ari Kalam. (5)
What the sources indicate is a anti-Kalam stance from the great
majority of the Shafi'is, even after al-Subki's time (for example al-
Birzali, al-Mizzi, and above all, al-Subki's master, al-Dhahabi).
Actually, al-Subki's propaganda was necessary for the sake of the non-
Ash'arite Shafi'is who formed the great part of the ranks of al-
Subki's Madhab he tried to convince. (6)
The evidence in favour of Imam al-Shafi'i's most prominent followers
in non-committing to Kalam are the writings they left in manuscript
and quotation. There's no trace that they involved in any discussion
about Allah, or any involvement in other basic issues on Kalam.
Indeed, Imam Ahmad's conviction about his teacher, that "The best
evasive device employed by al-Shafi'i was the absence of any desire
for, or interest in Kalam; Fiqh was his only concern", counts most
probably also for al-Shafi'i's other students who were prominent.
(7) Ahmad's assertion that al-Za'farani, a Baghdadi student of al-
Shafi'i, was ok, speaks highly in favour for him (knowing how severe
Imam Ahmad was against Ahl al-Kalam). It's also reported that al-
Za'farani merely transmitted what al-Shafi'i said, without additions
or extensions of his own. (8) Al-Khattabi, a leading 4th century
Shafi'I, confirm this in presenting evidence of the `Aqidah of the
Salaf on the authority of al-Za'farani. (9)
Imam al-Shafi'i himself advised once al-Rabi al-Muradi explicitly
not to "allow yourself to become preoccupied with Kalam. My view
regarding them who engage in Kalam is that their heads should be
covered with scourges and that they should flee to other lands. They
should be dealt with like Umar did with Sabigh!", a statement fellow-
students of al-Rabi' could not have missed, at least not the contents
of the message al-Shafi'i proclaimed! (10)
Although these students of Imam al-Shafi'i are famous, al-Muzani
stands out as a disciple of the Imam. It's reported that he was
highly interested in Kalam, and for this reason the Traditionist Abu
Zur'ah al-Razi avoided studying under him. (11) One of al-Muzani's
positions in Kalam is known, and it clearly identiefs him as a
Mutakallim: that the name is other than the named. (12) This
position, also attributed to Ibn Kullab, is contrary to al-Shafi'i's
teachings, who personally declared: "Whenever I hear someone say that
the name is other than the thing named, I declare such a person is
guilty of heresy (lit. Zandaqah)". (13) Al-Muzani's deviation of Imam
al-Shafi'i's teachings in theology is parallel to his deviation in
jurisprudence as Ibn Surayj testifies rightly, saying, "On the Day of
Resurrection, al-Shafi'i will be brought forth and with him al-
Muzani, He will say, `This one has corrupted my sciences'". (14) Al-
Muzani's importance for the Shafi'i Madhab cannot be denied or his
accomplishment in Fiqh, even if he deviated much on both principles
(usul) as derivatives (furu'), but his thought on theology, if there
is any trace to it, should be dismissed as non-Shafi'ite, and as such
alien to all sincere Shafi'is who follow the footsteps of their Imam.
The exceptions, along with al-Muzani, are the already named Ibn
Kullab, claimed as a Shafi'i but not known to have studied under Imam
al-Shafi'i, al-Karabisi, Abu Thawr and Abd al-Aziz b. Yahya al-
Kinani, all three students of al-Shafi'i. Others associated with the
Shafi'iyyah and contemporary are al-Muhasibi and Dawud al-Zahiri. (15)
Al-Karabisi's jurisprudential interest in both usul and furu' can be
confirmed by biographical sources, but there is some little doubt on
whether he really studied under Imam al-Shafi'i. The doubt stems form
Ahmad b. Hanbal, vehemently opposing al-Karabisi's doctrine on the
Quran's recitation, who questions, with Abu Thawr, the formers
association with the famous Imam. (16) Al-Karabisi's doctrine is said
to be followed by, surprisingly, Abu Thawr, also by Ibn Kullab, al-
Muhasibi and Dawud b. Ali. If we are right in this, the Kalam about
the Qur'an's recitation originates, although among those who are or
could be identified as Shafi'is, in the the circle of Imam al-
Shafi'i's students. If we consider this correct, and earlier
indications testify to this, we can free Imam al-Shafi'i completely
from Kalam. For if those who followed al-Karabisi in this particular
matter haven't claimed to learn this doctrine or any other Kalam from
Imam al-Shafi'I, we can conclude that al-Shafi'i and his principal
students are free from it. (17)
Abu Thawr was a Shafi'i, but loosely. He aligned himself with the Ahl
al-Hadith, renouncing ra'y. In matters on theology he was condemmed
by Imam Ahmad for making use of Kalam in the hadith report, `Allah
created Adam in His image', by divesting the meaning of `his' from
Allah to Adam. (18)
Al-Muhasibi endured most hostility because of his theological
beliefs. Although not a student of Imam al-Shafi'I, he studied with
his students. Muhasibi's problem was his position concerning the
Qur'an, `talking about the pronunciation' (lit. kalam fi'l-lafz) and
other matters. There's also the report that Muhasibi casted doubt on
the audibility of Allah's voice. (19) Last but not least is Dawud b.
Ali, sometimes counted as a Shafi'i. His position on the
pronunciation is identical with those aforementioned. Ibn Abi Hatim
(see a earlier post about his beliefs, in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah/) renounced him as a
heretic, disassociating him from the Ahl al-Hadith. (20) Wheter he
condemmed him also for issues related to Kalam isn't sure, but what's
certain is that Dawud learnt the teachings of Imam al-Shafi'i trhough
Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Shafi'i, a faithful student of the Imam in Fiqh,
but a Mu'tazilite in dogma who believed that the Qur'an was created.
(21) Lastly, there's the report from Abu Tahir al-Dhuhli who
identified Dawud as a disciple in Kalam of Ibn Kullab. (22)
These four, al-Karabisi, Abu Thawr, al-Muhasibi and Dawud have all in
common their `Shafi'ism', but their theological beliefs, especially
about the Qur'an, cannot stem from Imam al-Shafi'I or his reliable
students. All reports indicates that they learnt their innovative
beliefs from either al-Karabisi or Ibn Kullab (Dawud learnt also from
Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Shafi'i). Imam al-Shafi'i's difference with them
can be seen in his report on the uncreatedness of the Qur'an, as
referred to in al-Ash'ari's al-Ibanah. This confirms the thesis again
that al-Shafi'i stands aloof of Kalam.
Al-Buwaythi, the second most important student after al-Muzani to
whom the Imam entrusted his circle of study, died for professing the
uncreatedness of the Qur'an, faithfully following his teacher. (23)
Imam Ahmad's position on it is famous, and Abu `Ubayd's is well known
too. Of course, those involved in Kalam and associating with al-
Shafi'i or his students almost all believe in the same dogma as their
Imam (i.e. that the Qur'an is uncreated). But, we're trying to make a
point on the basis of evidence in favour of a traditional stance,
what necessary implies that figures such as al-Shafi'i and his
followers would never upheld innovative beliefs based on Kalam such
as `the pronunciation', `the neutral position' etc.
The leading Shafi'is after the first generation can be identified
easier as for their affiliation to the Madhab. Abu Ja'far al-
Tirmidhi, Abu Abdallah al-Zubayri, Mansur b. Isma'il, al-Marwazi, Ibn
Khuzaymah, Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Surayj were thé most important
Shafi'is who teached Fiqh. Others, not primarily jurisprudents,
important men are al-Nasa'I, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Ali al-Rudabari and
the independent jurist al-Tabari. Some of these great Shafi'is have
taken a hard stance against Kalam and it's followers, as we shall try
to present.

(to be continued with full references, Insha'Allah)

[bamshaheed]

as salamu 'alaikum br. Abuz Zubair,

I understand, and agree, with your points 1 and 2. However, I disagree that a muslim need only find a mujtahid they trust and "simply make taqlid of his fatwa". I think it is important for him or her to investigate and review the evidences to the best of his or her ability and adhere to the fatawa that contain the best supporting evidences. We live in a 1-800-fatawa, or a fatawa.com, age now and not every fatwa can be reliable and/or is based on reliable evidences. I agree that taqlid is necessary to a certain degree (mostly based on one's ability to discern for himself). However, displacency and laziness cannot be a substitute for careful investigation and education. Finding a mufti that is trustworthy does not necessarily make his fatawa correct. wallahu 'alum.

[Abuz Zubair]

According to the correct opinion and the majority, the layman's only job is to look for a qualified mufti. If he fails in that and ends up asking someone who is NOT qualified, then the layman IS to blame.

However, if he does his job, i.e. he looks for a qualified mufti and asks him the question, then technically, he has done his job, and whatever fatwa he is given he may act upon it if he wishes.

Can he ask the mufti for the evidence? Some scholars said he should, whilst the majority said that he shouldn't because a) it is considered bad manners, and he should wait and ask him in another gathering or another time, and b) evidences are of no relevance to him, rather his proof is the mufti's fatwa.

If he is not satisfied with the fatwa, he may go to a different mufti and ask him for fatwa, since a fatwa is not binding on a person especially if there is more than one mufti available.

[asharee_salafi]

salaams abu zubair,

to what i remember it was saleem al hilali and the translator was abu usama dhahabi.

you are raising good points, i wish you could meet some of the salees i know!

it seems maybe the asharites have one up upon us as theyd on;t get in madhab disputes, though they do suffer from ignorance......

[juwairiyah]

Assalamo'alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

According to the correct opinion and the majority, the layman's only job is to look for a qualified mufti. If he fails in that and ends up asking someone who is NOT qualified, then the layman IS to blame.




The problem is that a fanantic hanfi will always go to a hanfi 'aalim .They will never go to an ahlehadeeth 'aalim.So whose fault is this ?So they end up being on the wrong path .Now how can u say a layman can make taqlid of the mufti .
Most of the things that these fanatic hanfis follow are based on weak ahaadeeths subhanAllah.may Allah guide them ameen.

[Abuz Zubair]

Assalamo'alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

.




The problem is that a fanantic hanfi will always go to a hanfi 'aalim .They will never go to an ahlehadeeth 'aalim.So whose fault is this ?So they end up being on the wrong path .Now how can u say a layman can make taqlid of the mufti .
Most of the things that these fanatic hanfis follow are based on weak ahaadeeths subhanAllah.may Allah guide them ameen.
We have to have a balanced and have scientific approach in these issues that are based on principles as laid out and discussed amongst various scholars for centuries.

If we are to be scientific and non-biased in our approach, then we must not also fear NOT toeing the party-line, be it an organisational, yet non-ideological Hizb (such as the tabligh), or an organisational-ideological Hizb (such as HT), or a non-organisational, yet an ideological Hizb (such as many followers of the Salafi movement). This was in essence the school that Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim strove to revive.

Lack of this objective-scientific approach is what brought many Salafis down to their knees, because while condemning the Hanafi fanatics they themselves became fanatical followers of a few modern-day lesser-scholars, to whom Salafiyya was more based on emotions and zeal than science and enlightenment.

A result of that was complete disregard for the four Madhabs and the efforts of their adherents, such that people were referred to as 'Hanafis' in a derogatory fashion. This stands in contrast to Ibn Taymiyya's attitude in these issues. In fact, he was the most unbiased researches of all who would be just and balanced with everyone, and the foremost of defenders of the four Imams and their followers. Read Raf' al-Malam of Ibn Taymiyya if you wish, or I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in of Ibn al-Qayyim.

Hanafi madhab has been one of the strongest Madhabs in fiqh to survive and thanks to them before other Madhabs, that many of the hypothetical issues they dealt with before industrialisation are now being helpful, and are being considered by modern councils of fuqaha.

Yes, Hanafi madhab have many opinions that are weak, but the same is also applicable to Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik. With respect to Imam Ahmad, sometimes one wonders how on earth the Imam reached certain fiqhi conclusion where not only that there is no text, but there is not even a fatwa of a Sahabi or a statement of an 'Alim!

So it is unfair to state or even think that the public should not refer to Hanafi Imams.

Rather, the correct opinion is that since the layman has no madhab, he may go to any of the muftis irrespective of his Madhab, be he a hanafi, maliki, Shafi'i or whoever, so long as he is well-known and recognised mufti in the community, the layman can refer to him, thereby fulfilling Allah's command: Ask the people of dhikr, if you know not --- that is it, no more, no less.

Secondly, following a fiqhi opinion does not render a person beyond the pale of orthodoxy, even if it be weak. A person can remain 100% orthodox, even if he does not raise his hands before and after ruku' or if he places his hands below his navel, as it is the hanbali and the hanafi madhab.

As far as a fanatic hanafi is concerned, if he is a layman, you cannot do much about him, except to inform him that since he is a layman he has no madhab. But knowing that he is fanatic, it is very unlikely that he will listen to you. But even then, there is no sin on him if he wants to refer to the Hanafi muftis only. He will only be creating more unnecessary hardship for himself by restricting the number of muftis. But it remains Islamically legitimate for him to refer to the hanafi muftis, or muftis from whichever madhab, so long as he is a qualified mufti.

[AbuZakariyya]

A person can remain 100% orthodox, even if he does not raise his hands before and after ruku' or if he places his hands below his navel, as it is the hanbali and the hanafi madhab.


that answers one of those nagging question that I had ;)

[moubeen]

We have to have a balanced and have scientific approach in these issues that are based on principles as laid out and discussed amongst various scholars for centuries.

If we are to be scientific and non-biased in our approach, then we must not also fear NOT toeing the party-line, be it an organisational, yet non-ideological Hizb (such as the tabligh), or an organisational-ideological Hizb (such as HT), or a non-organisational, yet an ideological Hizb (such as many followers of the Salafi movement). This was in essence the school that Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim strove to revive.

Lack of this objective-scientific approach is what brought many Salafis down to their knees, because while condemning the Hanafi fanatics they themselves became fanatical followers of a few modern-day lesser-scholars, to whom Salafiyya was more based on emotions and zeal than science and enlightenment.

A result of that was complete disregard for the four Madhabs and the efforts of their adherents, such that people were referred to as 'Hanafis' in a derogatory fashion. This stands in contrast to Ibn Taymiyya's attitude in these issues. In fact, he was the most unbiased researches of all who would be just and balanced with everyone, and the foremost of defenders of the four Imams and their followers. Read Raf' al-Malam of Ibn Taymiyya if you wish, or I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in of Ibn al-Qayyim.

Hanafi madhab has been one of the strongest Madhabs in fiqh to survive and thanks to them before other Madhabs, that many of the hypothetical issues they dealt with before industrialisation are now being helpful, and are being considered by modern councils of fuqaha.

Yes, Hanafi madhab have many opinions that are weak, but the same is also applicable to Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik. With respect to Imam Ahmad, sometimes one wonders how on earth the Imam reached certain fiqhi conclusion where not only that there is no text, but there is not even a fatwa of a Sahabi or a statement of an 'Alim!

So it is unfair to state or even think that the public should not refer to Hanafi Imams.

Rather, the correct opinion is that since the layman has no madhab, he may go to any of the muftis irrespective of his Madhab, be he a hanafi, maliki, Shafi'i or whoever, so long as he is well-known and recognised mufti in the community, the layman can refer to him, thereby fulfilling Allah's command: Ask the people of dhikr, if you know not --- that is it, no more, no less.

Secondly, following a fiqhi opinion does not render a person beyond the pale of orthodoxy, even if it be weak. A person can remain 100% orthodox, even if he does not raise his hands before and after ruku' or if he places his hands below his navel, as it is the hanbali and the hanafi madhab.

As far as a fanatic hanafi is concerned, if he is a layman, you cannot do much about him, except to inform him that since he is a layman he has no madhab. But knowing that he is fanatic, it is very unlikely that he will listen to you. But even then, there is no sin on him if he wants to refer to the Hanafi muftis only. He will only be creating more unnecessary hardship for himself by restricting the number of muftis. But it remains Islamically legitimate for him to refer to the hanafi muftis, or muftis from whichever madhab, so long as he is a qualified mufti.

So true... I came to realise some of the things you mentioned only after years,... how did the salafi "movement" - particularly in the west - allow so many irresponsible people to take responsibility and authority?

[abudurrah]

During the time of Ibn Abbas, there was a small dispute regarding the Hajj, which leads us to this Hadith:

Ibn `Abbas (ra) said: “Stones are about to rain down upon you from the sky: I say to you: “Allah’s Messenger said…” and you reply: “But Abu Bakr and `Umar said

Ibn Abbas (RA) made that statement, after the people he was talking to said “But Abu Bakr and ‘Umar said …” eventhough Ibn Abbas (RA) gave them a Hadith from the Prophet (SAW). And yet, these were two of the greatest companions !

..................................
“That in the opinion of Imam Ahmad it is forbidden to abandon the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger in favour of the saying of any person, no matter how knowledgeable and pious he may be.”

[Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab, Kitab At-Tawheed, Chapter 36]

full artcle was posted by a brother here http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3234

i found the following and i thought it was very interesting and beneficial but it also raises many questions, such that laymen cant have extreme taqleed even in fiqhi issues (like the axample of ibn abbas (ra))

[aboosafar]

I could be off, but I think this has something to do with ibn 'Abbas having been a qualified mufti and faqih himself as opposed to someone far lesser in status than him who comes with a random, isolated hadith or ayah and expects people to understand it exactly how he understood it whereas the Imams gathered all the relevant aayat and ahadith they new pertaining to a given issue and ruled accordingly and much of what they were mistaken in was later on corrected by the muhaqqiqeen of their madhahib of later generations and much of the differening between madhahib could be due to differences in interpreting the evidences as well as differing on the authenticity of the evidences themselves as well as many other reasons.

This is covered, I believe in Raf'ul Malam as well as Shaykh 'Uthaymin's book on the causes for differences of opinion amongst the scholars.

I believe Shah Waliullah Dehlawi wrote a book on this as well.

In many issues their is a lot of istinbat involved which only people grounded in knowledge understand and are capable of.

[Abuz Zubair]

Neither knowing many quotes, nor a lot of knowledge is necessarily understanding of religion (fiqh).

For I can also bring you another quote:

[Says Ibn Taymiyya]: “[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.”

Referring to the Book and the Sunnah are for those who understand the book and the Sunnah. Someone who does not know Arabic, has no hope of understanding most of the legal aspects of Sharia embedded in the Quran and Sunnah. Someone who knows Arabic with perfect grammar, yet does not know Usul al-Fiqh, he cannot derive rulings from texts. Someone who knows Usul al-Fiqh and Arabic, yet does not know Mustalah al-hadeeth and the science of jarh, is bound to base fiqhi rulings on mawdu'at.

Legislation process in Islam is only for those who inherit the Prophet's knowledge, and not every 'Ali, Zayd and 'Amr in the Ummah. This much is common sense.

Giving every 'Amr, Zayd and 'Ali the right to legislate in Allah's deen, having no knowledge at all, will do nothing but devalue the Sharia immensely. This is something we have all seen today with a bunch of reckless youngsters inventing new fiqh rulings with respect to intentionally killing women and children, ironically, in the name of the very Sharia which prohibits that in explicit terms.

[abudurrah]

forget about madhabs for a minute cos theyre still good


what about extereme issues
is it still allowed to have extreme taqleed on fiqhi issues, i mean there are rules people follow like its allowed to shave off the beard and other things

there are also 'scholars' out there who say u can be gay whoever wtched the channel 4 programme would know what im talking about when they said my sheikh says is ok
they make it a fiqh issue, so what about when people do taqleed to them

this is why the article 'but the shaikh says' has relevance

[y-mughal]

This is something we have all seen today with a bunch of reckless youngsters inventing new fiqh rulings with respect to intentionally killing women and children, ironically, in the name of the very Sharia which prohibits that in explicit terms.

Ibn Uthaymeen sounded quite old when explaining 'The Chapter on Jihad ' in 'Buloogh al-Maram'.

[Abuz Zubair]

forget about madhabs for a minute cos theyre still good


what about extereme issues
is it still allowed to have extreme taqleed on fiqhi issues, i mean there are rules people follow like its allowed to shave off the beard and other things

there are also 'scholars' out there who say u can be gay whoever wtched the channel 4 programme would know what im talking about when they said my sheikh says is ok
they make it a fiqh issue, so what about when people do taqleed to them

this is why the article 'but the shaikh says' has relevance
No the article has no relevance...

The entire issue of fatwa has been dealt with in various books through out Islamic history. We are not discussing anything new here. It is new to you because most probably you haven't read up what the scholars have written on the topic of fatwas...

A person should not refer to a) a mufti who is known for being lax in fatwa, or b) a non-mufti who speaks without knowledge.

Category b includes the bulk of you brothers, including those who write up these shallow articles without having studied even the basics. DIY, free-for-all kind of freaks.

y-mughal,

Grow up bro, and bring us something new. I know Ibn Uthaymin is old, and I also know that you guys, and those who write reckless fatwas for tibyan are reckless kids. While Ibn Uthaymin is rewarded for his wrong ijtihad, you reckless kids are sinful for even a right ijtihad. World of difference.

[Contemplation]

Bro Abu Zubair, how do we know someone is a qualified mufti?

[abudurrah]

No the article has no relevance...

A person should not refer to a) a mufti who is known for being lax in fatwa, or b) a non-mufti who speaks without knowledge.


ive read quotes from scholars of the past that its better to also be wary of muftis who are too close to the rulers as well, and speak for the politics of the ruler

im sure you've read those quotes, should you add that onto your list as well (list of muftis to avoid).............. or am i being given quotes out of context

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, of course they are included and mentioned explicitly in works dealing with this topic.

However, where people get confused is when some scholars take up official positions, or receive stipend from the ruler, as many Imams, fuqaha and muhaddithin used to in the past, be the ruler just or corrupt. That it self is not a sign of one selling his deen for the politics of the ruler. These people are not intended. Entering upon the ruler is another fiqhi issue where scholars have written works merely from a legal perspective, precisely because there exists difference of opinion.

[abudurrah]

what about muftis who do not undergo sacrfice and struggle, they do not do any active dawah support the fard at a time when it is needed, like the jihad and they dont care about the establishing isalm
they have good knowledge inherited from the prophet (saw), but they but they dont inherit his path and struggle to expose the bidah and shirk in the community, they dont do public dawah like the scholars of the past did. should knowledgable people like this be avoided (i believe so to an extent)

theres a saying about donkey carrying books

thats why everyone has to agree that sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah (rah) is the best of his century, not only did he have immense knowledge , he spread that knowledge at the time when it was required against the evil people and ideas, he called to jihad when it was needed, he didnt just inherit the knowledge of the prophet(saw) he inherited the struggle and followed the same path also like the other 4 imams

thats why i believe you can do taqleed to them, they have proven their character
on the other hand doing taqleed to scholars of today is hard, some of them speak on behalf of the rulers, some are chasing duniya, some of them are known to be moderate and believ in reviving the islam to fit this day and age

[Break The Cross]

theres a saying about donkey carrying books

thats why everyone has to agree that sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah (rah) is the best of his century, not only did he have immense knowledge , he spread that knowledge at the time when it was required against the evil people and ideas, he called to jihad when it was needed, he didnt just inherit the knowledge of the prophet(saw) he inherited the struggle and followed the same path also like the other 4 imams

thats why i believe you can do taqleed to them, they have proven their character
on the other hand doing taqleed to scholars of today is hard, some of them speak on behalf of the rulers, some are chasing duniya, some of them are known to be moderate and believ in reviving the silam o fit this day and age


The likeness of those who were entrusted with the (obligation of the) Taurat (Torah), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). How bad is the example (or the likeness) of people who deny the Ayat of Allah. And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun. [62:5]

Aya is a punch in the nose for those who have knowledge but dont live by it and sit around pretending to be righteous.

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu Durrah,

I am really sorry if I sound condescending, but this is precisely why I asked you for your age.

You see, some of your arguments, or even thoughts are beyond ridiculous, but I cannot blame you if you are coming from al-Muhajirun background, and consider people like Salman al-'Awda and yasir Qadhi deviants!

To begin with, you yourself have no track-record of struggle, just like the rest of your al-Muhajirun friends. You see, you are only 20. About a decade ago, when you were only 10, we used to refer to HTs (who were largely al-Muhajirun) as just a bunch of emotional young kids who are only good at lip-service. There is so much I can tell you, but some of those things are not to be said on a public forum, but I hope you get the idea. And if you still don't get it, then let me say this: HTs and al-Muhajirun are the most befitting of people to be categorised amongst those about whom Allah says: Why do you say that which you do not do?

We used to refer to your da'wah as the 'leaflet' da'wah. And to make it worse, you guys would actually sing in the praise of yourselves, claiming courage and bravery by speaking about Jihad in a society that we have here, where, at least before 9/11, you were free to say what you like.

Not only it would be ridiculous, but hypocritical for you to question what other people may or may not have sacrificed for Islam. And of cours,e 'sacrifice' for you is a very narrowly defined term. Someone could have spent 5-6 years in jail, yet he would still be a sell out for you if he does not share YOUR view of sacrifice.

A person dedicating his entire life studying fiqh and benefiting the Ummah is considered sacrifice. At the time of Imam Ahmad, the vast majority of the scholars gave in to the rulers and acknowledged that the Quran was created, since they didn't want to go through troubles. Yet, they were still recognised as Imams in Jarh and Ta'dil and fiqh, etc etc etc...

Now to something slightly different. Something more important to you in particular:

1) Realise that you are very young and relatively very new to the deen and you have a lot to learn.

2) Realise that someone you might be 'debating' may have had 10s of debates with your seniors for the past decade when you were only ten.

3) Realise that Sharia, the legal texts are not free for all that anyone can feel free to come up with his own independent understanding and legislate in the deen. We are Ahl al-Sunnah and neither protestant nor catholic movement.

[abudurrah]

about your posts: i dont consider yasir qadhi a deviant but his comment about arrest muslims was of of order, about salman ald awdah all i hear was that heard was that he sold out the mujahideen, if thats true then i would rather not listen to him.

during imam ahmads time those that were considered scholars even though they gave in to the rulers and they aknowledged the quran was created, so would it be ok if all the laymen at the time made taqleed to them fully

1)im young and you acknowledgaing that doesnt help me understand anything new, it doesnt help me get closer to the truth neither does your experience with groups teach me anything new, i want to whats happening, and how to deal with solutions to our situation

2) did it look like i was having a debate with u
just as i do not claim to have knowledge neither did i clam to have endergone the struggle of the prophet (saw) i was just saying that scholars dont do it today like they used to before
neither was i saying that one must go prison to become as scholar, i was just talking about active effort and struggle as a characteristic of a scholar

3)when did i legislate in the deen (if youre talking about voting, then you didnt answer any of my questions that i should understand and change my view, the latest thing i had asked was whether sheikh ghunaymaans saying that voting is shirk independant of the intention applied to britian, u said u would ask him)
the answer would make a difference to me especially if he also explains the difference between the two situations islamically

who said i made up the conclusions straight off my head, i read other conclusions by other knowledgable people and adopt them
who am i to do that decipher which conclusions are correct or wrong well, im prepared follow what i believ is islamic from the evidences other knowledgebale people have given and i am prepare to change them if other knowledgable people can prove them wrong.

tell me how else a laymen does it, if you want me to follow my local mufti........then he sells taweez for a living, if you want me to follow the local salafi centre (the only thing i go to is the coverage of fiqh us sunnah) then there madkhali attitude is really bad
if you want me to follow a madhab then this doesnt answer any of todays questions, if you want me to follow your scholar then why should i follow him specifically, when i believ the way the scholars are facing the political situation following them in that will be detrimental to the ummah, and we will be doing what the kuffar wants

the prophet (saw) had told us that all extremists would be destroyed and extremism is relative knowledge

and the only reason i speak to you is beause i wanna know if i am the type of extremist that trangresses tha bounds of shariah in my ideas, and thats what matters to me.

but it also scares me that i become like you
im scared of becoming a person who goes to an islamic institution comes out with to much so called 'hikmah' and starts saying things that are oppositte to what the quran and sunnah and the salaf and pull it off by saying the issues and solutions are complex
...... about becoming like you (more 'mature') and possessing 'hikmah' like yours and other 'knowledgable people' think just like mcb when it comes to politics

[Abu Ilyas]

Abu Zubair your a Bully :) . Go pick on someone your own age.

[Abuz Zubair]

Excuse me! I am the one being bullied here ;)

[abudurrah]

Excuse me! I am the one being bullied here ;)
if its by me then that was not my intention

btw tell me something what does age have to do with anything, i know people that are much older then me and are much more hot headed, and ive seen people make quick takfeer and theyre much more experienced then me, theyve lived life more, and theyve got kids.

wisdom does not come with age and experience it comes with knowledge of islam and true hikmah comes from how to apply it.

my age or my experience is not my weakness, my lack of knowledge and struggle is my weakness

[Abu Hafsa]

Akh Abu Durrah, why dont you go mideast for a few years and learn arabic, tajweed, a couple of books of fiqh, and aqidah maybe with some teachers, it would be great for your the progression in your deen and knowlege, and help you in your coming years in the struggle.

I disagree Experience is very important coupled with knowlege as well, as opposed to knowlege and its application by itself as you stated. If a brothers been where i have and done that, i would like to hear his words of advise and wisdom.

[abudurrah]

jazaakallah khair for the advice, but youre right knowledge is most important

the thing is at the moment im here, so let me understand what i can from this position

let me say it again............experience does matter but it does not need to be experienced by every individual ........its enough that you have knowdge of the experience that others have gone through to judge the situation


ps. why do i need to go to mideast to study those things cant one study them here

[Abuz Zubair]

I know its not your intention, bro... It is just your age.

I do not want to tell you that sometimes arguing with you is like arguing with my five year old daughter...

Me: Well, dear daughter, the Alphabets you read are actually pronounced Ay, Bee, See, Dee.

Daughter: No. It is A Ba Ka Da, Ay Fa, Ga...

Me: Trust me, my dear daughter, I am 23 years older than you and I know more.

Daughter: No, but Mama says A Ba Ka Da, etc.... (this is how they are pronounced in phonics)

Me: Ok... whatever you say ;)

[abudurrah]

your daughter lacks knowledge, when she increases the kowledge she will be more correct inshallah

i know people older then me that cant spell many words, and they cant read, age has nothing to do with anything

maybe later in life she can teach a few things that u never knew

ps. i make spelling mstakes when i type

[Abuz Zubair]

Knowledge AND age have everything to do with it...

We cannot compare ourselves to the Sahaba because a twenty-year-old from us would be like a 5 year-old amongst the Sahaba...

trust me... age has everything to do with it.

[abudurrah]

i think you mean maturity anyway a said before as long as theyre linguistically mature and can their actions be accounted by the shariah, so examples if kid daughter and 5 year old sahaabah dont count.

what do yiou say about shaabahs like osamah bin zaid (ra)

[Abuz Zubair]

bro... please... let's end it here ;)

Why?

We cannot compare ourselves to the Sahaba because a twenty-year-old from us would be like a 5 year-old amongst the Sahaba...

what do yiou say about shaabahs like osamah bin zaid (ra)

this is why...

plz...

[Yasir]

...so examples if kid daughter and 5 year old sahaabah dont count.Don't they?
Go explain that to Umm Sulaym, radhiyAllahu 'anhaa.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I know its not your intention, bro... It is just your age.

I do not want to tell you that sometimes arguing with you is like arguing with my five year old daughter...

Me: Well, dear daughter, the Alphabets you read are actually pronounced Ay, Bee, See, Dee.

Daughter: No. It is A Ba Ka Da, Ay Fa, Ga...

Me: Trust me, my dear daughter, I am 23 years older than you and I know more.

Daughter: No, but Mama says A Ba Ka Da, etc.... (this is how they are pronounced in phonics)

Me: Ok... whatever you say ;)

so you are only 28? you do talk a lot about maturity for a 28 year old :)

[Aboo Suhayb]

mashaaAllah!

say 'mashaaAllah' then Abdullah ; )

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

inshaAllah, mashaAllah, barakallahu feek! ))

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

getting back the subject of the thread. Akhi Abuzubair In my area pretty much all of the ulema are hanafi and they are muftis who strictly abide by their madhab never leaving it. So in these circumstances is it still permissable to take fatwa from him?

I think this is the situation of 99 percent of the hanafi Ulema around the world. for example people like Mufti Ebrahim Desai and Mufti Taqi Uthmani also never leave the hanafi madhab in their rulings.

Jazakallah khair

[juwairiyah]

Assalamo'alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

JazakAllahukhair Abu Zubair for ur response to my post.Since I lack ilm hence i cant debate in this matter but I know we should nt have taassub for any madhab .What I meant was some ppl adhere to their imams be it hanfi,shafi or hanbali and follow wrong things too.And yes if anyone follows wrong things of a salfi then that is also taqleed.
InshaAllah I have to take the strongest opinion which goes along the quran and saheeh hadeeth

BarikAllahufeekum

[asharee_salafi]

Sorry,

but still the questions tands, how does one become e.g hanbali if he contradicts teh rulings of his madhab.

I don't disagree but I need to know as I know one salafi who asks these questions.


Personally I feel its unfair to put Sh ibn baz and Sh Uthaymeen in the camp of ibn taymiyyah and Sheikh Abdul Wahab......

Why should we put them in that camp when there are people that have existed that are better then them.
Maybe I am wrong, but apart what of scholary knowldge for the sake of the Ummah have they propogated....e.g have theyd ealt with political issues, have they tried to stop the trend of 'super salafees' , have they condemmed Muslims more then colonial powers.

Pls educate me as I don;t know much about the Ulema we are meant to follow.

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Assalamo'alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

JazakAllahukhair Abu Zubair for ur response to my post.Since I lack ilm hence i cant debate in this matter but I know we should nt have taassub for any madhab .What I meant was some ppl adhere to their imams be it hanfi,shafi or hanbali and follow wrong things too.And yes if anyone follows wrong things of a salfi then that is also taqleed.
InshaAllah I have to take the strongest opinion which goes along the quran and saheeh hadeeth

BarikAllahufeekum

But if you lack ilm, as you yourself have said, how do you determine what is the "strongest opinion which goes along the quran and saheeh hadeeth"??? And how do you determine what is or is not a "mistake" of the 'ulama, be they hanafi, shafi'i, hanbali, maliki, or "salafi" (as if "salafi" is somehow a different madhhab to the other four)???

Please answer this question.

[Abuz Zubair]

'alaikum as-salaam bro Abu Bakr

Akhi Abuzubair In my area pretty much all of the ulema are hanafi and they are muftis who strictly abide by their madhab never leaving it. So in these circumstances is it still permissable to take fatwa from him?

The basic rule is that you should approach someone who will give you a ruling based on his ijtihad and NOT taqlid. If you cannot find someone like that... which is mostly the case nowadays, then you have no choice but to refer to a mufti who makes taqlid of a madhab. In your case, you do not have a choice but to refer to Hanafi muftis and follow their fatwas, even if the fatwas are based on taqlid.

A person came to al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la to learn the Hanbali fiqh, from a place where the dominant Madhab was not the Hanbali madhab. al-Qadhi advised him to learn the madhab dominant in his land instead of bringing a new madhab to his people which might cause strife.

In fact, if a hanbali were to go to a Hanafi land and he knows that since people's level of knowledge would prevent them from appreciating the difference of opinion, then he should pray in the Hanafi way, because unity is fard, and raising the hands before and after ruku' is Sunnah, and Fard takes precedence over Sunnah.

Sister juwayriya,
What I meant was some ppl adhere to their imams be it hanfi,shafi or hanbali and follow wrong things too.

This is true, and this is wrong.

If a person is a layman, he should not be following any madhab in the first place. And if a person is a mujtahid even if in one issue, he should be applying his knowledge to reach the truth and not to defend his madhab no matter what.

InshaAllah I have to take the strongest opinion which goes along the quran and saheeh hadeeth
This is also true, and the only way for us laymen to find out the strongest opinion in line with the Quran and the authentic Sunnah is by referring to those who have the ability to discern that for us out of their ijtihad, i.e. a qualified mufti. Here, we end up making taqlid of those of the muftis, who we believe give their verdicts in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah and not just mere taqlid.

but still the questions tands, how does one become e.g hanbali if he contradicts teh rulings of his madhab.

In this case you need to understand what it means to follow a school. Following a school means that one learns and develops his legal skills by studying a school, and as he develops in his skills, he begins to think independently and learns to prefer one opinion over another. Sometimes he may give preference to an opinion which is the madhab opinion. Sometimes he may give preference to a view which is NOT the madhab opinion, yet, it is an acceptable opinion in the madhab, and sometimes, he may give preference to views that are completely outside of his madhab, yet agree with other madhabs and imams.

His school remains the same school in which he acquired his juristic skills.

Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani, both opposed Imam Abu Hanifa in his rulings, and even the madhab came to be known in some issues as what Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani had decided CONTRARY to Abu Hanifa's position. But this does not take anything away from Abu Yusuf's Hanafism. This is what our tradition has always been.

Pls educate me as I don;t know much about the Ulema we are meant to follow.

Well, you are only expected to follow scholars you have access to. And if you want access to scholars like Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymin, you will have to learn Arabic to get directly to their works and see what they have to say about various issues. People like Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymin produced many mujahidin who went to Afghanistan and Chechnya. Ibn Uthaymin was instrumental in the Bosnian Jihad and one of the main reference point for fatwas. Unfortunately, much of the information we get about the scholars is filtered by people with a different agenda, and hence we end up with wrong conclusions about great scholars we know little about.

[moubeen]

In fact, if a hanbali were to go to a Hanafi land and he knows that since people's level of knowledge would prevent them from appreciating the difference of opinion, then he should pray in the Hanafi way, because unity is fard, and raising the hands before and after ruku' is Sunnah, and Fard takes precedence over Sunnah.

If we just do (minor) things, which in our opinion is not in accordance to the sunna for the sake of unity - Don't you think this mentality causes more problems in the long run?

I am aware of cases from the time of the companions, and even when the Prophet (saw) was alive, where they did not take a certain better action for fear of scaring people away. e.g. not rebuilding the ka'ba on it's original foundations when people were new to islam they may have seen this as a bad act.

However, I think we should be moving away from mentalities that promote such bigoted behaviour, such that we have to stop raising our hands in salah because someone might get offended. For Allahs sake, these are the differances that are permitted, and these are differance that the Imaams people claim to follow themselves discussed (on the whole) in a sensible manner, wthout fanatacism for the sake of it, in fact Imaam Shafi'ee would debate/argue for the truth with others except he would want the truth become manifest on the others tounge, so he could accept it. The truth is truth whether it comes from Shafi'ee or Abu Hanifa.

I've heard from more than one brother that in Afghanistan it got so partisanly bigotted for the hanafi madhab, people were beaten for raising their hands in salah.

We should be moving forward and learning from the developments of the Imaams. Not going backwards promoting biggotted behaviour. If Imaam Abu Hanifa could pray with one who raises his hands (e.g. Ibn al-Mubarak) then why can't the followers do that? In Jordan I've seen people being less fanatic in these minor issues, but in other places it's very bad. Shaykh Bakr Abu Zaid wrote how some people insist on straigtening the rows by putting their ankles and knees next to the others who pray, thereby making other uncomfortable in prayer.

How will raising the hands hurt others? People should be educated to know it is an opinion which has basis to it, and it's not cause for concern. With all due respect it's not the same as new muslims seeing the ka'bah being dismantled and rebuilt. Instead of just accepting it as "ignorant pushtu hanfis" in afghanistan, we need to start with educating others, and maybe to start by not raising the hands for fear of safety and later educating the people about valid permissable differing etc. If we can't even see this, there is very little hope for such fantical people.

[juwairiyah]

Assalamo'alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

In fact, if a hanbali were to go to a Hanafi land and he knows that since people's level of knowledge would prevent them from appreciating the difference of opinion, then he should pray in the Hanafi way, because unity is fard, and raising the hands before and after ruku' is Sunnah, and Fard takes precedence over Sunnah


sorry i dont agree with u coz following quran and saheeh hadeeth shd be our priority.\ and ALlah's messenger s.a.w directed us to grab the book and sunnah at times of fitnah

[Abuz Zubair]

You see, we need to think about these issues purely from an Usuli perspective and we need to learn to raise ourselves above following what we have been taught to be Salafiyya...

Now, if I were to quote Ibn Taymiyya saying exactly that, or something close, everyone would be silenced. Why? As I said, this is the mentality that eventually led many of us to a dead-end, primarily because they were not sincere with themselves.

Now, let's take a look at the issue of raising the hands before and after ruku' in a jahil town where the only version of Islam known to people is the Hanafi version. Due to their ignorance, they cannot appreciate difference of opinion, and if they see someone doing something they are not accustomed to, they wouldn't go up to him and humbly ask: 'This is strange, why are you doing this?', and then accept whole heartedly the Sunna upon being informed. This would not happen.

They will look at you as an enemy, someone from the outside corrupt world, who is practising some weird version of Islam, and we want nothing to do with him.

Now, if you decided to practise the Sunna and continue to shock these people, there are only two possible outcomes:

1) Either they will accept that it is a Sunnah and respect your view and maintain unity, OR

2) Frown upon you, and close their hearts and minds and cause fitna.

In Islam we have something called obligations, and recommendations, where if the two conflict, obligations take priority over recommendations.

In Islam we also have the maxim of weighing harms and benefits, and the Sharia is designed by Allah to gain the benefits and prevent harms.

Let us apply these two principles to our situation:

Rising the hands before and after Ruku is a Sunna act according to the three schools (Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali), and NOT an obligation

Unity amongst Muslims is an obligation by consensus of the Muslim Ummah.

Applying the first principle dictates that we give precedence to Unity over raising hands before and after Ruku', because forsaking the obligation is a SIN, whereas forsaking a Sunna act in ones prayer is NOT a sin.

Applying the second principle dictates that if one is faced with the Maslaha of raising the hands before and after ruku', yet with a greater Mafsada of unity; then he should avoid gaining the Maslaha which is out weighed by the Mafsada of disunity.

You see, either we begin to take a scientific approach to these issues instead of blind-following the party-line, while accusing others of taqlid...

Or we simply choose to blind-follow names, in which case, I would simply quote Ibn Taymiyya and other scholars, and that will very easily end the discussion.

But this is not something I desire... What I desire for us all is to raise our intellectual level.

[moubeen]

I agree we should give priority to the fard. However my objection is to us just accepting people as ignorant and therefore not taking things further. So if we can't beat them, we join them in their madhabism. You should be able to compromise in issues for the sake of unity, but instead of aiming for compromise, we should be aiming for education. Now in theory this is ok, but in reality we know it to be far more diffcult if almost impossible to educate bigots/fanatics. So maybe not lifting the hands would be good to start with but as time goes by we should not just be accepting this as a final solution, to deep rooted problem we need more than just a quick fix. We need to get people away from ignorant fanatical attitudes. "Stay Hanafi, but accept other people are allowed to be differant"

Was is not the case that Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr (ra) ordered the ka'bah be rebuilt upon the way the Prophet (saw) wanted, when he thought it was appropriate.

From this we can know that for the sake of unity, we can let some (minor) issues go... but when the time is right we should go to the truth. Now the difficult thing is reaching that point when we know the fanatics stop becoming fanatical partisans and start accepting (valid) differances.

[Abuz Zubair]

However my objection is to us just accepting people as ignorant and therefore not taking things further.

this is not at all what I am implying... You take things further, but with wisdom, in a way in which they would respond positively.

Otherwise, we would be no different to Juhayman who insisted on walking into the Prophet's mosque with shoes on and praying, thereby shocking the people, just because they want to practise the Sunnah. They were reprimanded by the scholars for that. But this is the sad part, that Juhayman and his followers simply branded these scholars as government puppets for not allowing them to shock people...

So if we can't beat them, we join them in their madhabism. Praying in the Hanafi madhab is not agreeing with or promoting madhabism... It is just avoiding fitna. People should be informed about the fact that they have no madhab. But the problem is that those hanafis don't even know that they are hanafis, let alone that there are four madhabs!

Some people will be offended if you call yourself Abu Hanifa! they are really jahils in that regard. The question is, how do you educate them successfully.

You should be able to compromise in issues for the sake of unity, but instead of aiming for compromise, we should be aiming for education.

You are absolutely right... If a person can practise the Sunna without causing a major fitna, he should...

but in reality we know it to be far more diffcult if almost impossible to educate bigots/fanatics. So maybe not lifting the hands would be good to start with but as time goes by we should not just be accepting this as a final solution, to deep rooted problem we need more than just a quick fix.

Excellent... because you are thinking along the lines of practicality. And you are also write that the prolonged timespan should bring about some sort of change in understanding, at least, even if it does not bring about change with respect to raising of the hands...

But this is only applicable to those who actually plan to reside in those places for a long time for one reason or another.

Most usually, people just travel to those places for a day, a week or a month and return... This amount of time is not enough to bring about change in people's mindset.

Was is not the case that Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr (ra) ordered the ka'bah be rebuilt upon the way the Prophet (saw) wanted, when he thought it was appropriate. This is true, but what is also true is that Hajjaj rebuilt it on its previous foundations and no one thereafter rebuilt the ka'ba as it should be. But the issue of ka'ba is more complex since it becomes very political. Sh Ibn Uthaymin discusses this issue as well as moving Maqam Ibrahim further back so that people have more space for tawaf, but he discourages it for political reasons, even if the issue in and of itself may be allowed.

but when the time is right we should go to the truth. Now the difficult thing is reaching that point when we know the fanatics stop becoming fanatical partisans and start accepting (valid) differances.

I believe that lies in reviving the intellectual tradition the early Muslim jurists enjoyed, and all of this requires intellectual elevation. It often surprises a new student of knowledge to find out that the students of the four Imams were the first ones to contradict their Imams, and that even al-Bukhari and Muslim were not saved from criticisms of al-Darqutni. Those people in that respect were intellectually free, which is why they were able to flourish.

And what is feared for the Salafiyya is just that, intellectual stagnation, which will render Salafiyya useless, the way it rendered the madhabists useless.

[Skillganon]

Knowledge AND age have everything to do with it....

Assalamu alaikum

Can I just bring in a little factor, age & experience does come into it aswell as knowledge (correct knowledge).

However it is Allah(swt) who gives one knoweldge, (wisdom e.t.c.) to whom he pleases.

So that is why one ask Allah(swt) to increase our knowledge?

[Abuz Zubair]

yes, of course...

But knowledge alone does not make a person mature.

Maturity is something which comes with knowledge and experience. While knowledge may not have any relation with age, experience does. The older the person the more experienced he is.

The Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam was blessed with Prophethood at the age of 40.

Imam Ahmad did not issue verdicts on a regular basis until he became 40, and incidentally, this is when he got married, too.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Imam Ahmad did not issue verdicts on a regular basis until he became 40, and incidentally, this is when he got married, too.

Ya Allah, he must have had much sabr, Allahu Akbar. And I hear Ibn Teymiya did not get married at all. Subhan Allah. May Allah give them firdaus.

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

The following is a link on the famous Hanafi scholar Imam Ibn Abideen where he explains that the layman has no madhab. He even goes to the extent to say that a layman can pray according to one madhab one day and the next day he can pray according to different madhab!! He basically says a layman can follow any mufti he likes.

I think this agrees with akhi Abu zubair's comments that it is permissable for a layman to pray according to hanafi madhab if he enters a masjid in which the Imam and followers are Hanafi.

http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3230


The next link looks into more sayings of Hanafi scholars saying how it is not wajib for layman to stick to a particular madhab. There are also sayings of shafi scholars such as Al-Amidee and Al-Ghazali who also say the same saying that a layman should follow any mujtahid he likes wihtout restricting to a specific one.

http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3371

[abudurrah]

Asalamu alaykum

The following is a link on the famous Hanafi scholar Imam Ibn Abideen where he explains that the layman has no madhab. He even goes to the extent to say that a layman can pray according to one madhab one day and the next day he can pray according to different madhab!! He basically says a layman can follow any mufti he likes.

I think this agrees with akhi Abu zubair's comments that it is permissable for a layman to pray according to hanafi madhab if he enters a masjid in which the Imam and followers are Hanafi.

http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3230



this is so wierd to me, that a laymen can follow any mufti he likes and to me it implies the laymen can change which mufti to follow any time he wants

as he can change madhabs continuously:confused:

[Yasir]

as he can change madhabs continuously:confused:How would he be changing madhabs continuously when he has no madhab anyway?

[abudurrah]

Asalamu alaykum
He even goes to the extent to say that a layman can pray according to one madhab one day and the next day he can pray according to different madhab!! He basically says a layman can follow any mufti he likes.


what i understood
the fact that he can follow one madhab one day and follow a different madhab another day implies that he does have a madhab, but just not one exclusive madhab (depending on the situation, the invidual chooses which madhab to follow),

[Skillganon]

Exactly we don't have a madhab, and most people do not know what is a mufti let alone who is one.

So how does it work? A mufti that does not come out of his closet, well is not doing his job properly.

I thing most people ask the imam, scholars which can be ranging from one madhab to another. It is not like people go around asking what madhab are you?

[Iqra]

Assalaamu alaikum, you should read this:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=1331&postcount=2

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

Akhi Abu Zubair you said in one thread that if we as laymen come across conflicting fatwas from two imams we should follow the fatwa which our heart is more inclined to (in terms of truth). However, in this thread you seem to indicate that the layman cannot decide which fatwa is the strongest so therefore he follows either mufti.

could you please help clear up the confusion. Jazakallah khair

also if we were to follow a mufti and he gives a fatwa from a hanafi fiqh book like Bahishti Zewar where there are some horrible fatwa then can he reject suhc a fatwa even if he is layman. Im asking this question as there are some wild fatwas in Bahishti such as in the chapter of Nikah it says:

18. Due to the passions of youth, a woman touched a man with evil intentions. It will now not be permissible for her mother or her children to marry this man. Similarly, if a man touches a woman with evil intentions, her mother and her children will be harâm on him.

19. In the middle of the night, a man decided to awaken his wife. However, he mistakenly touched his daughter or his mother-in-law. Thinking them to be his wife, he touched them with the passions of youth. Now, this man will become harâm on his wife forever. There is no way in which she can become permissible for him. It will be necessary for him to divorce his wife.

20. If a boy touches his step-mother with an evil intention, she will become harâm on her husband. There is no way in which she can be halâl for him. If the step-mother touches her step-son with an evil intention, the same rule will apply.

[Abuz Zubair]

Akhi Abu Zubair you said in one thread that if we as laymen come across conflicting fatwas from two imams we should follow the fatwa which our heart is more inclined to (in terms of truth). However, in this thread you seem to indicate that the layman cannot decide which fatwa is the strongest so therefore he follows either mufti.

could you please help clear up the confusion. Jazakallah khair

Sometimes a person is able to discern and have a feeling in his heart as to which of the two opinions are stronger. For instance, if he is told that the three of the four madhabs believe in raising the hands, and that many scholars have considered it to be a mutawatir sunna of the Prophet, then he obviously feels more inclined towards this opinion in his heart. In this case he should follow what his heart is inclined towards.

In some cases, a person may still have doubts about raf' al-yadayn, and might not be totally convinced about the majority opinion, but he is simply not able to discern where the truth lies. In this case he should simply follow whichever Mufti he trusts.

But in both cases, evidences do not mean anything to him, anyway. Yet, in the former case he can see some factors that may make him incline towards one opinion. This is not a shara'i way of giving preference to one opinion over the other, in the sense that a jurist wouldn't take this approach, but it is still the realisation of the Prophet's words: 'Ask your heart, even if they give your verdicts...'

also if we were to follow a mufti and he gives a fatwa from a hanafi fiqh book like Bahishti Zewar where there are some horrible fatwa then can he reject suhc a fatwa even if he is layman. Im asking this question as there are some wild fatwas in Bahishti such as in the chapter of Nikah it says:

If the layman trusts this mufti, then there is no harm in following his fatwa. The other things we must also remember is that generally speaking the layman does not know much about the vastness of fiqh and hence is not able to appreciate its depth.

For instance, the rulings you quoted from behishti zewar make perfect sense:

18. Due to the passions of youth, a woman touched a man with evil intentions. It will now not be permissible for her mother or her children to marry this man. Similarly, if a man touches a woman with evil intentions, her mother and her children will be harâm on him.

19. In the middle of the night, a man decided to awaken his wife. However, he mistakenly touched his daughter or his mother-in-law. Thinking them to be his wife, he touched them with the passions of youth. Now, this man will become harâm on his wife forever. There is no way in which she can become permissible for him. It will be necessary for him to divorce his wife.

20. If a boy touches his step-mother with an evil intention, she will become harâm on her husband. There is no way in which she can be halâl for him. If the step-mother touches her step-son with an evil intention, the same rule will apply.

This is based on an agreed upon ruling that sexual contact with a woman renders the woman's mother and daughters unmarriageable for the man.

Now, 'sexual contact' is where the difference lies... Some say it is merely khulwa, others say it is any physical contact accompanied with sexual desire and others would say it is actually intercourse.

Issue #20 is covered under the Quranic verse wa hala'il abna'ikum... Meaning those women who have had 'sexual relations' with your sons are prohibited for you.

This is all from the top of my head and I could be mistaken in some of the details... but the rulings are reasonable and they fall within the realm of legitimate difference of opinion with respect to the interpretation of 'sexual contact', whilst other aspects of these rulings are due to consensus, such as hala'il abna'iukm...

[Abuz Zubair]

With respect to heart feeling settled on an issue, I had written the following:

About the Heart Feeling Settled on a Fatwa:<o></o>

However it is necessary to note that, in all the aforementioned cases, the settlement of heart is the last option for the Mustafti, since we have been ordered to submit ourselves wholeheartedly to the orders of Allah, regardless of whether this is to our liking or not, as Allah says: “Nay! By your Lord! They will never believe, until they make you (O Muhammad) a judge in all their affairs, and then find no discontent in their hearts against what you have ordained, and they submit with complete compliance.” As for Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement in I’lam 6/194 - “It is not permissible to act merely on the Fatwa of a Mufti if his heart does not feel settled on the Fatwa” - then this is in reference to the one who merely prohibits the lawful, or allows the prohibited, acting on the Mufti’s Fatwa, while knowing in his heart that the truth opposes the Fatwa.

Elaborating on this Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali says (Jami’ al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam 2/78) in his explanation of the 27^th Hadeeth, “Consult your heart, even if they give you their legal verdict again and again [in its favour]”:

“Meaning, whatever wavers in a person’s soul is a sin, even if others give their legal verdict that it is not, and this is the second way [of identifying a transgression]; that is, for something to be blameworthy from the doer’s perspective alone - even if it not be so in the sight of others - it is sufficient for it to be considered a sin. This, however, is only applicable if the person’s heart has been illuminated with faith, and the Mufti were to give his verdict based on mere speculation or whilst being inclined to follow his desires, without any legal evidence.

However if the Mufti’s verdict were supported by legal evidences, then it is obligatory upon the Mustafti to refer to him, even if his soul does not accept it wholeheartedly; for example, the allowances prescribed in the Shari’ah, like leaving the fasts whilst travelling, or during illness, or shortening prayers whilst travelling, etc, which many ignorant people do not feel at ease with - such unease is to be given no consideration. In the same way that the Prophet (sallAllahu'alayhi wa-sallam) would sometimes order his companions with matters their souls did not feel content with…”

Hence, a Mustafti may not use the excuse of ‘feeling uncomfortable with the Fatwa’ unrestrictedly, particularly when there is only one Mufti to refer to, in which case it becomes obligatory for him to act on the Fatwa according to the majority of the scholars. (See Khashaf al-Qina’ 6/390)

[abubakr]

Jazakallah khair for another excellent response. i have to say this thread is extremely useful for laymen like myself as there are many people who are confused on this topic there are some who get fooled by certain bigots into believing that one has to follow a specific madhab without leaving it.

A question I have is that there are those that say the role of ijtihad has closed as there is no one that can be regarded as a mujtahid. since many local Imams are not capable of ijtihad could you give some examples of qualified muftis we could follow today?

[Abuz Zubair]

A question I have is that there are those that say the role of ijtihad has closed as there is no one that can be regarded as a mujtahid.

The question has become obsolete with the turn of the last century.

Now we have fiqh councils composed of fuqaha from the four schools from around the world practising ijtihad on various newly occurring issues.

since many local Imams are not capable of ijtihad could you give some examples of qualified muftis we could follow today?

It depends on where one lives. In places like India, it would be very difficult to find a person who may even bother making ijtihad in one issue, because they believe taqlid to be the Asl, and an obligation, whereas taqlid was only a second choice for those who couldn't discover the Islamic ruling by themselves.

In places like the UK and elsewhere, it is easier to find muftis who would give you a ruling based on their own personal Ijtihad.

Some contemporary scholars would give you the madhab ruling on old issues, while making ijtihad on new issues.

Others from different madhab would even sometimes oppose their own madhabs for various reasons...

But most of the 'muftis' around in mosques, they are merely muftis of dharura... I.e. they have only taken up this position simply because there isn't a mujtahid around to answer people's questions. So in reality they remain muqallids, but only out of necessity they have taken up the role of muftis. And since these muftis are so prevalent in our time due to lack of mujtahidin, there is no harm in a commoner referring to such muftis. But if a layman knows of a mufti who would actually give a verdict based on his ijtihad, then he must refer to him and not a muqallid mufti.