Extracts: Imām As Shawkāni, Al Qawlul Mufīd Fī Addillatil Ijtihād Wat Taqlīd

[Abu Hafsa]

Imām As Shawkānī (Rahimuhullah) said: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

First: (From what they [Muqallidīn] take as a Dalīl) Allāh (swt)’s saying “so ask the people of zikr if you don’t know” So Allāh (swt) asked those who have no knowledge to ask who are more knowledgeable than him.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Answer: Verily this verse is out of context of what is being debated….” <o:p></o:p>
Until Imām As Shawkāni (Rahimuhullah) said: “and if we agree that the meaning from questioning is general, then the people who are to be questioned are the people of zikr. So Zikr is the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His messenger (saw), and none besides these both. And I don’t think a person would disagree to this. Because this Pure Sharī’a is either from Allāh (swt), and that is the Noble Qur’ān or from the Pure Sunnah and there is no third to this. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So if the people, who were ordered to ask from, are the people of Qur’ān and Sunnah, then the mentioned verse is a proof against the Muqallidīn and not as a support for them. Because the meaning is that they ask the people of Zikr so that they can inform them with it (Zikr; Qur’ān and Sunnah). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So the answer from the people who are questioned should be, that they say (answer with) ‘Allāh (swt) said such and such’ so that the questioner can act upon that. And this is not what the Muqallidīn want to take as proof from this noble verse. Because he wants to take proof from that verse, the permissibility of what they are upon, from; taking the sayings of people without any question about a Dalīl, as this is the Taqlīd. And that is why they defined it as; It is to accept the saying of another without asking for a Dalīl.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So the result of Taqlīd is; that the Muqallid doesn’t ask from the Book of Allāh (swt) or the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw), but he asks from the school of thought of his Imām only. And if he crosses that (stage) to ask from the Kitāb and Sunnah, the he is not a Muqallid. And this is confessed by each Muqallid and doesn’t deny it….”<o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

Sixth (Proof of the Muqallidīn): and from what they took proof is His (Allāh (swt)) saying “وأطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم وقالوا وأولوا الأمر” (they say) those (ulul amr) are scholars and their obedience is their Taqlīd in what they give as a verdict.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Answer : The scholars had two opinions regarding the tafsīr of the word ‘Ulil Amr’ ; one of it is; they are rulers, and the second is that; they are scholars. And there is no prevention if both the parties are intended from the noble verse. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
But where is the proof from this which the Muqallidīn wants? As verily, there is no obedience to scholars and neither to rulers except If they command according to the obedience of Allāh (swt) (and) in accordance to the Shrī’ah. And also it is valid from the Prophet (saw) that he said “there is no obedience to the creation (which is) in a disobedience to the Creator.” And verily the scholars guided others to leave making Taqlīd on them and forbade from that as a part of it shall be narrated soon from the four Imāms and others besides them. So their obedience is leaving making Taqlīd on them. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If we even say (for the sake of argument) that verily, there were from the scholars who advised people to make Taqlīd and incite them in it, then they would be advising them towards the disobedience to Allāh (swt) ! That is because verily, whoever guides these commoners (laymen) who do not understand evidences and neither understand the correct way from the false, to to hold fast to Taqlīd, then this advise would necessitate that he had (by doing so) advised them to leave acting on the Book except with the mediate of the scholars views, to whom they make Taqlīd. So what they (scholars) act upon (these Muqallidīn) would act, and whatever they (scholars) did not act upon, they (Muqallidīn) will not act upon it. And they do not turn to the Kitāb or the Sunnah. As if he asks from those two (Qur’ān and Sunnah) he would come out of Taqlīd, because he has become one who asks for the Dalīl” <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And he (Imām As Shawkāni (Rahimuhullah)) said refuting the second Dalīl the Muqallidīn brought: he said:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
“Answer: Verily he (saw) did not direct them in the Hadīth of person of the head injury, to question from the views of people, but he (saw) advised them to ask from the valid Shar’ī ruling from Allāh (swt) and His messenger (saw). That is why he invocated against them when they gave a verdict without knowledge. So the he said (saw), ‘they killed him! May Allāh (swt) kill them!’. While they gave a verdict according to their point of views. So the Hadīth is a proof against them, and not in their (Muqallidīn) support. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Because it includes two matters: One; Directing them to ask from the Shar’ī ruling, which is valid with a Dalīl. Second; dispraising them for leaning upon a view and giving a verdict which is in accordance to it (view). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And this is known to each scholar. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So the person who directs to questioning is the Messenger (saw), and he is still amongst them. So even if the direction to questioning is general, the only meaning from it is to ask him (saw), or ask the one who knows that ruling from him (saw). The Muqallid as you know previously, doesn’t become a Muqallid except if he only doesn’t ask from a Dalīl.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So if he asks from that (Dalīl), then he is not a Muqallid. How can he take a proof from it upon the permissibility of Taqlīd. So does a person of intellect take a Dalīl to prove something, (from a Dalīl) which nullifies it (the point he wants to prove)? And (does a person of intellect) take a Dalīl to prove the validness of something, from something which makes it corrupt? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So we are not asking you, O group of Muqallidīn, but (to take) from the proof of what you have brought! So we say to you; (that is to) ask from the people of Zikr, about the Zikr. And that (zikr) is the Book of Allāh (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). And act upon it! And leave the views of people and Qīl and Qāl (such was said, so said that). And we say to you as the Messenger (saw) said, do you not question? For the treatment of the ignorant is asking from the Book of Allāh (swt) and from the Sunnah of His messenger (saw). (Don’t ask) from the view of so and so and (from) the school of thought of so and so. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
For verily if you ask from just the view of somebody, then the person who gave you verdict has killed you, as the Messenger (saw) said in the Hadīth of the person of the head injury ‘they have killed him, May Allāh (swt) kill them!’”<o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

And he (Imām As Shawkāni (Rahimuhullah)) said:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Eighth: And also from what they (muqallidīn) held fast to is; verily the Sahāba (RadhiAllahu'Anhu) used to issue verdicts while the Messenger (saw) was amongst them. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
As for the answer given for that is: they used to issue verdicts from texts, from the Book and the Sunnah, and this is narrating from them. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And the person who understands that accepting narrations is not Taqlīd, will not doubt that; accepting the narration (riwāyah) is accepting proof (Hujjah), (and that) Taqlīd is accepting views. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So differentiate between accepting Riwāyah (narration) and accepting a Ra’y (view). As accepting narration has no relation with taqlīd, But it is the opposite of the definition of a Muqallid. So learn this. Because the people who make Taqlīd to be permissible, they make these kinds of mistakes, commonly. So they say, as an example, ‘the Mujtajid is a muqallid (blind follower) to the person who narrates the Sunnah to him’ and they say ‘it is from the taqlīd, to accept the saying of the woman that she has become pure (from menses)’ and ‘to accept the saying of the Mua’zzin (person who gives āzān) that the time for prayer is due’ and ‘the acceptance of the blind person from the person who directs him towards the qiblah’ (Muqallidīn say that all of these are from Taqlīd). And they also made from the taqlīd ‘to accept the witnessing of the witness’ and ‘T’adīl and Jar’h of the jāri’h (saying that a narrator is worthy of taking hadīth from him or not/ praising, dispraising) (Muqallidīn say that all of these are kinds of taqlīds?!). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And it is not hidden from you that verily this has no relation with taqlīd in whatsoever, but it is from accepting the narration and not from accepting the ra’y (point of view). As acceptance of the narrator of the Dalīl and informer of the entering of the time (prayer time being due) and the (informer) of purity (from menses) and Qiblah (direction) and witness and jāri’h (dispraiser of narrators) and Muzakkī (the who praise the narrator), (all which passed) is from accepting the narration. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
As for the narrator, he narrated from what was narrated to him with a proof, which he narrated, (and it is not) what he viewed from his point of view. Likewise the person who informs about the entering of the time, he only tells because he witnessed the signs of the time (like sunset for maghrib), and he did not tell that the time is due in accordance to his view (ra’y). and likewise the informer of purity, so the woman ‘as an example’ informed that she witnessed the signs of purity from the whiteness and its like and she did not tell it because it is point of view that she viewed. And likewise the person who informs about the Qiblah, he informed that verily its direction or side is to a certain side according to what he witnessed with his senses, and he did not inform from his ra’y (view). And likewise the witness, he also informed about a matter which he came to know from his senses, and due to a point of view he viewed in that matter. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So in general, this is much clear than it be hidden. And the difference between narrating and opinion (ra’y) is more apparent than the sun. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So whoever gets confused between the difference between them, he should not make himself busy with knowledge! Because he has an understanding of a cattle even though he is in a skin of a human. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ibn Hazīz Mindād Al Basarī Al Mālikī said “Taqlīd; its meaning in Shar’u is: to return to a saying upon which its sayer has no proof. And this is forbidden from him in the Sharī’ah. And Ittibā’a is what the proof is available upon.” Until he said “Ittibā’a in the religion is followed and Taqlīd is forbidden” <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And sayings like this will come which is from Ibn AbdulBarr and others…<o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

And he (Imām As Shawkāni (Rahimuhullah)) said:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ninth: some of the supporters of taqlīd brought a saying which claims the permissibility (of Taqlīd), so he (Muqallid) said what means ‘if taqlīd was not permissible, then Ijtihād would be obligatory upon every one from the slaves. And this is a responsibility which is not capable of (doing). Because the capability of the humans differ. Among them are who can accept the Ijtihādī knowledge, and amongst them are those who are not at that level and that is found most (in the human nature). And for instance if we believe that they are capable… then it is obligatory upon every individual to seek it, and this leads to invalidating the livelihood which is necessary for the existence of this type (humans). Because no one reaches the level of Ijtihād but who frees himself for knowledge in all of his times in a way that he cannot get involved in any other matter. So then the gardener and the cultivator and the tailor and the builder and their likes would get busy with knowledge, and these professions would be left being abandoned. So the livelihood would be totally void. And this would lead to make the system of living to be difficult and the extinction of humanity, and is this there is damage and difficulty and going against the objective of the Shār’i (Allāh (swt) ) which is not hidden from anyone. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And it is answered to this corrupt confusing doubt: that we do not ask from every individual from the individuals to reach the level of Ijtihād, but what is asked is a matter which is other than taqlīd. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And that is: that the people who carry these livelihood and who are not capable to derive and understand to be as their likes from the times of Sahāba and the tābi’īn and Atbāu tābi’īn and they are best of the generations then those who came after them and those who came after them. And every scholar has known that they were not muqallidīn and neither who ascribed themselves to any individual from the individuals from the scholars. But the ignorant one used to ask the one with knowledge from the Shar’ī proved ruling which is in the Book of Allāh (swt) and in the Sunnah of His messenger (saw), so he (ālim) gives him verdict with it, and narrates it to him either in word to word or its meaning, so he (jāhil) acts according to it, which is in accordance to act upon the narration (riwāya) and not on the opinion (ra’y). and this much easy than taqlīd. Because for you to understand the details of the knowledge of opinion (ra’y) is more difficult than you understand the riwāyah (narration), in many levels. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So we did not ask from these commoners but what is much easier than what these people who make taqlīd to be obligatory has made obligated upon them. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And this is the guidance upon which the best of generation walked, and those who followed them, until satan gradually came upon, whom he came upon, through taqlīd. And it did not stop there, but instigated them to make taqlīd upon a person from the individuals of the scholars and (made them to believe) not to make taqlīd of any other besides him. And he expanded in this until he made each of the sects to think that the truth is only what their Imām said, and what is besides that is void. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Then it created enmity between their hearts and hatred, which cannot be found between the people of a religion towards another….”<o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

Tenth: Some of the supporters of Taqlīd and those who have not come out from the people of Taqlīd although he himself is out of it, took evidence from a Ijmā upon it’s (Taqlīd’s) permissibility. And this verdict in not issued from a person who has a strong foothold on knowledge of the Sharī’ah, and it is not issued from a person who knows that sayings of Imām’s of the school of thoughts, for what is valid from them is, forbidence of taqlīd. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ibn Abdul Barr (Rahimuhullah) said: ‘there is no difference between the Imām’s of the eras regarding the corruption of Taqlīd’ and he brought a very long chapter refuting the one who says with (permissibility of) Taqlīd. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So he said: ‘so it is said to the people of Taqlīd, why do say it (permissibility of Taqlīd)? And why did you go against the salaf in that regard? Because they did not blind follow? <o:p></o:p>
If you say ‘I have blind followed because I don’t know the tafsīr of the Book of Allāh (swt) and I have not collected (known) the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw). And the person to whom I made taqlīd has known that, so I have blind followed who is more knowledgeable than me’<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So it is said to him ‘as for the scholars, if they agreed upon something from the tafsīr of the Book of Allāh (swt) or (upon) and incident from the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) or their opinions gathered upon a matter (Ijmā), then it is the truth in which there is no doubt. But some of them have differed in what you have made taqlīd. So what is you proof in making taqlīd of some (people) besides others? (tn* means, why do u leave some scholars and follow some?) while all of them are scholars? Maybe the person from his saying, you have turned away, is more knowledgeable than the person to whom you have gone to his madh’hab.’<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If he says ‘I have blind followed him because I know that it is the truth’<o:p></o:p>
You say to him ‘have you known it due to a Dalīl from the Book or the Sunnah or Ijmā?’<o:p></o:p>
If he says ‘yes’ then Taqlīd is void and the Dalīl which he has claimed is sought from him.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If he says ‘I have made taqlīd because he is more knowledgeable than me’ <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Then it is said to him ‘so you make taqlīd of every one who is more knowledgeable than you? Then you shall find many people, so do not specify the person to whom you have made taqlīd, as (your knowledge to follow him) is (because) he is more knowledgeable than you.’<o:p></o:p>
And if he says ‘I made taqlīd upon him because he is the most knowledgeable person’ <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So it is said to him ‘so then he is more knowledgeable than the Sahāba?’ So his sayings like these is enough in corruption….”<o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

Imām As Shawkāni in continues elsewhere<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Al Bayhaqī and Ibn Abdul Barr narrated from Huzeifah bin Al Yamān (RadhiAllahu'Anhu), that verily it was asked from him about this saying “They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allāh (swt)…” (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:time Hour="9" Minute="31">9:31</st1:time>) So he said “No! but they made permissible what was Harām, thus they thought it permissible, and they forbade what was halāl, thus they thought it harām. So they became lords”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And it was narrated similar to this as Mar’fū’u from the hadīth of ibn Hātim as Al Bayhaqi said. And likes of this tafsīr was narrates by ibn Abdul Barr from some of the Sahāba with the joined (muttasil) chain to him, He said: “if they command them to worship them, they would not obey them, but they commanded them, thus made the Halāl (made by) Allāh to be harām and His Harām to be Halāl, so they obeyed them, and this is Rubūbiyya (taking them as Rabbs)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And His saying “Just in the same way, whenever We sent a Warner before thee to any people, the wealthy ones among them said: "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we will certainly follow in their footsteps.". He said: "What! Even if I brought you better guidance than that which ye found your fathers following?" They said: "For us, we deny that ye (prophets) are sent (on a mission at all)." (43:23-24) So they gave preference to follow their fathers. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And Allāh (swt) said “When those who were followed, disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. And those who followed will say: "If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us." Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire .” (2:166-167)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Allāh (swt) said “When he said to his father and his people: "What are these images, to which you are devoted?" They said:"We found our fathers worshipping them." (21:52-53)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
(Allāh (swt) )said “And they would say: "Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us as to the (right) Path. (33:67)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So these verses and others besides it which carries similar meanings came against the Muqallidīn and about what they are in. even though they are revealed regarding the Kuffār, but its explanation is valid upon the muqallidīn, due to the similarity of the reason. and it is founded in the books of Usūl “that verily what is taken is the generality of the word and not the specific of the reason, and the ruling goes with the reason (‘illah) in availability and unavailability. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And the scholars have taken these verses upon refuting taqlīd and the reason it was revealed upon the kuffār did not stop them from it.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And ibn Abdul Barr narrated with a Muttassil chain from Mu’ādh bin Jabal (RadhiAllahu'Anhu) that he verily said “in front you is a time in which wealth will increase and the Qur’ān would be spread, until the Mu’min and the Munāfiq and the woman and the kid will read it. So it is near that one of you say ‘I have read the Qur’ān, but I don’t think a person would follow me until I innovate something other than it’. SO beware from what is innovated, because every innovation is a misguidance. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He also narrated from Ibn Abbās (RadhiAllahu'Anhum), that verily he has said “Woe on to the followers from the misguidance of the scholar”. So it was said to him “and how is that” he said “the scholar says something with his opinion and he finds who is more knowledgeable than him about the messenger (saw), so he leaves his saying. (while) the followers goes on (upon his previous saying).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He also narrated from Alī bin Abī Tālib (RadhiAllahu'Anhu) that verily he said “O everyone, verily these hearts are bags (which holds things) so the best of it is the (heart) which most holding to the truth. And the people are three, A Rabbānī (the one who guides and educates) scholar, and a seeker of knowledge upon the path of salvation, and followers with no rule, who followers every caller. They do not take the light from a scholar and neither take refuge in a strong pillar. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He also narrated from him (Alī (RadhiAllahu'Anhu)) that verily he said “and beware that you take example from men. For verily the person acts with the action of people of paradise, then he reverts due to the knowledge of Allāh (swt) regarding him with the action of the people of fire, thus die while he is from the people of fire. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It was narrated by Ibn Mas’ūd that verily he said “Beware! Do not make taqlīd on any one with his religion, that when that person believes, he believes. And when that person disbelieves, he disbelieves! For verily there is no example is evilness” <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
And it is also narrated with his chain to Umar Bin Khattāb, that verily he said while he upon the pulpit “verily the opinion from the Messenger (saw) was certainty, because Allāh (swt) shows him. And it is conjecture and takalluf (entering in to difficulty, which is not praiseworthy) from us. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Also from Umar (RadhiAllahu'Anhu) “the people of opinion are the enemies of the sunan. The Ahādith made them tired, that they learn it, and the (Ahādīth) slipped from them, that they might narrate it. So beware of opinion.”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Also from Umar (RadhiAllahu'Anhu) “the people of opinion are the enemies of the sunan. The Ahādith made them tired, that they learn it, and the (Ahādīth) slipped from them, that they might narrate it. And they are ashamed to say, when they are questioned ‘we don’t know’. So they went against the sunan with their opinions! So beware of them! <o:p></o:p>

[Abu Hafsa]

Abu Zubayr what are your views on the above... If you require the book in arabic i have it, it totals to about 40 Pages. Barakallah Feek.

[Abuz Zubair]

al-Shawkani was right in most of what he said because by his time taqlid had taken firm roots amongst the jurists, such that they abandoned the hadeeth sciences and objective look at the law. He fouhgt against it and as a result faced stiff resistance from jahil muqallids of his time.

But he also went to the other extreme by forbidding taqlid on the layman. In other words he forbade taqlid in all its forms and for all reasons.

What's ironic is that he didn't even believe Ijtihad to be divisible, as did other scholars, which necessitates that every layman should endeavour to become a mujtahid mutlaq in all issues!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

was the shaykh mujtahid mutlaq?

[Abuz Zubair]

was the shaykh mujtahid mutlaq?
Well... he certainly believed he was, and hence the fierce resistance against him