Important Death knell of Salafi Fiqh, part 2/2: Salafi students

[Harris Hammam]

Good riddance. More later.

(Part 1 - for which we had no hard ideas in mind and would appreciate expect a slight tweak in its title - ended out to target Salafi Laymen; that has been achieved since they failed to answer any of the real substantive questions facing their precious Salafi layman Manhaj)

[Abu Abdul-Barr]

I remembered tawfique chowdhury today and how his fiqh seemed to be an example of salafi fiqh. so i browsed the alkauthar forums and found some quotes (sorry if it derails the true intent of the thread):

My usulfiqh is primarily hanbali osool - primarily that of Ibn Qudaamah rahimahullah. I studied some of the books of the Hanbali madhab, however don't always stick to it if the osool dictactes otherwise.

As a result, primarily it is hanbali in base, however since academic tertiary study requires us to know all the madhabs, I mention all of them and the strongest opinion that I point out in the course is the opinion that is usually in accordance with the usulfiqh of RawdatunNadhir wa Jannatul Manadhir of Imam Ibn Qudaamah which is based and derived from Shafi usulfiqh from AlMustawsaf of Imam alghazzali may Allah have mercy on all of them.

I can speak on my behalf - my explanation of Mulakkas al-Fiqhi should inshaAllah enable you to be able to go Mughni after you take the full explanation of the Mulakkas with me inshaAllah. So the challenge for all students guild members is to learn Arabic well so that they can actually move on to Mughni after the guild.

Mulakhas alFiqhi in comparison for Zad and Umdah is lesser in issues, but more comparative and more practical and is more upon the opinion of sheikhul islam ibn taymiyyah (contemporary hanbali) than classical opinion hanbali. But Sh Fawzan is a well known hanbali so his book has already become an authoritative text mashaAllah.

The reason why I choose that book is because of the above mentioned reasons and because the available translation is good quality and also because it will make the transtition into arabic easier for those who want to get into arabic.

InshaAllah with my explanation you will benefit from:
1. first the text itself which will become your asl
2. my explanation of the opinion expressed in the text which is to understand the contemporary hanbali opinion
3. comparative fiqh, since I will mention other opinoins and their proofs
4. develop a strong comparative fiqh methodology for yourself after understanding the hanbali madhab + other madhabs + the stronger opinion according to myself and my teachers.

This is the way we studied from our mashaikh believe me, we were not confused. Since we remember the madhab - which is denoted by the text and tried to remember the khilaaf which is from our sheihk's explanation and remember our sheikh's opinion which is what we tried to follow until we had gained sufficient knowledge to decide otherwise.

- Before joining a battle - it may be fard kifaayah - but after having joined it - to run away from the battle is a major sin - so once you have joined it - it is fard ayn to continue. Such is the SG. Before you joined it - seeking deep detailed knowledge of Islam was fard kifaayah on you. However, now that you have joined, seeking the detailed knowledge of Islam is fard ayn upon you. To leave it at this stage is sinful. Remember that. This is what my sheikh used to tell me again and again - remember that to leave studying deeply about Islam now that you have entered that battle is a major sin!

The 'strictest' madhab differs according to the topic. So for example:
The strictest madhab in:
Purification: Shafi/Hanbali > Maliki > Hanafi
Prayer: Shafi/Hanafi > Hanafi > Maliki
Food/Drinks: Hanafi > Hanbali/Maliki > Shafi
Fasting: Maliki > Hanafi > Hanbali > Shafi
Zakat: Hanbali/Shafi > Maliki > Hanafi
Business transactions: Shafi > Hanbali/Maliki > Hanafi
Marriage: Hanafi > Maliki > Shafi/Hanbali

The madhab of the layman is that of the Mujtahid scholar that he/she is following - it may be a scholar of a madhab or an independant scholar.

If someone asks you which madhab you are following - then it depends on the above, since we clarified in our class that although it may be permissible and in some times recommended to follow a madhab, it is in no way obligatory and to make it obligatory is closer to being an innovation than being wajib!

So if someone follows the classical hanbali madhab through the books of ibn qudamah and holds on to that, then he is hanbali in madhab, and if he follows that of ibn taymiyyah may Allah have mercy on them all, then he is asl hambali but digresses to the opinions of the sheikh in those matters in which the sheikh had independant opinions to the madhab.

In general, if poeple ask you which madhab are you on, it can either be a genuine question in which case you reply genuinely for information purposes. if it is not a genuine question, then leave these people alone as they don't understand the purpose of madhab nor the reality of blind following, nor taqleed.

Fiqh and fuqahah after the early times have generally been away from hadeeth such that many of the books of fiqh used hadeeth without discussing the strength of hadeeth and their grading. It is for this reason that many of hte scholars of hadeeth would actually have separate books that extract the hadeeths from certain popular books of fiqh and then do research into their authenticity. Examples are Ibn Hajr's Talkheesul-Habeer which is an extraction of the hadeeths from compendium of Shafi fiqh AsSharh Al-Kabeer of Ar-Rafee. Also Az-Zaylai's Nasb-ar-Raayah which is an extraction of the hadeeths used by alHidaayah in Hanafi fiqh. Also Irwaa al-Ghaleel of Sh alAlbani in extracting the hadeeths from the Hanbali book of fiqh Manarus-Sabeel. So examples of this are numerous. If you find a faqeeh who is also a muhaddith, then their fiqh is fantastic and strong (ofcourse provided that they are strong fuqaha as well) - such as An-Nawawi's Majoo in Shafi fiqh since Imam Nawawi was a muhaddith as well as faqeeh - and also Izz ibn Abdis-Salam, and also Ibn Hazm and also Ibn taymiyyah and othes may Allah have mercy on all our beloved ulema and join us in Firdaws with them. Since these people were strong in hadeeth as well as fiqh, they are generally termed as the 'muhaqqiqeen' which means the Verifiers - i.e. those scholars who would verify the correctness of the fiqh and were more worthy of doing so than others given their strength in fiqh and hadeeth together.

On the otherhand, some scholars of hadeeth, would be so engrossed into hadeeth that they discussed fiqh thru hadeeth only and as a result would not have the same strength as the fuqahah in deduction, qiyas, application of hadeeth to different situations etc.. The main problem of this would be the fact that each hadeeth is not only on one topic, it can be a proof or multiple issues and as a result, there ends up being a lack of continuity and flow if discussing fiqh thru hadeeth. Also hadeeth is not the only source of the shariah, and also given the fact that there are numerous issues in fiqh which do not have a basis in hadeeth, it ends up being a difficult talk to discuss fiqh thru hadeeth 'primarily'. this methodology gives the scholars of hadeeth the aura of being 'dhahiri' in their methodology and only having an opinion in an issue as long as there is an authentic hadeeth on it. Example of this is: Subul as-Salam of As-San'ani in explanation of bulug al-Maram. Ofcourse, this is not so much a problem with greater scholars who have amassed knowledge of all sciences of the Shariah to deduce fiqh, however it does become a serious problem with students of knowledge who take to learning fiqh thru either of the two ways.

Both ways - i.e. to only learn fiqh thru the way of the scholars of fiqh or only thru the way of the scholars of hadeeth will not give you the strenght in fiqh that you require. The best way in reality, is to join between the two, by firstly learning fiqh thru the way of the fuqaha and then strengthening your opinion/knowledge by studying hadeeth secondarily. This the best way since the first stage gives you the broadest understanding of all issues of fiqh whilst the second stage gives you strength in proof. Wallahu alim.

[IbnMuhammed]

Good riddance. More later.

(Part 1 - for which we had no hard ideas in mind and would appreciate expect a slight tweak in its title - ended out to target Salafi Laymen; that has been achieved since they failed to answer any of the real substantive questions facing their precious Salafi layman Manhaj)

Pointless post Akhi?

[justabro]

I remembered tawfique chowdhury today and how his fiqh seemed to be an example of salafi fiqh. so i browsed the alkauthar forums and found some quotes (sorry if it derails the true intent of the thread):

Are these somebody's notes or has Tawfique typed them himself?

[Abu Abdul-Barr]

he typed it himself, i quoted it from the alkauthar forums. just realised if you click on the quote link it takes you to random posts on IA.

[Abu Hurairah]

I remembered tawfique chowdhury today and how his fiqh seemed to be an example of salafi fiqh. so i browsed the alkauthar forums and found some quotes (sorry if it derails the true intent of the thread):

It seems to me what Tawfique said in those quotes is the opposite of Salafi fiqh. Why shouldn't he make tarjeeh if he able to? What from there is controversial?

[Abu Abdul-Barr]

I didn't imply they were controversial but he was an example of a salafi fiqh student of knowledge based on what I heard from him directly. so i thought id see if any quotes on the alkauthar forums justified my assumption. that's what i found from a quick search. any other famous talib could have been mentioned but he was on my mind at the time.

i meant nothing malicious or mischievous in my post in citing him as an example. so please feel free to correct me if i was wrong in doing so.

[justabro]

I mention all of them and the strongest opinion that I point out in the course is the opinion that is usually in accordance with the usulfiqh of RawdatunNadhir wa Jannatul Manadhir of Imam Ibn Qudaamah which is based and derived from Shafi usulfiqh from AlMustawsaf of Imam alghazzali may Allah have mercy on all of them.

Err... not nearly as bad as NaturalAllyGate, but this is quite shameful in itself if he typed this.

I can speak on my behalf - my explanation of Mulakkas al-Fiqhi should inshaAllah enable you to be able to go Mughni after you take the full explanation of the Mulakkas with me inshaAllah. So the challenge for all students guild members is to learn Arabic well so that they can actually move on to Mughni after the guild.

Sounds like delusions of grandeur. You will study Mulakhas al-Fiqhi in English (even studied in Arabic, it is considered a starter's book in Fiqh), and then all you need to do is learn Arabic and read Mughni.

This nonsense is nothing short of criminal.

The reason why I choose that book is because of the above mentioned reasons and because the available translation is good quality and also because it will make the transtition into arabic easier for those who want to get into arabic.

I have the English translation. I found it to be just ok... nothing special.

I submit that the person who has done the full English course with Tawfique on Fiqh and Usul would not be able to read al-Baha' al-Maqdisi's sharh of Umdah on his own, much less al-Mughni!

- Before joining a battle - it may be fard kifaayah - but after having joined it - to run away from the battle is a major sin - so once you have joined it - it is fard ayn to continue. Such is the SG. Before you joined it - seeking deep detailed knowledge of Islam was fard kifaayah on you. However, now that you have joined, seeking the detailed knowledge of Islam is fard ayn upon you. To leave it at this stage is sinful. Remember that. This is what my sheikh used to tell me again and again - remember that to leave studying deeply about Islam now that you have entered that battle is a major sin!

There may be some element of truth to what he is saying here, depending on circumstances, but I would not extend that to al-Kauthar or any of these other commercial organizations. At best, all you can hope to become from such part-time "Talab al-Ilm" (that to in English!) is to be an educated layman. Such courses would help in going on to further studies. They would obviously give you some advantage over someone who has never studied these subjects at all, but it is sad to see (though it's not surprising, and I've seen him do it before) him pumping up his own organization and its activities so much.

The 'strictest' madhab differs according to the topic. So for example:
The strictest madhab in:
Purification: Shafi/Hanbali > Maliki > Hanafi
Prayer: Shafi/Hanafi > Hanafi > Maliki
Food/Drinks: Hanafi > Hanbali/Maliki > Shafi
Fasting: Maliki > Hanafi > Hanbali > Shafi
Zakat: Hanbali/Shafi > Maliki > Hanafi
Business transactions: Shafi > Hanbali/Maliki > Hanafi
Marriage: Hanafi > Maliki > Shafi/Hanbali

Ibn Taymiyyah has made similar subject-by-subject comparisons between the madhahib in a work titled al-Qawa'id al-Fiqhiyyah (although it is famous as al-Qawa'id al-Nuraniyyah, but I don't know where Mr. Chawdhury is taking his comparisons from.

The madhab of the layman is that of the Mujtahid scholar that he/she is following - it may be a scholar of a madhab or an independant scholar.

If someone asks you which madhab you are following - then it depends on the above, since we clarified in our class that although it may be permissible and in some times recommended to follow a madhab, it is in no way obligatory and to make it obligatory is closer to being an innovation than being wajib!

So if someone follows the classical hanbali madhab through the books of ibn qudamah and holds on to that, then he is hanbali in madhab, and if he follows that of ibn taymiyyah may Allah have mercy on them all, then he is asl hambali but digresses to the opinions of the sheikh in those matters in which the sheikh had independant opinions to the madhab.

In general, if poeple ask you which madhab are you on, it can either be a genuine question in which case you reply genuinely for information purposes. if it is not a genuine question, then leave these people alone as they don't understand the purpose of madhab nor the reality of blind following, nor taqleed.

This statement is very confused. Is he talking about the simple layman? Or the scholar? Or student?

Fiqh and fuqahah after the early times have generally been away from hadeeth such that many of the books of fiqh used hadeeth without discussing the strength of hadeeth and their grading. It is for this reason that many of hte scholars of hadeeth would actually have separate books that extract the hadeeths from certain popular books of fiqh and then do research into their authenticity. Examples are Ibn Hajr's Talkheesul-Habeer which is an extraction of the hadeeths from compendium of Shafi fiqh AsSharh Al-Kabeer of Ar-Rafee. Also Az-Zaylai's Nasb-ar-Raayah which is an extraction of the hadeeths used by alHidaayah in Hanafi fiqh. Also Irwaa al-Ghaleel of Sh alAlbani in extracting the hadeeths from the Hanbali book of fiqh Manarus-Sabeel. So examples of this are numerous. If you find a faqeeh who is also a muhaddith, then their fiqh is fantastic and strong (ofcourse provided that they are strong fuqaha as well) - such as An-Nawawi's Majoo in Shafi fiqh since Imam Nawawi was a muhaddith as well as faqeeh - and also Izz ibn Abdis-Salam, and also Ibn Hazm and also Ibn taymiyyah and othes may Allah have mercy on all our beloved ulema and join us in Firdaws with them. Since these people were strong in hadeeth as well as fiqh, they are generally termed as the 'muhaqqiqeen' which means the Verifiers - i.e. those scholars who would verify the correctness of the fiqh and were more worthy of doing so than others given their strength in fiqh and hadeeth together.

On the otherhand, some scholars of hadeeth, would be so engrossed into hadeeth that they discussed fiqh thru hadeeth only and as a result would not have the same strength as the fuqahah in deduction, qiyas, application of hadeeth to different situations etc.. The main problem of this would be the fact that each hadeeth is not only on one topic, it can be a proof or multiple issues and as a result, there ends up being a lack of continuity and flow if discussing fiqh thru hadeeth. Also hadeeth is not the only source of the shariah, and also given the fact that there are numerous issues in fiqh which do not have a basis in hadeeth, it ends up being a difficult talk to discuss fiqh thru hadeeth 'primarily'. this methodology gives the scholars of hadeeth the aura of being 'dhahiri' in their methodology and only having an opinion in an issue as long as there is an authentic hadeeth on it. Example of this is: Subul as-Salam of As-San'ani in explanation of bulug al-Maram. Ofcourse, this is not so much a problem with greater scholars who have amassed knowledge of all sciences of the Shariah to deduce fiqh, however it does become a serious problem with students of knowledge who take to learning fiqh thru either of the two ways.

Both ways - i.e. to only learn fiqh thru the way of the scholars of fiqh or only thru the way of the scholars of hadeeth will not give you the strenght in fiqh that you require. The best way in reality, is to join between the two, by firstly learning fiqh thru the way of the fuqaha and then strengthening your opinion/knowledge by studying hadeeth secondarily. This the best way since the first stage gives you the broadest understanding of all issues of fiqh whilst the second stage gives you strength in proof. Wallahu alim.

There is some truth to what he is saying here although I think he oversimplifies some things.

In any case, given his mentality (not to mention his established record for selling out), I would not encourage anyone to study anything with him.

[justabro]

Pointless post Akhi?

Personally, I think it's very pointy.

[ahmad10]

In any case, given his mentality (not to mention his established record for selling out), I would not encourage anyone to study anything with him.

Exactly. He has greater problems than that of his (confusing) stance in fiqh.

Remember this article on Muslim Matters by Tawfique Choudhary?

Muslim Scholars—West’s Natural Allies in Fighting Scourge of Terrorism


And the response to it by Imam Anwar?

Tawfique Chowdhury’s Alliance with the West


Hey, guess what? I just connected some dots in my head, and realized...

(drum roll)

Imam Anwar has written against an article posted on MM!

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

Sorry for digressing....(Anyways, I am not too sure what to think about this whole thing that happened with TC...I think he later tried to take back/justify/re-interpret his words. Wallahu Alam, I got too confused)