Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah

[Az Zubayr]

Salam,
Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim, Imam of Ka'aba is a very good reciter of the Holy Quran and his voice is excellent. I wanted to know that which fiqh Sheikh Shuraim belongs to? Is he Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki or Sha'afi?

[Husain]

Hanbali aka hardcore-wahhabi

[abulayl]

Hanbali aka hardcore-wahhabi
:salam: loool mufti saab, how do you define hardcore wahhabi? i would like to know how a hanbali can be hardcore wahhabi? i thought hardcore wahhabi would known as ghair muqallid.

[The Fake Shaykh]

i say we need a new definition of "hanbali"

[MujahidAbdullah]

So, is it now being said that there are only 3 madhahib...

is it now being said that Hanbaliyya are of a deviant aqeedah like the wahabiyya and salafiyya?

[Husain]

:salam: loool mufti saab, how do you define hardcore wahhabi? i would like to know how a hanbali can be hardcore wahhabi? i thought hardcore wahhabi would known as ghair muqallid.

:ws:

I meant he is a "Hanbali" by name, like most other Wahhabi's, who study Hanbali fiqh, however adopt the "we follow Qur'an and Sunnah" methodology and repeatedly speak out against taqlid.
As for his being a hardcore Wahhabi, he is probably the most outspoken from all the Imams of the Haram against Ash'ari's.

[True Life]

:salam:

Mufti Sahib, are there any Imams of the Haramain who are known to be firm on the "minhaj" of Ahlu Sunnah?

[786muslim]

I have heard Sheikh Subayyal n Sheikh Hutheyfi are very close to Deobandi (Ahlus Sunnah) Ulemas such as Sheikh Zakariya Khandalwi R.A n Maulana Umar Palanpuri R.A

[Ansari]

Yes, I have especially heard it about Imam Subayyal. Can anyone confirm who has heard something from him personally?

[shatibi]

:salam:

What about Shaikh Muhammad Ayyub from Burma? I heard he was Hanafi..

[786muslim]

:salam:

What about Shaikh Muhammad Ayyub from Burma? I heard he was Hanafi..

I heard his family orginally came from India.

[The Fake Shaykh]

when i meet shaykh jihani at the markaz this week i'll ask him, he knows them personally and they know him personally, i know shaykh sudais when he meets shaykh jihani ask's for "kal guzari" of the effort in the uk, but i'll ask him about the rest, also ive got a good friend who studied in medina universaty who i will ask about the views and manhaj of the teachers in medina universaty, inshallah (maybe i'll start another thread on this)

[hope_n_fear]

when he meets shaykh jihani ask's for "kal guzari" of the effort in the uk,
:salam:

I think it's called "kar guzari" bro.

:salam:

[The Fake Shaykh]

jazakallah for that brother, its good to know that there are still literate brothers out there, i bet you got (a*) or definetly (a) in english language gcse:lol:

anyone know how i can get software for urdu spell check:rolleyes:

[Amir_khattab]

why is it that the imams of the masjid al haram place their hands in different positions to one another?? Are some of them followers of madhabs and some who dont??

[mmohsinoddin]

As-Salam-Alekum,

i am new to this forum.

I have seen one sheikh of Makkah Mukkaramah, His name is Sheikh Mulana Mohammad Makki Hajazi D.B.
I have done musafa (alhumdullah) and heared him live in Makkah Haram. He got permission from Saudi government to give speech in haram. He is Hanafi.

Regards

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being so. If you don't like it, do as some barelwis do and conduct your own Jamaat in your hotel or elsewhere.

[suleimanibnsalim]

There is something wrong with being so when you refute Asha`irah as being Mu`attilah etc

[imaan4success]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being so. If you don't like it, do as some barelwis do and conduct your own Jamaat in your hotel or elsewhere.

Complete nonsense. This is misconception amongst salafis.

An easy way to tell usually which of them are salafi and which are not, is by looking to see where they place their hands in prayer. The salafites will tend to place their hands on the chest, the true hanbalis will usually place their hands below the naval.

wallahu a'alam.

[Usman]

Sheikh Saud bin Ibrahim AlShuraim Hafidhahullah is Hanbali, his teacher in Saba'Ashr Qiraat I believe was Sheikh Qari Abdul Fattah Rahimahullah , whose teacher was Qari Raheem Bakhsh sahib Panipati Rahimahullah, as per Mufti Ateequr Rahman sahib Shaheed Rahimahullah

[شعيب‎ محمد]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being so. If you don't like it, do as some barelwis do and conduct your own Jamaat in your hotel or elsewhere.

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi
Who said this to u? if they are salafi they will read 8 rakats of tarawee and they strech their legs like ghair muqallid .Please Remove this from ur mind THEY ARE MUQALLID

['Abd al-Baari]

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi
Who said this to u? if they are salafi they will read 8 rakats of tarawee and they strech their legs like ghair muqallid .Please Remove this from ur mind THEY ARE MUQALLID

Assalaamu 'Alaykum,

I have love and respect for all the Ai'immah of Haramain, my username here is after one of them :), but to say they are not Salafi is just silly.

The salafi opinion regarding Taraweeh is that there is no set number.


Night prayers are broad in scope, and there is no set number. Whoever wants to pray eleven rak’ahs may do so, and whoever wants to pray more or less than that may do so. The same applies to Taraweeh prayers in Ramadaan.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (23/113):

One group said that it is proven in al-Saheeh from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet did not pray more than thirteen rak’ahs in Ramadaan or at any other time, and some people were uncertain about this report, because they thought that it contradicted the saheeh hadeeth and because of the practice of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the actions of the Muslims.

But the correct view is that all of that is good, as was stated by Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him). There is no set number of rak’ahs for qiyaam during Ramadaan, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not set a number.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (11/322):

It is proven that ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) told the one whom he appointed among the Sahaabah to pray eleven rak’ahs, and it is proven that they prayed twenty-three rak’ahs based on his command. This indicates that the matter is broad in scope and that the matter was flexible according to the Sahaabah. That is also indicated by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The night prayers are two by two.”


The Khutbaat of the Ai'immah clearly show that their are salafi. Here's Shaykh Salaah al-Budayr hafidhahullah's Khutbaah from 'Eid. It cleary shows that he is against taqleed. http://www.islam-fr.com/eid/salat-eed-20-septembre-2009-medine.html

[Usman]

Assalaamu 'Alaykum,

I have love and respect for all the Ai'immah of Haramain, my username here is after one of them :), but to say they are not Salafi is just silly.

The salafi opinion regarding Taraweeh is that there is no set number.



The Khutbaat of the Ai'immah clearly show that their are salafi. Here's Shaykh Salaah al-Budayr hafidhahullah's Khutbaah from 'Eid. It cleary shows that he is against taqleed. http://www.islam-fr.com/eid/salat-eed-20-septembre-2009-medine.html

First of all, the khutba is not given directly by the Aimmah, it is provided by the government. This happened apparently after Imam Ali Al-Hudhayfee Hafidhahullah gave speech against that Mal3oon Rafsanjani. He was arrested after that.

Secondly, that's no criterion to just render all the Imams ghair Muqallid or salafi. Sheikh Abdullah As-Subayyil Hafidhahullah sent a response to Dr. Adnan Hakim's questionnaire about several issues regarding Aimmah of Haramayn, and clearly said that the Imams of Haram are Muqallid Hanafis. As response to last 6 questions, the very last question was that Whether people should do taqleed. Sheikh subbayyil said that a common person who cannot do ijtihad MUST do taqleed.

I hope some brother can post the scan of that Q&A here insha'Allah, otherwise I will.

[suleimanibnsalim]

Bismillah...

I'm not so concerned about Taqlid. What is more important is their `Aqadi stance i.e. are they against the Ahl as-Sunnah al-Asha`irah wal Maturidiyyah or not. If anyone has any information about that, feel free to post. By the way, just because some one is a Muqallid, does not make them from Ahl as-Sunnah on it's own. Take for example az-Zamakhshari al-Hanafi al-Mu`tazili.

Was-Salam

[iqadeer]

:salam:

They may not be against the general concept of Taqleed i.e., when confronted to know about a particular masala, a layman's responsibility is to ask a scholar whom he trusts (irrespective of that scholar's madhab) but I would be very surprised if someone can prove that they have nothing against the kind of Taqleed that is practiced by Hanafis (as I know only about them) i.e., a laymen must attach himself to a particular madhab only, or what is also known as Taqleed-e-Shaksi.

['Abd al-Baari]

:salam:

They may not be against the general concept of Taqleed i.e., when confronted to know a masala, a layman's responsibility is to ask a scholar (of any madhab) but I would be very surprised if someone can prove that they have nothing against the kind of Taqleed that is practiced by Hanafis (as I know only about them) i.e., a laymen must attach himself to a particular madhab only, or what is also known as Taqleed-e-Shaksi.

Wa'Alaykumus Salaam,

I think you've summed it up very well mashaa'Allah.

[Usman]

:salam:

They may not be against the general concept of Taqleed i.e., when confronted to know about a particular masala, a layman's responsibility is to ask a scholar whom he trusts (irrespective of that scholar's madhab) but I would be very surprised if someone can prove that they have nothing against the kind of Taqleed that is practiced by Hanafis (as I know only about them) i.e., a laymen must attach himself to a particular madhab only, or what is also known as Taqleed-e-Shaksi.

again, wait for the scans

[iqadeer]

Sheikh subbayyil said that a common person who cannot do ijtihad MUST do taqleed.

:salam:

I think it would be most beneficial if someone can shed light on the above statement i.e., what exactly did he mean by "taqleed"? If Taqleed to him is asking any scholar, irrespective which madhab that scholar follows, then its no different from what I have earlier stated. However, if it can be proven that by Taqleed he meant Taqleed-e-Shakhsi, then we can easily draw our conclusion that the scholars of Haramain have the same understanding of Taqleed as other Muqallid scholars, for example, Hazrat Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him), et al have.

In other words, I believe that the scholars of Haramain do not believe that it is binding on a person to strictly follow one madhab in all issues. In fact, whenever they speak out against Taqleed, it is the Taqleed-e-Shakhsi they are targetting and not Taqleed per se.They do believe in Taqleed, albeit the Ghayr Shakhsi one.

[iqadeer]

:ws:

I meant he is a "Hanbali" by name, like most other Wahhabi's, who study Hanbali fiqh, however adopt the "we follow Qur'an and Sunnah" methodology and repeatedly speak out against taqlid.
As for his being a hardcore Wahhabi, he is probably the most outspoken from all the Imams of the Haram against Ash'ari's.

:salam:

Mufti sahib, as busy as you are, I would appreciate it if you could take the time to answer some of the questions that have been lingering in my head for some time now.

1. When someone affirms the literal import of Allah's attributes such as istiwa, yad, wajh et al, are they commiting tajseem or are they simply innovating in aqeedah?

2. Is attributing direction to Allah, as Salafis interpret 'uloow, an innovation?

3. If they are innovating, can they be classified as Ahlus Sunnah?



Jazakum Allah in advance.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Complete nonsense. This is misconception amongst salafis.

An easy way to tell usually which of them are salafi and which are not, is by looking to see where they place their hands in prayer. The salafites will tend to place their hands on the chest, the true hanbalis will usually place their hands below the naval.

wallahu a'alam.

As salaam alaikum,

So you would hope so.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Every single Imam of the Haramain is a Salafi
Who said this to u? if they are salafi they will read 8 rakats of tarawee and they strech their legs like ghair muqallid .Please Remove this from ur mind THEY ARE MUQALLID

As salaam alaikum,
Keep kidding yourself, how many people do you know that have studied with the Aimmah?!?

I can guarantee you they are 100% Salafi, and it is only some Deobandis who will try and prove otherwise, simply because he loves his Qur'anic recitation or something.

[suleimanibnsalim]

Even if they are Salafi, it doesn't justify their doctirine one bit.

[Crazy_Lady]

:salam:

Does it matter if they're Salafi or not? Allah (SWT) chose them (Hafizahumullah) to be Aimmah of Haramain, there must be somefin about them that Allah (SWT) really loves, what right do we have to say anything against em??

And as a matter of fact, they are NOT Salafi.

:ws:

[imaan4success]

I can guarantee you they are 100% Salafi, and it is only some Deobandis who will try and prove otherwise, simply because he loves his Qur'anic recitation or something.

Prove it!

I assure you that you can not. How do you know they are all salafi? You have personally asked each and everyone have you?

I think it is you who needs to stop deluding yourself into believing such nonsense.

Seems like you are in a habit to talk from ignorance. If you claim to have knowledge and evidences to support your claims, then please present them. Otherwise, you are just making baseless assumptions. It's as simple as that.


some Deobandis who will try and prove otherwise, simply because he loves his Qur'anic recitation or something.

1. That doesn't even make sense. Seriously?!

2. How do you know the intentions of deobandis? You must have some special gift that others have not. Either that, or there you go again speaking from ignorance, and hawaa (passion/desire).

Subhanallah. It's funny to hear such nonsensical talk. I mean seriously, do you even put any thought into what you are about to say before you say it?!

subhanallah!

wallahu a'alam.

[Crazy_Lady]

:salam:



I can guarantee you they are 100% Salafi, and it is only some Deobandis who will try and prove otherwise, simply because he loves his Qur'anic recitation or something.

^Tell me what you understand by the term Salafi..?

:ws:

[suleimanibnsalim]

Does it matter if they're Salafi or not? Allah (SWT) chose them (Hafizahumullah) to be Aimmah of Haramain, there must be somefin about them that Allah (SWT) really loves, what right do we have to say anything against em??

Being chosen to be the Imam of the Haramayn does not make you special. What do you say of the drunk governers of the `Umawis who the Sahabah al-Kiram had to pray behind. Were they special? Allah Subhanahu wa Ta`ala chose al-Hajjaj to conquer the Haramayn. Does that make him special? No.

[شعيب‎ محمد]

Im telling u na brother If they are salafi they will not read 20 rakats. they will just read 8 rakats and they will ran away .
And Secondly,if they are salafi they dont have noor(light) on their faces....but u can see them how beautiful and noorani face they have dear brother.So try 2 follow that brother

[bugmenot]

Im telling u na brother If they are salafi they will not read 20 rakats. they will just read 8 rakats and they will ran away .
And Secondly,if they are salafi they dont have noor(light) on their faces....but u can see them how beautiful and noorani face they have dear brother.So try 2 follow that brother
These are not objective arguments, but in the end you're right being salafis does not make you an evil :-).

[شعيب‎ محمد]

These are not objective arguments, but in the end you're right being salafis does not make you an evil :-).

Brother i get what u said as These are not objective arguments
but i didnt get this but in the end you're right being salafis does not make you an evil please tell me clearly brother

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Prove it!

I assure you that you can not. How do you know they are all salafi? You have personally asked each and everyone have you?

I think it is you who needs to stop deluding yourself into believing such nonsense.

Seems like you are in a habit to talk from ignorance. If you claim to have knowledge and evidences to support your claims, then please present them. Otherwise, you are just making baseless assumptions. It's as simple as that.

As salaam alaikum,

I am in no need to prove anything, you have seriously got to be deluded if you think that the Saudis will appoint a non-salafi Imam.

As for the claim, I have several friends who live in Makkah and Madinah and they are personal friends with most of the Imams, and have studied with a few. All them can vouch that every Imam is a Salafi.



1. That doesn't even make sense. Seriously?!

2. How do you know the intentions of deobandis? You must have some special gift that others have not. Either that, or there you go again speaking from ignorance, and hawaa (passion/desire).

What I mentioned makes a lot of sense. As for the intentions of the Deobandis, well I have studied with many Deobandis, most notably at Darul Uloom, Korangi in Karachi.
Being a Deobandi myself, how can I be speaking from my desire. If I was, I would be sending out the opposite message.


Subhanallah. It's funny to hear such nonsensical talk. I mean seriously, do you even put any thought into what you are about to say before you say it?!

You say nonsensical, perhaps your one of those Deobandis who ant to believe that there really are some Deobandi sympathisers among the Aimmah of Haramain.


subhanallah!

Sadaqta

wallahu a'alam.l

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Im telling u na brother If they are salafi they will not read 20 rakats. they will just read 8 rakats and they will ran away .
And Secondly,if they are salafi they dont have noor(light) on their faces....but u can see them how beautiful and noorani face they have dear brother.So try 2 follow that brother

As salaam alaikum,

What nonsense are you coming out with. I have a book on 'Aqeedah by Shaykh Abdullah al-Athari (A Salafi scholar) which has an introduction and attestment by no other than Shaykh Sa'ud ash-Shuraim!

[suleimanibnsalim]

Bismillah...

I agree with Abu Zayd and Bugmenot that those were unojective arguments.

What proof do you have that his face is full of Nur? You can't prove it, rather it is your perception. Thus it is subjective.

However, there is something wrong with being a Salafi if you call Asha`irah Ahl al-Bid`ah and Sufiyyah Mushrikun. We hope that this is not the case for whoever we are talking about. Would you agree with me there Sidi Abu Zayd?

Was-Salam

[Usman]

As salaam alaikum,

What nonsense are you coming out with. I have a book on 'Aqeedah by Shaykh Abdullah al-Athari (A Salafi scholar) which has an introduction and attestment by no other than Shaykh Sa'ud ash-Shuraim!

I dont know if that kind of language and choice of words is tolerated by mods here, but let me be clear over here. We are brought up in an upbringing where Haramayn are seen as the holiest places on earth. That being said, people who are leading the prayers there are the luckiest people to us. Seeing the hatred these pseudo-salafis have against Ahlus Sunnah, we find it hard to merely just think that the Aimma of Harmayn are ghair Muqallideen. As for wahabi aqeedah, of'course that has been a matter of dispute between our Ulama ( of Deoband ) and the ulama of Saudiah.

I was told by Maulana Saleemullah Khan ( Head of the Madrassah board of Pakiustan) sahib's grandson, that when they went to Madinah, Sheikh AbdulBari Al-thubaith Hafidhahullah especially requested that Maulana visit his house. The kind of respect and affection Sheikh Thubaiti showed would take a lot of time to explain, but just as an example, he said that "The services rendered by the Ulama of Deoband are so much that no matter how hard these fitnahmongers try, they won't be able to take your respect out of our hearts" , au kama qaal.

Sheikh Shuraim writing the taqreedh over some book of aqeedah does not mean that he wholeheartedly agrees with everything that some ghair muqallide believes in. tought luck, but now that I have my scanner, I left the book at work which had the complete letters by Dr.Adnan Hakim and Sheikh Subayyil Hafidhahullah. Insha'Allah tomorrow I'll post it.

Secondly, about the brother who said "What he means by Taqleed" , brother, now you're hairsplitting. When the sheikh says that the Aimma of Harmayn are Hanbali Muqallids, and then says that people who do not have the ability to do ijtihad must do taqleed, that pretty much sums it up. The rest insha'Allah will follow in the scan, or if some brother has access of the Majmua'Muqalaad by Maulana As'ad Madni Rahimahullah, you can post it here.

WasSalaam

[Harris Hammam]

Salam


I meant [al-Shuraim] is a "Hanbali" by name, like most other Wahhabi's, who study Hanbali fiqh, however adopt the "we follow Qur'an and Sunnah" methodology and repeatedly speak out against taqlid.
The methodology is not really different between the Imams of the Haram when it comes to Ijtihad and Taqleed.

Abdur 'l-Rahman al-Sudais (Imam of al-Masjid al-Haraam) partly edited Abu 'l-Wafa Ibn Aqeel al-Hanbali's al-Wadih Fee Usool 'l-Fiqh (http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=1170) as part of his PhD. It is published with the editing of al-Turki, who was there at al-Sudais's PhD thesis presentation.

Read vol. 5 and the chapter of Taqleed. Explain to us where he or al-Shuraim or the Imams of the Haram contradict the issues discussed therein. Alternatively, you can provide us with major Usool 'l-Fiqh books, especially the major famous Hanbali books and tell us where they contradict the concept of Taqleed.

In reality, the reason why Hanbalis have always maintained the "we follow Qur'an and Sunnah" methodology (in the way you portray it) is greatly down to the Hanbali principle of an Alim not being allowed to follow another Alim (even if there is no time to check up/do Ijtihad on that mas'alah), whereas in Hanafi law it is permissible. This issue is discussed in the same chapter on Taqleed in Ibn Aqeel's book. Perhaps this also the reason why Hanbalis are not bent on labelling themselves as 'Hanbalis' the way certain Hanafis are doing in this era.


The Khutbaat of the Ai'immah clearly show that their are salafi. Here's Shaykh Salaah al-Budayr hafidhahullah's Khutbaah from 'Eid. It cleary shows that he is against taqleed. http://www.islam-fr.com/eid/salat-eed-20-septembre-2009-medine.html[/FONT]
Where did he say that Taqleed is Haram? He was calling towards the importance of following the Kitab and Sunnah by quoting the Kitab, the Sunnah and the Imams of this Ummah. I also refer you to the Hanbali principle of the prohibition for Alim to do Taqleed of another.


An easy way to tell usually which of them are salafi and which are not, is by looking to see where they place their hands in prayer. The salafites will tend to place their hands on the chest, the true hanbalis will usually place their hands below the naval.
Masha'allah @ your principle. Perhaps you think that everyone needs to learn such a principle - you have now become our teacher, as well as the instructor of Salafis not to place their hands except below the navel.

Most Hanbalis opine below the navel. In a narration from Imam Ahmed, it is below the chest. In another narration, he has a choice. Ibn Qudamah said it's not a big deal. However, some minnow from outside the Hanbali Madhab thinks it is crucial factor from determining who is a Hanbali and who is not.


I would be very surprised if someone can prove that they have nothing against the kind of Taqleed that is practiced by Hanafis (as I know only about them) i.e., a laymen must attach himself to a particular madhab only, or what is also known as Taqleed-e-Shaksi.
Here we go again - the classic "Layman has to stick to one Madhab" rhetoric.

Round 3: Tell us: When did following one Madhab become an obligation on the layman? After you tell us this, can you give us references from classical Usool 'l-Fiqh texts - from your specified date and after - stating this?

Ma' Salaamah

[imaan4success]

As salaam alaikum,

wa alaykum assalaam


I am in no need to prove anything,

Then don't go around debating people making claims that you can not substantiate. If you make a claim, you are obligated to provide the basis and evidences for it. This is from the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah itself. You accuse the aimmah of something but then provide no evidences for it. This is back-biting wa maadhallah.


you have seriously got to be deluded if you think that the Saudis will appoint a non-salafi Imam.

Again, baseless claims again. Do you not understand that you should not speak from hawaa? You make a lot of claims, but don't seem to be able to back any of it with evidences. Seems you believe that you can say anything you want, whether true or not and people should accept it without question. In other words, make taqleed of you. Sorry brother, but that's not how it works. If you make an argument, or make a claim then provide the evidences, if you can not, then it is better for you to remain silent than to fall in sin.


As for the claim, I have several friends who live in Makkah and Madinah and they are personal friends with most of the Imams, and have studied with a few. All them can vouch that every Imam is a Salafi.

How do I know that? I equally know people, who personally know some of the Imams and can testify that there are many amongst them who are not salafi. And?


What I mentioned makes a lot of sense. As for the intentions of the Deobandis, well I have studied with many Deobandis, most notably at Darul Uloom, Korangi in Karachi.
Being a Deobandi myself, how can I be speaking from my desire. If I was, I would be sending out the opposite message.

You really think it makes sense? Seriously?! Then please explain it to me. Explain:

1. Why deobandis would hate someone for loving the Quran?

Are you really going to try and defend the absurd statement you made?? Are you really trying to tell me that deobandis will hate a person simply because he loves the Quran? Come on!!! LOL!!! Seriously!! LOL!!! Subhanallah. Please try and use some common sense and a little bit of intelligence.

2. Establish with evidences (i mean you are after all claiming knowledge of this when you said what you said), how you know that some deobandis hate a person for loving the Quran? Serioulsy, i'm still waiting.

Claiming to be a deobandi and claiming to have studied with deobandis doesn't establish anything. It's like somebody saying that muslims believe listening to music is halal (ma'adhallah). Then he is asked how, and he replies because i'm a muslim and i have studied with muslims.

Do you even realize how absurd that sounds?


Being a Deobandi myself, how can I be speaking from my desire.

1. Are you arguing here that being a deobandi, means you can not follow desire? Just because you are a deobandi, it does not automatically protect you from following hawaa.

2. How can you be speaking from desire? Well...when you made the statements you made, there are only two possibilities:


You are basing your claims upon evidences and thus, have knowledge of it.

If you have no evidences, then what other possibility is there other than talking from passion, and desire?


Since you can clearly have no evidences. And since no body can know what is in the hearts of men other than Allah swt, also, and since you are making a claim on behalf of many muslims whom you probably do not even know and have never met (like when you stated that they hate an Imam because he loves Quran LOL) never mind knowing there intentions, then the first possibility above is ruled out. Which only leaves us with the possibility that you are talking from desire. That's how. It's all very simple dear brother.


You say nonsensical, perhaps your one of those Deobandis who ant to believe that there really are some Deobandi sympathisers among the Aimmah of Haramain.


Perhaps so, or perhaps not.

So let me make this very clear. Let me tell you exactly how I see it and how I feel about it. Even IF it was true, that all the aimmah of haramain shareefain were pseudo salafis (it's a better term and more suited), what would that really prove? It would not prove anything. There was a time when the khawarij over took masjid an-Nabawi s.a.w. and refused to let any of the Sahabah r.a. lead the prayers. It was under the control of the khawarij. What does that prove? That the creed and views of the khawarij was suddenly the correct one? I don't think so.

Yes it was saddening that, that happened. Just as it is saddening that there are aimmah of haramain who are from the pseudo salafi sect. But, we just have to live with and deal with it. Just as the advice of Ali r.a. to the Sahabah was when He was asked what to do regarding the situation where the khawarij over took the masjid. He responded by advising them, when they do good then do good with them (i.e. pray in jama'ah behind their imam etc), but when they indulge in sin and evil then leave them. And this is the advice I follow. Very simple indeed.

So yes it would sadden to learn salafis have overtaken the haramain if it was true. But it wouldn't bother me otherwise in any other way. It doesn't prove anything.

So if what you claim to be true was actually true and established, I would never bother challenging it. I would just stick with the advice of Ali r.a. and advise others to the same. walhamdulillah. That's it. So when it comes to this issue, then only time my emotions are involved is when people spread misinformation. That I strongly dislike and so challenging such ideas is not only to help prevent other muslims from being misled, but also to get you to question yourself. To get you to start thinking and asking why you believe that. Is it based on evidences, or based on desire?

If it's desire, then it is in your interest to change that and do something to prevent yourself from falling into sin. Especially since, if you are wrong, then you are also committing the major sin of gheebah (back biting). So insha'Allah I get some reward by helping you realise that, and you have the opportunity to rectify yourself.

wallahu a'alam.

As one last word, I really did not want to get into and debates/disputes. But like I said, I had to do something to help others not be misled and to perhaps help you too.

wassalaam.

[imaan4success]

Salam

Masha'allah @ your principle. Perhaps you think that everyone needs to learn such a principle - you have now become our teacher,




Wassalaam.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote with some focus and concentration. Perhaps even consider the wording and reflect over it a little while before responding. You have obviously not understood what I had stated. And to accuse me of trying to be a teacher to you and whoever else are refering to when you say 'our', SHAME ON YOU!

But Jazakallahu khairan for all the rewards. That's what happens when you make gheebah of others and falsely accuse them.


as well as the instructor of Salafis not to place their hands except below the navel.

Where did I instruct salafis not to place their hands under the navel? Again, you should be shameful with your accusations!


Most Hanbalis opine below the navel. In a narration from Imam Ahmed, it is below the chest. In another narration, he has a choice. Ibn Qudamah said it's not a big deal.

And I never dispute that. Is there anything in my statement you can show and from which you can demonstrate that I disputed that? Otherwise, why even bring that up in a direct response to me?

I'm fully aware walhamdulillah, what the Hanbali opinions are regarding the placement of the hands. There are actually three opinions in the Hanbali fiqh, below the chest, above the navel or below the navel. And all are acceptable in the Hanbali fiqh as far as I understand it. Although I am no authority regarding Hanbali fiqh so wallahu a'alam.


However, some minnow from outside the Hanbali Madhab thinks it is crucial factor from determining who is a Hanbali and who is not.

Didn't quite understand what 'minnow' was meant to be.

Perhaps that is true, perhaps not. Wallahu a'alam. But I certainly did not say it was a 'crucial factor'. I never implied any such thing, and if you had actually carefully read what I wrote, then that should have been obvious.

You should next time pay more close attention to the wording. Look again and this time notice the word 'usually'. Explain to me how the word 'usually' translates into, or is synonymous to 'crucial factor'? What I stated, is something observable. We witness this on a daily basis. So there's nothing wrong with what I said, it is based upon something. Although, I agree that even then it can only be taken generally and doesn't mean it is 'always' true. Hence why I wrote 'usually', implying in a general and broad sense and not referring to each and every person/aspect.

I hope that is clarified now.

[Harris Hammam]

Salam i4s.

Obviously, you were bashing - as you said - the 'Salafites' and implied they were false Hanbalis, or pseudo-Hanbalis (as has become common these days as part of an infamous smear campaign). Let me remind you of what you said:

An easy way to tell usually which of them are salafi and which are not, is by looking to see where they place their hands in prayer. The salafites will tend to place their hands on the chest, the true hanbalis will usually place their hands below the naval.
Basically, you implied that these people are false/pseudo-Hanbalis, as we know that most Imams in Saudi place their hands on their chest.

Your result would be: A true Hanbali must place his hands below the navel. How pathetic of a conclusion.

[Harris Hammam]

i4s, you then proceeded to admit:

Just as it is saddening that there are aimmah of haramain who are from the pseudo salafi sect.
So you've passed the ruling on a good few Imams; I'd think that should be your verdict on all the Imams really.

I can't think of anyone who places his hands below the navel. According to your criteria, i4s, this is the hallmark of 'Salafites'; true Hanbalis wouldn't do that according to you.

And even if some Imam does place his hands below his navel, then given their general methodology, he would obviously differ with the Madhab of the Hanaabilah somewhere else. So basically, that Imam too would not be a true Hanbali...

I am highlighting this to underline the non-academic nature of your principle in relation to differentiating between fake Hanbalis and true Hanbalis.

[iqadeer]

Salam

Here we go again - the classic "Layman has to stick to one Madhab" rhetoric.

Round 3: Tell us: When did following one Madhab become an obligation on the layman? After you tell us this, can you give us references from classical Usool 'l-Fiqh texts - from your specified date and after - stating this?

Ma' Salaamah

As a layman, I am in no position to answer your question. In fact, as a layman, it is not even binding on me to know the answer to your question. I am merely repeating what I have read regarding this in books of modern day Deobandi scholars such as Mufti Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him). In matters pertaining to fiqh, I adhere to the opinions of Deobandi scholars who happen to be 99.99% Hanafis and as such, you can say that I am a Hanafi. For example, when I recently bought a new home in United States, I decided to go with Guidance Residential to finance my home. The reason I chose Guidance is because Mufti sahib has vetted and endorsed their scheme as Shariah compliant. In this issue, I trusted Mufti sahib's research and would not bother to know the details. Given his fame and his credentials that are open to everyone in the world, it would be foolish for me to try to figure out the details about why he reached his decision in certifying Guidance as Shariah compliant. Likewise, in the issue of Taqleed, he's stated that in this day and age, due to the fact that the level of taqwa has declined among the common masses and they are more concerned with their own desires and fancies, one should perform Taqleed-e-Shakhsi. I understand that its his opinion and there is an ihtimal that this opinion could be wrong. However, I have no way to know this for sure and since I trust him as a Mufti, the logical course of action for me is to take this fatwa prima facie and accept its validity. At any rate, I entered into this discussion in the spirit of learning and my intent is neither to argue nor one-upmanship. From your previous posts, you appear to be a knowlegeable brother and as such, command my respect. I would be happy to hear your side of the argument. At the same time, I think it would be most beneficial if Mufti Husain, whom we all hold in high respect here, can add his two cents as well.

[Ibn_Adam]

:salam:

This is something related to Shaikh Hudhaify and Shaikh AbdulBari Ath-Thubaity.

Taken from IB Islamic Forum, Imaams of the Haramain - Part VI thread, post #3336


Assalamo-alaikum-warahmatullahi-wabrakatu

Inshallah you are all well. Well as promised I will tell you a little about our dinner with Shaykh Hudaifee and Shaykh Thubaity.

Allhumdolillah we got a call when we were in Madina (well I didnt but Saeed Anwar did) that Shaykh Hudaifee wanted us to come to dinner - basically it was for the Paksitani cricket team players and also he wanted to meet and talk to Shaykh/Maulana Tariq Jameel. So as it was my responsibility to take them there I was also invited allhumdolillah!!!!!

So after Isha myself, Maulana Tariq, Saeed Anwar, Shahid Afrdid, Mohammed Yousuf, Waqar Younis and Junaid Jamshed all went for dinner. Mashallah it was at Shaykh Hudaifees place - (they have been allotted some grand apartments just outside Madina Munawarrah - its a 20 min drive). So we got there and we were stopped at the entrance by the guards who asked what we here for and then we told him he let us in.

So we went to Shaykh Hudaifees apartment - it was huge mashallah but very simple and nicely decorated and there was laid out on the floor a banquet mashallah - there was camel meat and all sorts of arab dishes.

Shaykh Hudaifee was sat there without his red scarf - all he had was his cap on and white thobe and sat next to him was Shaykh Thubaitee there were a few other guys but I did not know who they were. Anyway Maulana sat next to the Shaykhs and we started to eat - mashallah the food was very nice.

Shaykh hudaifee said he was really happy about Mohammed Yousufs conversion and asked him how he came about to convert etc. Maulana Tariq then chatted to Shaykh Hudaifee and he asked him about the Ulema in Pakistan e.g. Mufti Taqi Usmani and how much good effort they were making in Pak. He then asked Maulana about Islam in Pakistan and they discussed about the earthquake. Maulana invited Shaykh Hudaifee to come to Pak but he said travelling was difficult for him. They also talked about Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi (rahmatullahialahi) and also about Shaykh Zakarriya Khandelwi (rahmatullahialahi) who Shaykh Hudaifee said used to be a personal friend and a great alim - subhanallah.

The shaykhs chatted to all the other people and told them to be role models for the muslim ummah as people look upto them and they should be setting an example and he told them that he was very happy that the Pak cricket team was doing so much for Islam.

Shaykh Hudaifee then told Maulana Tariq to pray for the Ummah and then Maulana did a short duaa at the end.

Was a very interesting experience mashallah. When we left the Shaykh gave us all a bottle of Oud.

I think thats everything - inshallah some time this year I will post about when I recently met Shaykh Saleh Taleb just before I came back to the UK.

Masalaam
Br Abdullah Saood

[شعيب‎ محمد]

1.This is the third time Im telling u brother that if they are salafi they will read 8 rakats and they will ran away,but if u open haramainrecordings.com and watch all previous taraweehs each and every imam had prayed 20 rakats( 10 rakats 1 imam and 10 other imam).....please note this and reply
2.As You said that i have read in one book about Shuraim's aqaid then what u read about him can u please write some things about it.
3.One More thing if he is really salafi,he will not raise hands for dua.I have seen in haramainrecordings.com i.e his photo in album type,he is raising hands for dua what do u say on this

[Harris Hammam]

Salam, iqadeer

In fact, as a layman, it is not even binding on me to know the answer to your question.
Let me also give you some comfort and guarantee to you the following:

For a layman to affiliate to any Madhab has never been an obligation by consensus. In fact, there is a consensus that if a layman passes his life without knowing what Madhabs are out there, or what Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali means, or does not know how to differentiate between a Hanafi scholar from a Shafi'i scholar, or does not know to specifically ask for the mainstream opinion of one particular school, then there is no harm in that at all.


Likewise, in the issue of Taqleed, he's stated that in this day and age, due to the fact that the level of taqwa has declined among the common masses and they are more concerned with their own desires and fancies, one should perform Taqleed-e-Shakhsi. I understand that its his opinion and there is an ihtimal that this opinion could be wrong. However, I have no way to know this for sure and since I trust him as a Mufti, the logical course of action for me is to take this fatwa prima facie and accept its validity.
You are right akh. Of course one can do Taqleed of Mufti Taqi in issues of Fiqh. This has never been the issue though. Point is this: You don't know - and you haven't been told either I assume - when exactly Mathabistic Taqleed was initiated as an obligation based on the fear of following desires. If you can't answer it, maybe someone else can.

As long as this is the case (that nobody can asnwer when Mathabistic Taqleed was obligated on the basis of the 'desires' argument), you might want to ask yourself why there is a culture of bashing 'Salafis' who do not obligate Mathabistic Taqleed upon any Muslim, but rather obligate only universal Taqleed as was the original obligation of the Shariah. You should realise that these very people many Deobandis bash don't advocate for following desires; rather they - contrary to Deobandis - have prescribed Taharree for the layman, as the many scholars of the past have instructed.

One reading the classical texts of the scholars would realise this fact. Hardly anyone prominent obligated Mathabistic Taqleed in the manner that it is obligated by Deobandis today. Even if some scholar did, they are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of classical scholars - both Hanafi and non-Hanafi - that the layman does not have to stick to one Madhab or the scholars of one Madhab; rather his obligation is that of Taqleed Mutlaq aka Universal Taqleed, not Taqleed Muqayyad aka Restricted (usually Mathabistic) Taqleed.

There is another important point worth mentioning I would like to share:
The many books that are pumped around these days by Deobandis, and the dozens of threads on the obligation of Mathabistic Taqleed - both here and elsewhere - is an undeniable fact. In all of these books, the general trend is that:
1. the concept of Taqleed is established by the Shariah,
2. it is mentioned that Sahabah did Taqleed,
3. the great status of the Imams is presented,
4. it is proposed that desires came into the Ummah therefore the obligation of Universal Taqleed changed to the obligation of Mathabistic Taqleed,
5. the need of following only one Madhab out of Four Madhabs is justified (due to desires...),
6. the need of not following a "non-Four Madhab" scholar is justified (no systematic compilation of his fatwas etc...),
7. and the doubts against Universal Taqleed are demolished,
8. and some books would go on to claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut upon the Ummah..

This would be the basic outline of a typical Deobandi "pro-Mathabistic Taqleed" book/pamphlet.

Of course, such a book may work good against those who deny the concept of Taqleed altogether (like certain hardcore Indo-Pak Ahle Hadees). But this is not true for those many non-Deobandis (mostly Saudis, most Salafis, etc.) who maintain that Universal Taqleed is the obligation and not Mathabistic Taqleed. The reason why such literature can never be effective is due to the following reasons:
1) No date - even an estimate - of when the obligation of Mathabistic Taqleed came into force as a replacement to Universal Taqleed is given due of the desires factor; it is just an idea that is pushed ahead to the reader and forced down his/her throat. The reason for this, I think, is that had these Deobandi authors obliged to give us the date or an estimated date, they would be forced to provide a) evidence, and b) quotes from Usool 'l-Fiqh books supporting it

2) The amount of evidence that suggests that Universal Taqleed - and not Mathabistic Taqleed - is the only obligation upon the layman is never discussed in this Deobandi literature. I recently told someone here that Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj and Ibn 'l-Humam - two Hanafis, amongst many others, both Hanafi and non-Hanafi - maintained that Mathabistic Taqleed is not an obligation. The thinking person would question why the position taken up by these scholars is never discussed in this pro-MT literature. The reasons for not mentioning such a thing is obvious, as such quotes would destroy the foundations of MT.

3) The principle of "the layman not possessing a Madhab" is hardly a feature in this pro-MT literature. Similarly, those scholars (like Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj) who said that "a layman is not even a Hanafi even if he claims to be a Hanafi" is never addressed in this Deobandi pro-MT literature. The reasons for omitting these arguments is obvious.

4) The principle of "a layman should perform Taharree when faced with two conflicting fatwas" (discussed in the books of Usool again) is also never a feature of this literature.

5) They would never discuss the solution provided by virtually all Usoolis to save one self from following desires, which is Istifati Qalbak - ask yourself and your heart.

6) Those who claim that the door of Ijtihad shut, they would never discuss why is it that, in Hanbali Usool, no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, the reason why these Deobandis don't address this is that it would be an evident self-contradiction on their part: one the one hand, they are telling Hanbalis to believe in their own Usool (which would necessiate the belief of Ijtihad still being alive); on the other hand, they are claiming that the door of Ijtihad has shut forever

and there are a few more things which these authors conveniently omit. Nowadays, the only way for these pro-MT authors brainwash the poor laymen - who claim affiliation to Hanafi law - is to misrepresent the Nusoos of UT as Nusoos supporting MT, or by portraying quotes from the Shariah and Salaf against following desires as evidence for MT, or by giving the layman the rubbish ultimatum: either you are with the Madhab, or you are with Satan and desires.

Obviously, with so much information supporting UT for the layman (and not MT) via the quotes of Usooli classcial scholars, the Nusoos of the Shariah and the practice of the Salaf, it is no wonder why what the pro-MT people consider to be 'Salafi Wahhabi Saudi Ghayr Muqallid etc.' actually have every reason to laugh at the hours and effort spent by pro-MT authors who lambast UT in this era.

In any case, if anybody can tell us why UT is no longer permissible for the layman due to the 'desires' factor, please come forward and tell us when did it become an obligation, and which scholars said that, and what is your reply to the scholars from all four Madhabs who opined the obligation of only UT upon laymen. Until then, well... all I can say is that the pro-MT movement is deceptive and self-deceptive.

Sorry if there are typos - I couldn't be bothered rechecking it...

Wassalam


At the same time, I think it would be most beneficial if Mufti Husain, whom we all hold in high respect here, can add his two cents as well.

[imaan4success]

Salam i4s.

Obviously, you were bashing - as you said - the 'Salafites' and implied they were false Hanbalis, or pseudo-Hanbalis (as has become common these days as part of an infamous smear campaign). Let me remind you of what you said:



Wassalaam,

Don't put words into my mouth. Explain logically how the word 'salafites' implies 'false Hanbalis' or 'pseudo-Hanbalis'. All you are doing here is putting words into my mouth.


as we know that most Imams in Saudi place their hands on their chest.

Who knows? Who are these 'we'? I'm certainly not part of that 'we'.

Most Imams place their hands on their chest? You haven't established that. If you can substantiate that claim above, then please do so. Otherwise you are merely blowing hot air. All talk and no substance. I'm waiting.

wallahu a'alam.

[imaan4success]

i4s, you then proceeded to admit:

So you've passed the ruling on a good few Imams; I'd think that should be your verdict on all the Imams really.



What verdict? And why should this alleged verdict expand to all Imams? And this time, if you make any claims then present evidences to support them. Otherwise, don't waste my time.


I can't think of anyone who places his hands below the navel. According to your criteria, i4s, this is the hallmark of 'Salafites'; true Hanbalis wouldn't do that according to you.

Putting words into my mouth again. Are you really this shameless?


And even if some Imam does place his hands below his navel, then given their general methodology, he would obviously differ with the Madhab of the Hanaabilah somewhere else. So basically, that Imam too would not be a true Hanbali...

Nonsensical.


I am highlighting this to underline the non-academic nature of your principle in relation to differentiating between fake Hanbalis and true Hanbalis.

What principle? Which part of the word 'usually' did you not quite understand? LOL And I never used the word 'fake'. That's you using that word, not me. As I feel like I will have to repeat over and over again, don't put words in my mouth!

Subhanallah, the lack of intelligence of some just never ceases to amaze me. You take a quotation of mine, blow it waaaaayyyy out of proportion and then begin putting words in my mouth. Is that what you call academia? LOL Subhanallah. May Allah swt guide you! And May Allah swt guide me also, ameen!

wallahu a'alam.

[Harris Hammam]

Salam

Don't put words into my mouth. Explain logically how the word 'salafites' implies 'false Hanbalis' or 'pseudo-Hanbalis'. All you are doing here is putting words into my mouth.
You mentioned 'true Hanbalis'. The opposite of that would be 'false Hanbalis' or 'pseudo-Hanbalis', I assume.

So now give me an example of false Hanbalis in Fiqh that are not 'Salafis'.

Otherwise, and most certainly, Mufti said this:

I meant he is a "Hanbali" by name, like most other Wahhabi's, who study Hanbali fiqh, however adopt the "we follow Qur'an and Sunnah" methodology and repeatedly speak out against taqlid.
i.e. false/pseudo-Hanbalis in reality. I thought you would subscribe to this.


Most Imams place their hands on their chest? You haven't established that. If you can substantiate that claim above, then please do so. Otherwise you are merely blowing hot air. All talk and no substance. I'm waiting.
This is getting ridiculous!
http://www.haramainrecordings.com/

[imaan4success]

Salam

You mentioned 'true Hanbalis'. The opposite of that would be 'false Hanbalis' or 'pseudo-Hanbalis', I assume.




So what if I mentioned 'true Hanbalis'? That does not imply what you claim it implies. 'True Hanbalis' could mean as apposed to non-Hanbalis or other various possibilities.

But I think you have managed to identify the real problem by saying 'I assume'. Now there you would be correct, you merely 'assumed' and unjustly so.


So now give me an example of false Hanbalis in Fiqh that are not 'Salafis'.


Why?


Otherwise, and most certainly, Mufti said this:
i.e. false/pseudo-Hanbalis in reality. I thought you would subscribe to this.


Again, you merely assumed. However having said that, I certainly would not disagree that there are pseudo salafis who claim to be Hanbali, and they in reality are not 'true Hanbalis'. And what I mean by 'true Hanbalis', are those who adhere strictly to the Hanbali madhab with the exception of, times of necessity.

Now if a 'true Hanbali' can be defined that way, then surely you would also have to agree also that those who do not adhere strictly to the Hanbali madhab except due to necessity, are not 'true Hanbalis'.

What would be wrong with that?


http://www.haramainrecordings.com/

Jazakallahu khairan for that link!!! Wallahi! I mean that. I've watched quite a few of them making sure to watch closely to see where they place their hands. Although admittedly I haven't watched each and every single one of those Imams yet. Out of some of those I have watched, NOT ONE has placed their hands on their chest walhamdulillah. Below the chest, but certainly not on the chest. It seems to me, that pseudo salafis just see what they want to, otherwise how could they claim like yourself that most Imams place their hands on their chest? When, so far, from what I have seen, this is not the case.

It makes me happy to see and know that these Imams, walhamdulillah do not follow this weak munkar hadith about placing the hand on their chest. A hadith that has never been followed by the ahlu sunnah Ulama, this is something that has been brought in by pseudo salafis and perhaps other sects.

So once again, Jazakallahu khairan.


This is getting ridiculous!

What's so ridiculous about asking you to substantiate your claim? Perhaps it's because you can not support your claim with evidences?

I mean, didn't you just in a previous post claim that the pseudo salafis prescribe tahharee? And when I do that, you find it ridiculous? Talk about inconsistencies and bigotry! Here's what you stated:


You should realise that these very people many Deobandis bash don't advocate for following desires; rather they - contrary to Deobandis - have prescribed Taharree for the layman, as the many scholars of the past have instructed.

Where is the basis for this? Where is your evidence from the Quran and Sunnah to say that the layman should be prescribed and/or should practice tahharee?

If you can not provide evidences to support this claim, it is a bid'ah.

And please explain how a layman would practice tahharee. Let me give you a case scenario, you have a poor uneducated laborer. Let's say he is a farmer. Who, never mind not knowing arabic and being distant from having mastered the sciences necessary, can not so much as even read or write.

Give clear and practical guidelines as to how such a person would make tahharee.

wallahu a'alam.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

The only one that seems to be speaking from their (very emotional) Hawaa, is you (Imaan4success)! You have conjured up a certain type of bias against Salafis, and that bias isn't very favourable. That said, your Hawaa will not tolerate you accepting that the Aimmah of Haramain are Salafis because that would make you uncomfortable having to pray behind them. And all the lovely (emotional) thoughts you had regarding the Aimmah would have to be dispelled because according to your Hawaa the Salafis are misguided, and how can a misguided (well, misguided according to you) individual be an Imam in the Haram.

Try using your intellect rather than your emotions, otherwise we'll have to start a debate on beating ourselves on Muharram!

[imaan4success]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

The only one that seems to be speaking from their (very emotional) Hawaa, is you (Imaan4success)! You have conjured up a certain type of bias against Salafis, and that bias isn't very favourable. That said, your Hawaa will not tolerate you accepting that the Aimmah of Haramain are Salafis because that would make you uncomfortable having to pray behind them. And all the lovely (emotional) thoughts you had regarding the Aimmah would have to be dispelled because according to your Hawaa the Salafis are misguided, and how can a misguided (well, misguided according to you) individual be an Imam in the Haram.

Try using your intellect rather than your emotions,

Wa alaykum assalaam wr wb,

Oooo! Temper temper!! Calm down akhi.

I have established thoroughly in my posts how you are talking from hawaa. If you can not refute it, then it stands. I asked for evidences a number of time and am still waiting. So until you can provide them, the only logical conclusion is that you are speaking from hawaa. I tried to give you sincere advice, but unfortunately you have not taken heed. What else can one do?

And I explained to you, if you actually read my post in response to you. The khawarij once over took alMasjidalNabawi, that doesn't prove their creed and views to be true. The mushrikeen once had control over the ka'ba, that doesn't prove their beliefs to be true any more than IF it was the case that the pseudo salafis were to over take the ka'ba, that it would prove their beliefs and views to be true. I would have no problems praying behind them (IF it were true). Like I mentioned, I take the advice of Ali r.a. If the Sahabah r.a. could do it, why not I?

And so your analysis above is all too misguided. Not surprisingly, again you make accusations and claims without evidence. Speaking again from hawaa and emotions. If you refuse to use your intellect, there's not much I can do to help i'm afraid. Guidance after all is in the Hands of Allah swt.

It may be the case that you find yourself having to delude yourself into believing that all the Imams of Haramain are salafis, because deep down inside you somehow feel discontent and in order to remedy that you want to believe what you delude yourself into believing. You may be doing it in order to allow yourself to sleep better at night. Fair enough, that is between you and Allah swt. It doesn't harm me in any way. You have to answer for yourself, and me for myself. I tried to get you to think and reason. What else can I do? WallahulMusta'aan.


otherwise we'll have to start a debate on beating ourselves on Muharram!

Why? Do you have shi'ite tendencies? Because I absolutely do not.

It is a sin to accuse the Imams of something that you can not establish. And a very serious sin.

wallahu a'alam.

[imaan4success]

no era can be void of a Mujtahid.

A lot of what you have written in that post, is nothing but sheer rhetoric. Again, where is the substance? But anyhow, I think the crux of the issues can be dealt with by dealing with two things raised by yourself. One regarding the tahharee claim you made, for which I await the evidences. And the above quotation of yours. Again baseless I believe. Where is the evidence to support this?

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Wa alaykum assalaam wr wb,

Oooo! Temper temper!! Calm down akhi.

I have established thoroughly in my posts how you are talking from hawaa. If you can not refute it, then it stands. I asked for evidences a number of time and am still waiting. So until you can provide them, the only logical conclusion is that you are speaking from hawaa. I tried to give you sincere advice, but unfortunately you have not taken heed. What else can one do?

And I explained to you, if you actually read my post in response to you. The khawarij once over took alMasjidalNabawi, that doesn't prove their creed and views to be true. The mushrikeen once had control over the ka'ba, that doesn't prove their beliefs to be true any more than IF it was the case that the pseudo salafis were to over take the ka'ba, that it would prove their beliefs and views to be true. I would have no problems praying behind them (IF it were true). Like I mentioned, I take the advice of Ali r.a. If the Sahabah r.a. could do it, why not I?

And so your analysis above is all too misguided. Not surprisingly, again you make accusations and claims without evidence. Speaking again from hawaa and emotions. If you refuse to use your intellect, there's not much I can do to help i'm afraid. Guidance after all is in the Hands of Allah swt.

It may be the case that you find yourself having to delude yourself into believing that all the Imams of Haramain are salafis, because deep down inside you somehow feel discontent and in order to remedy that you want to believe what you delude yourself into believing. You may be doing it in order to allow yourself to sleep better at night. Fair enough, that is between you and Allah swt. It doesn't harm me in any way. You have to answer for yourself, and me for myself. I tried to get you to think and reason. What else can I do? WallahulMusta'aan.



Why? Do you have shi'ite tendencies? Because I absolutely do not.

It is a sin to accuse the Imams of something that you can not establish. And a very serious sin.

wallahu a'alam.

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Noble brother, I do not understand exactly what you are trying to acheive and I think you have misunderstood my position. I am not trying to prove or justify the Salafi position by mentioning that the Aimmah of Haramain are Salafis. What would I acheive in doing that?

May I also remind you, noble brother, that all of my teachers are of a Deobandi background, so what exactly would be causing me some discontent?

Brother, I feel this is going no where. Regardless of what they are upon, I am sure that they are better than myself and I can only hope to be able to pray as many times as they have in the Haram, may Allah grant me and you such a favour.

[imaan4success]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,


Brother, I feel this is going no where. Regardless of what they are upon, I am sure that they are better than myself and I can only hope to be able to pray as many times as they have in the Haram, may Allah grant me and you such a favour.

wa alaykum assalaam wr wb,

Agreed. Ameen to your duas. May Allah swt guide us both, ameen. I appologise if I came accross harsh. Unfortunately I can sound harsh, which is a dieffieciency in myself. So forgive me and remember me in your duas, jazakallah khairan.

wassalaam.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

wa alaykum assalaam wr wb,

Agreed. Ameen to your duas. May Allah swt guide us both, ameen. I appologise if I came accross harsh. Unfortunately I can sound harsh, which is a dieffieciency in myself. So forgive me and remember me in your duas, jazakallah khairan.

wassalaam.

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Alhamdulillah, I am happy we were able to end on a happy note. No need to ask for forgiveness, but please do make dua' for me too. May Allah reward you, wa salaam alaikum.

[iqadeer]

Assalamu'Allaikum brother Harris,

Jazakum Allah for the lengthy response, it was most beneficial. You have raised some thought-provoking questions that must be addressed by someone who is knowledgeable. I can tell you that in the last few days, I have come to a new understanding with regards to the issue of Taqleed in general vis-a-vis those who practice Universal Taqleed or Taqleed-e-Ghayr Shakhsi. Yes, there is a vast misunderstanding among people that Salafis are against the very idea of Taqleed. By reading your posts, it has become clear that they still adhere to concept of Taqleed as it was practiced during the times of Salaf i.e., as long as one asks a scholar, he/she has fulfilled the ayah of Quran that commands us to ask the Ahluz Dhikr, if we don't know. At this point, I would like to express a personal observation I have made when reading about Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi :rahim:. Among the contemporary scholars from subcontinent, he holds a special place in my heart. I have read his biography and came across his early teachers. I was much surprised to see that among the scholars who left an indelible imprint on him during his initial journey to knowledge were Salafis, namely Shaykh Khalil Arab Yamani and Dr. Taqi-uddin Hilali (may Allah have mercy on both). This observation helped in answering a long-standing question that I had in my mind as to why Shaykh Nadwi has shown so much deference to Hafiz Ibn-e-Taimiyah :rahim: and his famous student Hafiz Ibn-e-Qayyim :rahim:. At any rate, I can assure you that I have nothing but respect for people of knowledge irrespective of their modern day affiliations, as long as they do not openly violate Allah's commandments, may Allah save us all from open deviation and misguidance.

[Harris Hammam]

So what if I mentioned 'true Hanbalis'?... 'True Hanbalis' could mean as apposed to non-Hanbalis or other various possibilities.
So you yourself are unsure what the opposite of a true Hanbali is. OK.

I part from this aspect of our discussion by repeating your initial comment:

An easy way to tell usually which of them are salafi and which are not, is by looking to see where they place their hands in prayer. The salafites will tend to place their hands on the chest, the true hanbalis will usually place their hands below the naval.
To me, it seems the opposite of 'true Hanbalis' in your kalam are the 'Salafites'. That is how I - as a reader - would understand it. I'll let other readers judge for themselves.


Jazakallahu khairan for that link!!! Wallahi! I mean that. I've watched quite a few of them making sure to watch closely to see where they place their hands. Although admittedly I haven't watched each and every single one of those Imams yet. Out of some of those I have watched, NOT ONE has placed their hands on their chest walhamdulillah. Below the chest, but certainly not on the chest. It seems to me, that pseudo salafis just see what they want to, otherwise how could they claim like yourself that most Imams place their hands on their chest? When, so far, from what I have seen, this is not the case. It makes me happy to see and know that these Imams, walhamdulillah do not follow this weak munkar hadith about placing the hand on their chest. A hadith that has never been followed by the ahlu sunnah Ulama, this is something that has been brought in by pseudo salafis and perhaps other sects. So once again, Jazakallahu khairan.
Akh, you lack knowledge in my estimation in this particular issue. The Hadith you are referring to as Munkar was used by Ibn Qudamah himself as evidence in al-Mughni, 2/141, ed. al-Turki. It is the Hadith of Wa'il bin Hujr reported by Ibn Khuzaymah where he say the Prophet placing his right on his left on his Sadr - chest. Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari, and al-Albani considered it to be Hasan Li-Ghayrihi. Yes, most scholars consider the addition of chest in the Hadith to be Ma'lul and weak, but like I explained before to you, Ibn Qudamah said the issue is a minor issue and is not a big deal. You, however, are making it into a major issue. I honestly fail to understand what you are trying to achieve here.


Where is the basis for this? Where is your evidence from the Quran and Sunnah to say that the layman should be prescribed and/or should practice tahharee? If you can not provide evidences to support this claim, it is a bid'ah. And please explain how a layman would practice tahharee. Let me give you a case scenario, you have a poor uneducated laborer. Let's say he is a farmer. Who, never mind not knowing arabic and being distant from having mastered the sciences necessary, can not so much as even read or write. Give clear and practical guidelines as to how such a person would make tahharee.
Akh, no need to get emotional. Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj, explaining Ibn 'l-Humam's words, said:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به
If two statements from two Mujtahids contradict, he must do Taharree. When his heart sets on one, he should implement it.

Scenario: If the farmer finds out that a there is a fatwa that prohibits the consumption of a cow that was consuming Haram, and another fatwa allowed the consumption of that cow, he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to do. He can inquire about the evidences used, and he can ask the Mufti - if he is available - for the Salaf of his fatwa.

And by the way, I am not an typical Ahle Hadees Ghayr Muqallid from Pakistan, so your request of 'only Quran and Sunnah' doesn't work on me. I have provided you with a principle from Hanafi Usool 'l-Fiqh.


Again, where is the substance? But anyhow, I think the crux of the issues can be dealt with by dealing with two things raised by yourself. One regarding the tahharee claim you made, for which I await the evidences....
See above.


And the above quotation of yours [that no era can be void of a Mujtahid]. Again baseless I believe. Where is the evidence to support this?
Akh, I told you that it is the Hanaabilah who believe this. So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.

Ma' Salaamah.

Shukran, iqadeer.

[imaan4success]

So you yourself are unsure what the opposite of a true Hanbali is. OK.

I part from this aspect of our discussion by repeating your initial comment:

Sorry, but I didn't say that. Another assumption I'm afraid.


Akh, you lack knowledge in my estimation in this particular issue. The Hadith you are referring to as Munkar was used by Ibn Qudamah himself as evidence in al-Mughni, 2/141, ed. al-Turki. It is the Hadith of Wa'il bin Hujr reported by Ibn Khuzaymah where he say the Prophet placing his right on his left on his Sadr - chest. Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari, and al-Albani considered it to be Hasan Li-Ghayrihi. Yes, most scholars consider the addition of chest in the Hadith to be Ma'lul and weak, but like I explained before to you, Ibn Qudamah said the issue is a minor issue and is not a big deal. You, however, are making it into a major issue. I honestly fail to understand what you are trying to achieve here.

I am not making it into a big deal. As you have affirmed, the hadith is considered to be weak by the vast majority. But the point is this. Here you are claiming that people should make tahharee. And as the pseudo salafis claim (and correct me if I am wrong), that they evaluate the evidences and take what is stronger.

A clear-cut case of pseudo salafis doing the opposite. Showing their bigotry. Where is the so-called 'tahharee' being employed here? Is this what tahharee is to you? To evaluate and take the weaker view? Subhnallah.

Imam Nawawi states that the hadith is weak, and the wording of 'on the chest' to be a fabrication. This is confirmed when you see that the hadith is being narrated from Sufyan al Thawri by a number of narrators. None of whom report the wording of 'on the chest' except Muammal whose narration the pseudo salafis rely upon. So it is clearly a fabrication. This is the same narrator most Muhaditheen did ta'leel of including Imam Bukhari (Mizan al i'itidaal) and Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyah (I'laam al Muwaqqieen).

In fact, Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyah even considered it to be makrooh to place the hands on the chest as he stated in BadailFawaaid.

So I am asking, where is the tahharee gone in this case? You are abandoning authentic narrations in place of weak narrations, and where the actual wording you are practicing upon, is actually an interpolation.



Akh, no need to get emotional.

Another assumption I guess.


Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj, explaining Ibn 'l-Humam's words, said:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به
If two statements from two Mujtahids contradict, he must do Taharree. When his heart sets on one, he should implement it.

I think you should quote the whole text. This is far from conclusive.


1. That is the statement of one scholar, but judging from the text there is more to this. I mean, this statement goes in a paragraph, which goes under a certain title and subject matter. Many a times, when a statement is taken out of that context, some of the meaning is lost. So I would like to know what was before it, after it and under what subject matter the statement was made.

There are still other possibilities, like it could refer to differing opinions within a madhab. You haven't shown that it refers to opinions between madhaahib. And in the case of it being within a madhab, then this is the practice of all madhaahib anyway. That's by necessity. So the whole paragraph with the subject matter is needed for clarification.

2. It does not mention anything about the layman doing tahharee. The kitab is obviously aimed at people of a certain level of learning and so the only reasonable conclusion would be is that the statement (at best) would be aimed at those very people. People who have the learning, understanding and capacity. When a medical doctor giving a talk to an audience for example, demonstrates a finding and states 'but please verify this for yourself'.

Is he talking to the layman? Is that what you would conclude? Please employ some common sense.


Scenario: If the farmer finds out that a there is a fatwa that prohibits the consumption of a cow that was consuming Haram, and another fatwa allowed the consumption of that cow, . He can inquire about the evidences used, and he can ask the Mufti - if he is available - for the Salaf of his fatwa.

1. You have failed to present a viable and practical model.

2. How is he to understand the evidences without the prerequisite knowledge required?

3. Asking a Mufti is still taqleed.

4. I think the following statement of yours sums up the reality of what you are preaching towards:


he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to do

In other words, follow his passions and desires. Subhallah. Says it all.


And by the way, I am not an typical Ahle Hadees Ghayr Muqallid from Pakistan, so your request of 'only Quran and Sunnah' doesn't work on me.

I didn't say you were a typical ahle hadees and nor did I assume that. My request of Quran and Sunnah doesn't work on you? Is that you trying to avoid presenting any legitimate evidences? I mean after all you do preach to do tahharee do you not? So that's what I am doing and asking for valid evidences, which means going back to the Quran and Sunnah. Don't your scholars claim to follow Quran and Sunnah and evaluate evidences based upon them? So that's what I am asking for.


I have provided you with a principle from Hanafi Usool 'l-Fiqh.


No you have not. And again, I ask for the basis from the Quran and Sunnah. If you don't have any, then just admit it. Don't be shy. Just admit it to be baseless and we can end it here. Simple.



Akh, I told you that it is the Hanaabilah who believe this.

So in other words, it's a baseless belief with no evidences? It was just pulled out of thin air? And you actually still believe it?


So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.

1. Provide quotations of where the Deobandi Ulama considered the doors of Ijtihad closed.

2. Establish that the majority view of the Hanaabila has been to believe that every era there must be a Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam, and don't present the views of pseudo salafis. You have to establish it to have been the belief of at least the majority of the Hanbali Ulama.

3. Demonstrate how the contradiction comes about.

4. Further substantiate your claim by mentioning each and every era, and which of the Ulama were considered to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imams.

5. Present further evidences to show and establish that those Ulama had actually attained the qualifications required to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam and which Ulama confirmed this to be the case, of course quoting their words verbatim.

Until then. You have nothing. Just mere conjecture.

wallahu a'lam,

ma'a-ssalaama.

[Harris Hammam]

Wassalam, akh iqadeer

You have raised some thought-provoking questions that must be addressed by someone who is knowledgeable.
Take another step further and ask yourself this question: Have these issues not already been addressed by the scholars of the past?

Let me provide you with the answer: Indeed, the issues raised by me against Mathabistic Taqleed have been dealt with, and the alternative solutions to MT have already been addressed by the scholars of the past. The following points should suffice:

1. Layman has no Madhab, even if he claims to possess a Madhab. This is a well known principle in the books of Usool. I have quoted what IAH said about this on another thread. Only dedicated students of knowledge and scholars can correctly claim affiliation. However, understand that affiliation is not a virtue, nor would one be rewarded for it.

2. The only true way of avoiding desires is by asking the Qalb - heart. See al-Shatibi's quote below for more details. Mathabistic Taqleed has never been suggested as the medicine against desires in classical literature. In fact, from a Hanafi point of view, Imam Abu Hanifah himself is known to leave determination in a few issues to the individual himself when faced with the situation, i.e. one facing that situation should ask his Qalb. An example of asking one's Qalb would be when one thinks there is water nearby, he would have to search for it and is not allowed to do Tayammum until he does so and cannot find water.

3. A person who misses Fajr is also a person who follows desires and goes against the Fiqh of all Madhabs. More interesting examples of this are given by Ibn Taymiyyah reporting from Imam Ahmed as mentioned in Legal Status.

4. Universal Taqleed has Ijmaa' on it as al-Qarafi and others mention. This Ijmaa' cannot be broken or abrogated by any Zayd, Bakr or Amr. To claim that Mathabistic Taqleed is now the obligation is tantamount to saying that UT has been abrogated, and this is totally Batil.

5. The obligation of the layman is to ask. This is fulfilling the obligation of Taqleed. He may ask a trustworthy scholar. When there are multiple scholars, he should choose the best available. He should follow what he is instructed to do. Once he does so, he is not allowed to change his practice unless he is explained that his practice is weak. Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj mentions this.

6. If one is faced with conflicting fatwas and cannot ask his local/personal scholar, and he had already not implemented either of the two fatwas, then he should perform Taharree. Usoolis like IAH and al-Shatibi (in al-Muwafaqat) mention this. In the Taharree, he should take the relevant factors into consideration, like try to gain access to the evidences and see, or see which scholars said what and follow the more knowledgeable scholar, etc. See what al-Shatibi says:
كل واحد منهما متبع لدليل عنده يقتضي ضد ما يقتضيه دليل صاحبه فهما صاحبا دليلين متضادين فاتباع أحدهما بالهوى اتباع للهوى وقد ما مر فيه فليس إلا الترجيح بالأعلمية وغيرها وأيضا فالمجتهدان بالنسبة إلى العامي كالدليلين بالنسبة إلى المجتهد فكما يجب على المجتهد الترجيح أو التوقف كذلك المقلد ولو جاز تحكيم التشهي والأغراض في مثل هذا لجاز للحاكم وهو باطل بالإجماع وأيضا فإن في مسائل الخلاف ضابطا قرآنيا ينفى اتباع الهوى جملة وهو قوله تعالى فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول وهذا المقلد قد تنازع في مسألته مجتهدان فوجب ردها إلى الله والرسول وهو الرجوع إلى الأدلة الشرعية وهو أبعد من متابعة الهوى والشهوة فإختياره أحد المذهبين بالهوى والشهوة مضاد للرجوع إلى الله والرسول
Every one of the two Muftis is following a Daleel that contradicts the other's Daleel, so they are contradicting one another. [For the layman] to follow one of them out of desire [i.e. without any Tarjeeh] is tantamount to following desire. Therefore, Tarjeeh can only be achieved via following the most knowledgeable etc. Also, the two [contradicting] Muftis in relation to the layman are like two [contradictory] evidences in relation to the Mufti, so just like a Mufti must do Tarjeeh or Tawaqquf, then likewise the Muqallid. If taking predilection and bias into consideration was allowed to ascertain the ruling, it would have been allowed for the Islamic Governor, but we all know that this is Batil by consensus. Also, in issues that have difference, there is a Quranic principle that totally negates [the possibility of] following desires, and that is the verse فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول, so this Muqallid has two Muftis contradicting one another in the issue facing him, so he must [implement the verse by] going back to the Shariah evidences [by asking for them from the Muftis etc.]. This method would save a person from following predilection and desires, but to take a Madhab [or fatwa] based on predilection or desires is against going back to Allah and the Messenger.

This was the prescription prescribed by al-Shatibi for not following desires. Where did he say that one must do MT to save oneself from desires? He didn't. In fact, he didn't even refute MT, which is a sign that obligating MT was a concept that was utterly unheard of and was totally alien in his era. Al-Shatibi was an outstanding Usooli and the Usool he discussed transcend the Madhabs - they are for all Muslims. So basically, the concept of the layman doing Tarjeeh via Taharree is thoroughly vindicated and justified.

The above six points are in relation to the layman. As for the rules for the Mufti, then he has rules too for when and how he should dish out fatwas, and some of these principles are differed upon in classical literature, but this is not the place to discuss them - as of yet (unless someone starts chatting pure rubbish in that topic too, in which case we shall see...).

Point is this: For the layman to go on the attack against other laymen he considers ti be 'Salafi' or 'Ghayr Muqallid' is completely idiotic. All are the same - laymen. To put it bluntly, if you are a layman reading this, then realise you are a Muslim and nothing else. Your 'Muslim' label is all what you should be concerned about and proud of, and not legal labels like 'Hanafi' 'Maliki' etc. as this is reserved for students of knowledge and scholars. Besides, this is just a legal affiliation to the base Madhab one focuses, studies and works off; it doesn't mean anything good or bad in the eyes of Allah. Even students and scholars have only the right to be proud of being a 'Muslim', and not the 'Hanafi' 'Maliki' labels, and this is obvious to the person who possesses common sense.

And a note to those extremist Mathabistic Muqallids who go on the rampage against those who don't subscribe to a Madhab by name, then realise you are just arguing over a 'label'. The reality is that you laymen are yourselves nothing, even if you claim to be a Hanafi or Shafi'i or whatever. IAH said this when explaining what "A layman has no Madhab" means. Sorry to be so blunt by telling you what your status is as laymen in the eyes of Usool 'l-Fiqh, but it is something you need to wake up to and realise that it is not worth the pain arguing over labels. Just stop bickering over this whole Mathabistic Taqleed thing for the sake of Allah. It is just not worth it. Unfortunately, there are certain laymen and students here and elsewhere who think otherwise and continue to brainwash other people, hampering the efforts of unification of methodology and mutual understanding in this issue.

So, akh iqadeer, do you have any problems, concerns or questions with how the classical Usooli scholars of the Four Schools have addressed the Fiqh issues surrounding the layman and his status in Fiqh? To me, it is quite clear...

[Harris Hammam]

As you have affirmed, the hadith is considered to be weak by the vast majority. But the point is this. Here you are claiming that people should make tahharee. And as the pseudo salafis claim (and correct me if I am wrong), that they evaluate the evidences and take what is stronger. [This is a] clear-cut case of pseudo salafis doing the opposite. Showing their bigotry. Where is the so-called 'tahharee' being employed here? Is this what tahharee is to you?
1) A layman should ask a trustworthy scholar. For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here.
2) If the layman hadn't been told of anything in this issue, or had not implemented Salah in the first place, then he was confronted with conflicting opinions, he should ask a trustworthy scholar to clarify. If he learns of two scholars contradicting one another, he should do Tarjeeh via Taharree in the manner al-Shatibi mentioned (quoted in the previous post).


Imam Nawawi states that the hadith is weak, and the wording of 'on the chest' to be a fabrication. This is confirmed when you see that the hadith is being narrated from Sufyan al Thawri by a number of narrators. None of whom report the wording of 'on the chest' except Muammal whose narration the pseudo salafis rely upon. So it is clearly a fabrication.
Provide us the text and reference where al-Nawawi declared the addition to be a fabrication. Remember, this addition is in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah. I read al-Nawawi's al-Majmu' and Sharh Saheeh Muslim - I couldn't find where he classed this as a fabrication. In fact, he used it in al-Majmu' as evidence. Also, Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari without saying anything, which basically means that the Ibn Khuzaymah narration is at least Hasan according to him. Ibn Qudamah also used it as evidence.


In fact, Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyah even considered it to be makrooh to place the hands on the chest as he stated in BadailFawaaid.
He quoted a Sanad-less Hadith in that regard, so pay no attention to that insha'allah. What matters is that Ibn Qudamah said that it isn't a big deal.


I think you should quote the whole text. This is far from conclusive.
1. That is the statement of one scholar, but judging from the text there is more to this. I mean, this statement goes in a paragraph, which goes under a certain title and subject matter. Many a times, when a statement is taken out of that context, some of the meaning is lost. So I would like to know what was before it, after it and under what subject matter the statement was made.
Here is the whole text, which I had already posted previously recently:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به ، وإذا عمل به ليس له أن يعمل بالآخر إلا إذا ظهر خطأ الأول ؛ لأن تعارض أقوال المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى المقلد كتعارض الأقيسة بالنسبة إلى المجتهد
It's in IAH's Sharh on Ibn 'l-Humam's book, when discussing Taqleed - for the layman.

Here is another reference - al-Subki the Shafi'i in al-Ibhaj, Sharh of al-Mihaj by al-Baydawi:
المسألة في حكم تعارض قولين لمجتهد واحد وهو بالنسبة إلى المقلدين كتعارض الأمارتين عند المجتهدين
The topic of the legal ruling of two [contradictory] statements issued by one Mujtahid. This is - for the Muqallid (performing universal Taqleed obviously) - is just like two evidences contradicting in front of the Mujtahids (i.e. the layman must do Tarjeeh between the two contradictory statements of that one Mujtahid ina ccordance to the guidelines set out for him)

Another reference - al-Shatibi the Maliki in al-Muwafaqat:
المسألة التاسعة
فتاوي المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى العوام كالأدلة الشرعية بالنسبة إلى المجتهدين
The 9th Issue - The fatwas of Mujtahids for the laymen are like legal evidences for the Mujtahids (so just like Mujathids do Tarjeeh in the evidences, the layman should do Tarjeeh in the fatwas in accordance with the guidlines al-Shatibi gave as I quoted above)
Exactly the same as IAH and al-Subki.

The Hanbalis obviously are the same in this issue, as the Hanabli Madhab by its very nature is a thorn in the throat of Mathabistic Taqleed.

I ask you, i4s: These scholars are telling the layman to do Tarjeeh. Why couldn't they just tell the layman to follow the Madhab dominant in his area, or the mainstream of the Madhab which is dominant in his area? Or are these scholars just stupid? Open your eyes akh. Taharree can only be performed by that person who is unaware of the evidences. Mujtahids don't perform Tarjeeh via Taharree.


It does not mention anything about the layman doing tahharee.
Oh yes they do. Read the above quotes again.


When a medical doctor giving a talk to an audience for example, demonstrates a finding and states 'but please verify this for yourself'.
SF is not a hospital.


Is he talking to the layman? Is that what you would conclude? Please employ some common sense.
Of course they are, albeit indirectly. So scholars should acquaint the layman that this is their obligation - to ask and implement, and when confronted with conflicting fatwas, then they have a protocol to stick by.

[Harris Hammam]

1. You have failed to present a viable and practical model.
And you think obligating Mathabistic Taqleed is a viable pratical model? Following one Madhab's rulings, or one scholar, is permissible at most. It is not an obligation, or else the majority of Usoolis would have spotted this and would have obligated MT. But they didn't. They maintained UT and proposed guidelines by which laymen should stick by. Their model is absolutely perfect.

Actually, it is the MT model that has flaws in it and in some cases not a viable model. This is because, MT claims to absolve the layman from Tarjeeh via Taharree. However, in some cases, a layman would be forced to do Tarjeeh via Taharree anyway, just as is the case in UT. Example of this are many: like the latest "Qasr in Mina" issue - there is no classical mainstream Hanafi solution for when Mina's buildings join up with Makkah's buildings, and we see that Hanafis are split up over this issue - Qasr or Itmaam.


2. How is he to understand the evidences without the prerequisite knowledge required?
Well while performing Taharree and he is able to comprehend what have a brief understanding of evidences, he should analyse and then ask his heart. Look at Islamic Finance by Mufti Taqi - the book can be read by laymen, and it deals in evidences and various conflicting classical opinions.


3. Asking a Mufti is still taqleed.
I know.


4. I think the following statement of yours sums up the reality of what you are preaching towards:
he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to doIn other words, follow his passions and desires. Subhallah. Says it all.
There is a difference between asking one's heart and following desires. Following desires is a sin, and that is what feels wrong in one own heart and you would dislike that people find out about what you are doing or what your intentions are. There is a Saheeh Hadith on this definition of sin. IAH mentions this:
أما عدم اعتقاد كونه متلاعبا بالدين متساهلا فيه فلا بد منه
As for him not having any intention of playing around with the Deen out of laxity [when taking a legal opinion], then this is necessary.


I didn't say you were a typical ahle hadees and nor did I assume that. My request of Quran and Sunnah doesn't work on you? Is that you trying to avoid presenting any legitimate evidences? I mean after all you do preach to do tahharee do you not? So that's what I am doing and asking for valid evidences, which means going back to the Quran and Sunnah. Don't your scholars claim to follow Quran and Sunnah and evaluate evidences based upon them? So that's what I am asking for... \

If you don't have any, then just admit it. Don't be shy. Just admit it to be baseless and we can end it here. Simple...

So in other words, it's a baseless belief with no evidences? It was just pulled out of thin air? And you actually still believe it?
Imam al-Shatibi gave the detailed evidences for all of this, as well as IAH and others.

Let me ask you: What is the Quranic and prophetic tradition evidence you can provide the readers at SF that obligate MT upon the layman? Make sure you don't use evidences that merely obligate UT...


1. Provide quotations of where the Deobandi Ulama considered the doors of Ijtihad closed.
Mabaadiyaate Fiqh. Written by a Mufti in the UK. Endorsed by a Mufti in India. A book that also endorses an infamous fabrication against Imam Abu Hanifah.

Besides, to think that many Deos don't advocate this belief is making a fool out of yourself.


2. Establish that the majority view of the Hanaabila has been to believe that every era there must be a Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam, and don't present the views of pseudo salafis. You have to establish it to have been the belief of at least the majority of the Hanbali Ulama.
You are so funny dude. You have provided zero evidence for the obligation of MT from the Shariah; you have failed to explain why the Ijmaa' on the obligation UT has been abrogated. Yet you have the audacity to scrutinise everything I say.

Pick up any Hanbali book on Usool. Check out the chapter on Ijmaa'. You'll find it there. To make life easier for you:
http://waqfeya.net/category.php?cid=16
Check out the Hanbali Usool books.


3. Demonstrate how the contradiction comes about.Maybe you didn't read the first or second time, so here is the third time why the belief of 'the door of Ijtihad is shut forever' is annihilated by Hanbali Usool 'l-Fiqh:

So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.
Like I said before, the Hanbali Madhab is a thorn in the throats of pro-MTs.


4. Further substantiate your claim by mentioning each and every era, and which of the Ulama were considered to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imams.
Hanaabilah say that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. They didn't say that it is necessary to know who exactly the Mujtahids are.

Besides, it is all irrelevant because the Hanaabilah opine that scholars who are aware of evidences must do Tarjeeh and cannot do Taqleed. So there you go - Hanaabilah doing Ijtihad.


5. Present further evidences to show and establish that those Ulama had actually attained the qualifications required to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam and which Ulama confirmed this to be the case, of course quoting their words verbatim.
Like I said, knowing the names of the Mujtahids is not necessary.


Until then. You have nothing. Just mere conjecture.
Whatever.

Wassalam

[iqadeer]

Jazakumullah for presenting your side of the argument. I must say that it was indeed very enlightening. After reading this, I have no intention to ever engage in such debates. Although, I have always respected the so-called Ahle Hadith and Salafi brothers, this has given me a new perspective about their approach.

[iqadeer]

1) A layman should ask a trustworthy scholar. For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here.
2) If the layman hadn't been told of anything in this issue, or had not implemented Salah in the first place, then he was confronted with conflicting opinions, he should ask a trustworthy scholar to clarify. If he learns of two scholars contradicting one another, he should do Tarjeeh via Taharree in the manner al-Shatibi mentioned (quoted in the previous post).

Assalamu Allaikum brother Harris,

I have a question regarding Taqleed vis-a-vis Taharree. In point 1 above, you stated that "For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here." So when exactly is Taharree employed? Let's take the example of salah. Should everyone (all laymen) be employing Taharree to evaluate the evidences offered by 4 madahib to reach a conclusion regarding which method is closest to the sunnah? Or, did I misunderstand Taharree completely? In other words, is there a defined domain where Taharree is to be employed or have the fuqaha left it open for all and sundry to use it wherever they observe a difference of opinion? Again, these are genuine questions as I would like to benefit from your presence on this forum.

[Harris Hammam]

Taharree is when faced with two conflicting fatwas and the layman knows of the existence of the two without having implemented either.

Taharree is not when one is completely unaware of what to do. If one is unaware of any ruling, he should just find the best scholar and get the fatwa off him.

Nor is Taharree required when one is not required to implement any fatwa. So no Taharree is required when one knows of the various opinions in a mas'alah of Islamic finance by the Muslim scholars but does not intend to purchase a property etc. in his current situation.

Furthermore, if one is already implementing one fatwa, then he learns of another fatwa (like learned about not to do Raf' 'l-Yadayn by a Hanafi scholar, but leaned of the existence of the opposing fatwa - Raf' 'l-Yadayn - later on in life when he visited a Shafi'i or Hanbali scholar), then he should not leave the first fatwa.

Of course, al-Shatibi explains all of this in detail in al-Muwafaqat.

[iqadeer]

Furthermore, if one is already implementing one fatwa, then he learns of another fatwa (like learned about not to do Raf' 'l-Yadayn by a Hanafi scholar, Raf' 'l-Yadayn later on in life when he visited a Shafi'i or Hanbali scholar), then he should not leave the first fatwa.

So to further simplify, if I, as a layman, learned to offer my salah in the Hanafi manner, but when I reached a certain age or moved to a country where people offer their salah according to a different madhab, it does not become binding on me to change my salah based upon making tarjeeh via taharree, correct? Furthermore, what do you say about people who condemn others based on such differences? Do you think that it is OK to condemn a Hanafi layman by a Salafi who apparently practices his salah differently and thinks that the Hanafi layman's salah is incorrect? Jazakumullah for your answers.

[Harris Hammam]

So to further simplify, if I, as a layman, learned to offer my salah in the Hanafi manner, but when I reached a certain age or moved to a country where people offer their salah according to a different madhab, it does not become binding on me to change my salah based upon making tarjeeh via taharree, correct?
Correct.


Furthermore, what do you say about people who condemn others based on such differences? Do you think that it is OK to condemn a Hanafi layman by a Salafi who apparently practices his salah differently and thinks that the Hanafi layman's salah is incorrect? Jazakumullah for your answers.
Such condemnations in the Furoo' of the Deen are wrong.

Insha'allah, later on, I shall post the Taqleed issues discussed by the Usoolis. Maybe I shall initiate a new thread in this regard. Point is this: The many masaa'il of Taqleed are the same as any other aspect of Usool 'l-Fiqh - difference of opinion is bound to occur and has indeed occurred. However, it is important to realise how the Usoolis of the Madhabs dealt with the Taqleed issues, and most importantly what the majority opined in various issues and where there is agreement. Taqleed is not something that went unnoticed by the scholars until the recent past; it has rather always been discussed in the books of Usool. They should be the primary sources for dealing with the issues of Taqleed, and not some modern-day pamphlet obligating Mathabistic Taqleed upon the whole of the Ummah.

I shall be a bit busy in the next couple of weeks. I'll see what I can do when I get the time. In the meantime, here is al-Shatibi's al-Muwafaqat - an excellent resource for these masaa'il and others. It is considered to be a book on Usool 'l-Shariah and not just Usool 'l-Fiqh - the issues he discusses transcend the boundaries of his Maliki Madhab and are relevant to all Muslims. It is a must-read for students of knowledge:
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=1463

Wassalam

[iqadeer]

Jazakumullah brother Harris, your posts have been very beneficial. I understand that being a student of knowledge, you have other priorities with your time but again, thanks for taking the time and answering my queries patiently. I look forward to more of the same positive contribution from you on this forum.

[imaan4success]

Bismillah


1) A layman should ask a trustworthy scholar. For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here.

Exactly my point. Here you find contradictions in your argument.

1. You stated that:


have prescribed Taharree for the layman, as the many scholars of the past have instructed.

Therefore, the above proves that you are contradicting yourself. You prescribe what you call 'tahharee', but in reality abandon it when it comes to your own Ulama. Is this not clear demonstration of hypocrisy and bigotry? Practice what you preach, otherwise it is best that you remain silent and not go around debating people demonstrating bigotry. Doing so is not only wrong, but a shameful thing.

2. You stated a layman should ask a trustworthy scholar. Well most do and are told to stick to one madhab. So what's your problem then? What are you doing here debating? On one hand you want to preach not to stick with one madhab, and then on the other you are telling to people to ask a scholar they trust, and when they do and are told to stick to one madhab, you don't like it and voice objections against this practice. That is what you call contradictory akhi.

3. Who are all these 'many scholars' you refer to above? I hope you can back that with evidences.

4. Even when it is established that the hadith is weak and the part about placing the hands on the chest a fabrication, despite Ibn Qayyim stating it to be makrooh, despite this not being an opinion of any of the four madhaahib, and on top of that abandoning authentic ahadith for something weaker/fabricated is a clear demonstration of one’s blind obedience to those particular scholars. Is this not a testimonial to the hypocrisy and bigotry of the pseudo salafis? Not even practicing what they claim and call others to.

5. There have been plenty of refutations of albanis book, regarding certain aspects of salah. Where it has been demonstrated that albani was either ignorant regarding many ahadith or was deceiving people in regards to certain ahadith and aspects of salah, or it was even a combination of the two. I will give a couple of examples as a demonstration:

A. Albani claimed that the ahadith regarding placing the hands under the navel were weak. In support of this he presented a few weak ahadith. Which were indeed weak, and this is where his ignorance and/or deception as well as the misleading of people is made apparent. Because what he did was ignore all the sound and authentic ahadith regarding the placement of the hands under the navel or due to lack of qualifications and knowledge was unaware of them, the latter which I find doubtful. It doesn’t take a major muhaddith to see this. He did not even so much as mention them. Take the following hadith as an example:

Wail bin Hujr R.A. says 'I saw the Prophet s.a.w. placing His right hand over His left in prayer, below the navel' Ibn Abi Shaibah
Furthermore, if you and all your comrades consider the book reliable, I ask, do you then accept the following statement of Albani in that very same book?:

"To place them on the chest is what is proved in the Sunnah, and all that is contrary to it is either Daeef or totally baseless."

So in other words (based upon the same weak hadith with the fabrication) albani considers the placement of hands on the chest as the ONLY proven Sunnah, and all other opinions, including that of the Hanbali fiqh to be either da'eef or baseless.
Is that what you accept and believe?

B. He presents the Hadith from Bukhari regarding joining feet to feet in salah. Ignoring completely, and obviously as it is very farfetched indeed that he just simply 'missed' the hadith, which follows directly after regarding the joining of ankles to ankles. Then there’s also the Hadith in Tirmidhi which mentions joining the knees to knees. So why did he not include them in his book and promote their practice in the literal sense like he did with the first? They are also authentic. Why the playing with the deen in picking some hadiths as ones desires dictates, and leaving other perfectly authentic Ahadith? And even more to the point, why are the pseudo salafis still practicing on these Ahadith literally today? Many knowing full well, that many aspects of the book have been thoroughly refuted. And as a final question, from which madhab are these views of albani taken from? Does this not constitute as ‘playing with the deen?’

There are a number of books exposing the lack of Albanis qualifications and abilities in the science of Hadith. For which we are still, years later, waiting for an adequate response. And not for just mere attacks upon the authors as we have so far witnessed, what you will call Ad hominem and strawman arguments. Maybe you can take some of these works and deal with them since you seem to believe you know what you are talking about. Because until then, Albanis established ignorance and lack of knowledge will have to remain the established position on him.

And if you want to get into these issues, I will point you towards certain books and we shall continue to wait and see (as we have been doing for a very long time now), if you or any of your scholars are capable of dealing with them.
And one can go on...The unreliability of the book has been established. There is only one reasonable reason thus left as to why pseudo salafis would continue to stick to the book, blind obedience.

In fact, why don't you begin with this refutation of the book by one of your very own, available on this very forum:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?3558-Hamud-al-Tuwayjiri-s-refutation-on-al-Albani-s-Sifatus-Salah


2) If the layman hadn't been told of anything in this issue, or had not implemented Salah in the first place, then he was confronted with conflicting opinions, he should ask a trustworthy scholar to clarify. If he learns of two scholars contradicting one another, he should do Tarjeeh via Taharree in the manner al-Shatibi mentioned (quoted in the previous post).

Your argument is self-contradictory here. Asking a scholar is still taqleed. In fact, why don't you provide us with a definition of taqleed? I'm not sure you have understood what taqleed is.

1. Give us the definition of taqleed, including the definition as given by Ibn Qudamah since you seem to take him as an authority, as well as other notable Imams. By the way I am fully aware of the definition your own scholars have given, which insha’Allah I will later bring up and deal with.

2. If you consider taqleed to be of different categories, then give us the definition of each citing the relevant evidences.

3. Mention what the hukm is regarding each classification. Is it haram? wajib? Etc.


Provide us the text and reference where al-Nawawi declared the addition to be a fabrication. Remember, this addition is in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah. I read al-Nawawi's al-Majmu' and Sharh Saheeh Muslim - I couldn't find where he classed this as a fabrication. In fact, he used it in al-Majmu' as evidence. Also, Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari without saying anything, which basically means that the Ibn Khuzaymah narration is at least Hasan according to him. Ibn Qudamah also used it as evidence.

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. It should have been Imam Minawi, and not Nawawi, for that I sincerely appologise. My mistake. You can find it in al-Ta'leeq al Hassan. Did I not mention the reference? Must have slipped my mind.

The Beirut version in volume 9, page 297 of fathulbari, Ibn Hajar quoting the same hadith with the very same chain stated it to be da'eef. And let's for arguments sake what you said is true, just because he is silent doesn't mean it 'must be at least hassan'. That's you claiming it to be so.

Can you cite Ibn Qudama's words. And where you are taking this from?

What Ibn Qudama mentions in al Mughni, is that Suyan al Thawri from whom this hadith is narrated, himself, was of the opinion that the hands should be placed below the navel, showing that Sufyan al Thawri was not of that opinion. So even IF, we accepted the hadith (which we don't, but even so) this demonstrates that the hadith is not acceptable as evidence. And if you have any grounding in the science of hadith, you would know that and know why. But this also demonstrates that Sufyan al Thawri who allegedly reported this hadith, himself either rejected it or was unaware of it! What more evidence is needed?


He quoted a Sanad-less Hadith in that regard, so pay no attention to that insha'allah. What matters is that Ibn Qudamah said that it isn't a big deal.

I mentioned nothing about Ibn Qayyim's view regarding the hadith. It was what he stated regarding the act of placing of the hands on the chest in salah. He considered the act of doing that, as makrooh. And just to prove your claim above to be inaccurate, Ibn Qayyim himself stated in I'ilaam al Muwaqqieen 'No one has said (upon the chest) apart from Muammal bin Ismaeel’.

Further to this, I can quote far more Muhaditheen who either state the hadith to be weak, or made t'aleel of Muammal. So if I was you, I wouldn't bother continuing down this path. Seriously, one, I can't be bothered going through it all and typing out all the quotations (too many), and two, the only thing you will achieve is digging a deeper hole for yourself and exposing albani and the sect you follow. Not very wise. You’re trying to defend that which cannot be defended. I know you are doing it purely out of blind obedience to your Ulama, and you find it difficult to handle the fact that they have deceived people like yourself. Still, you just have to learn when to quit. You’re holding onto a sinking ship. And I’m not deliberately patronising you. I’ve been through similar. I almost became a salafi at one point, and was almost pulled in by a couple of other sects. But alhamdulillah, I cannot thank Allah swt enough that he guided me. How I came to begin seeing the truth is a long story I do not wish to write.

Seriously, I mean that. I was almost convinced, I studied with salafi brothers and for a short period with a salafi scholar. I also spent some time studying with a barelwi scholar. My mother came from a barelwi bakcground, so I was instilled with some of those beliefs at an early age. Alhamdulillah my mother is no longer of those beliefs. I spent time studying a little bit with an algerian scholar, a yemeni scholar and deobandi scholars. So I am fully aware of all the beliefs and differences. I discussed these issues in detail with them. Taking arguments of one to the other, to see what they reply, then taking that reply to another etc. Back and forth like that. It was that, which allowed to start seeing things with clarity (well…making dua to Allah swt was the most important of all and the crucial element). It didn’t take too long before it became apparent who was on the truth, what the truth was and which views were false and lacked the evidences. Again, I can never thank Allah swt for guidance.

I began to not only see the hypocrisy and bigotry of the pseudo salafis, but saw that for much of what I took to them, they had no answer and/or no evidences to support them. And I couldn't personally find anything either.

Am I a deobandi? In a sense. But not strictly, I’m open to the truth from any of the ulama of the ahlu sunnah. But then I have seen little to no difference anyway between the deobandi and arab ulama.


Here is the whole text, which I had already posted previously recently:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به ، وإذا عمل به ليس له أن يعمل بالآخر إلا إذا ظهر خطأ الأول ؛ لأن تعارض أقوال المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى المقلد كتعارض الأقيسة بالنسبة إلى المجتهد
It's in IAH's Sharh on Ibn 'l-Humam's book, when discussing Taqleed - for the layman.

Like I said and repeat, the above quote is far from conclusive.

Why don’t you from the same book, quote what is meant by ‘tahharee’ instead of giving us your personal view of it? Tahharee could just simply mean ‘inquiry’. So, just by enquiring from a scholar you have fulfilled doing ‘tahharee’. That’s it, very simple indeed. No need to ask ones heart (a word synonymous with passions and desires, which is universally understood). Like they say in the west and as you preach, ‘follow what your heart tells you’. In other words, if you want to sin, commit acts of zina, get into music, and all of the other ills of society, go ahead. Listen to what your heart tells you. Sound familiar?

Are you really that lacking in common sense and intelligence that you do not know the heart is the place of origin for desire? And this is something universally understood. How do you define desire? When we talk about the heart in that sense, what is it referring to? Never heard terms like ‘the hearts desire’?


Here is another reference - al-Subki the Shafi'i in al-Ibhaj, Sharh of al-Mihaj by al-Baydawi:
المسألة في حكم تعارض قولين لمجتهد واحد وهو بالنسبة إلى المقلدين كتعارض الأمارتين عند المجتهدين
The topic of the legal ruling of two [contradictory] statements issued by one Mujtahid. This is - for the Muqallid (performing universal Taqleed obviously) - is just like two evidences contradicting in front of the Mujtahids (i.e. the layman must do Tarjeeh between the two contradictory statements of that one Mujtahid ina ccordance to the guidelines set out for him)

And?

First and foremost this is clearly referring to a difference within a madhab, most likely to do with narrations regarding which was the opinion of the Imam. And this could be due to a number of factors, it could be for example that the Imam later changed his view and opinion (as has happened in cases) on an issue. Or the last known view of Imam on an issue is disputed. It could be that two of the students relating the view of the Imam, one student of whom is making a mistake in relating the opinion. And a whole host of other reasons. So what you are trying to prove using this? It does not make sense at all. How is a layman to determine what the authentic view was? Because that’s what it comes down to, which narration is more authentic? And this is the job of that Mujtahid (not the mutlaq which is what we are discussing) who specialises in determining the correct qawl and giving Tarjeeh. This is a specialist field. The layman has no right to get involved in such issues.

This is not the job of the layman. Anyhow, since the statement has nothing to do with ijtihad alal itlaq, it’s not evidence. It doesn’t support your case.


Another reference - al-Shatibi the Maliki in al-Muwafaqat:
المسألة التاسعة
فتاوي المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى العوام كالأدلة الشرعية بالنسبة إلى المجتهدين
The 9th Issue - The fatwas of Mujtahids for the laymen are like legal evidences for the Mujtahids (so just like Mujathids do Tarjeeh in the evidences, the layman should do Tarjeeh in the fatwas in accordance with the guidlines al-Shatibi gave as I quoted above)
Exactly the same as IAH and al-Subki.

Now you have put your own commentary in the brackets. That’s not what this is saying. There are different possible meanings. The most appropriate of which would be that the rank of legal ruling of a Mujtahid Imam is evidence for a layman, similar to how the shari’ee proofs (Quran and Sunnah) is proof for a Mujtahid. I will explain this at a later stage when I get to it. And will use the Quran as my basis insha’Allah.

So in conclusion, even if I were to be generous to you, at best you have MAYBE one statement you could perhaps use out of those you have presented. But even there, I’ve demonstrated that there is a lack of information from the same author as to how he defines tahharee. And I demonstrated a viable and very practical meaning of what the word could mean (that actually makes sense, unlike yours) and how easily that could be fulfilled. Just a simple inquiry is sufficient. So:

1. You need further evidence to support your view of what ‘tahharee’ is.

2. Even if you manage to somehow produce a definition from the author that fits yours (which I seems very far fetched), you still have at the very most only one statement to support your claims with. And that’s only if you manage to find the definition that supports yours from the author. Or at least another usool book.

3. Out of the alleged ‘many’ or majority of scholars you claimed to hold this view, only being able to produce one (if you even by some miracle manage that) isn’t looking very good for you I’m afraid.
Seems like you are back at square one.
Now let’s have a look at what other Ulama say on this issue shall we?
Let’s begin with a quotation from one of your own scholars which you conveniently ignored on the other tread, shall we:

Shaykh Al-Munajjid says:


In general terms, there are differences of opinion among the scholars concerning many cases of divorce. Whatever the husband knows of the rulings before he utters the words of divorce, he should adhere to what he knows, and whatever he does not know about, if he asks someone whose religious commitment and knowledge he trusts, then he has to follow the fatwa he issues, and it is not permissible for him to move from one scholar to another in order to find another fatwa. He should not have any doubts, for he has done that which Allaah has enjoined of asking the people of knowledge, and it is obligatory for him to follow the ruling, especially if there is a ruling issued by an Islamic judge, because the ruling of the judges is decisive in cases of differences of opinion, and the questioner must accept the answer of a trustworthy scholar.
...
What the scholars said to you that your having intercourse with your wife is regarded as taking her back is the view of the Hanafis and Hanbalis, and there is nothing wrong with you following this opinion, because you did what you were enjoined to do, namely asking the people of knowledge, and asking about a matter that is subject to ijtihaad in which the scholars have differed.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53448-Can-a-Muslim-follow-more-than-one-school-of-thought&p=442169&viewfull=1#post442169


And this time, do not ignore it.

Let’s take another quoatation of yet, another one of your scholars and see what he thinks about all this ‘tahharee’ nonsense, and giving the people choice:

Shaykh Ibn Uthaimeen says:


“The ‘Ulama mention that following leniencies in fisq (open transgression) – May Allah protect us. The one who follows these leniencies is a transgressor, to such an extent that some Scholars mentions that the one who follows leniencies loses his religion. It is compulsory on a person that when he verdict of a scholar who he trusts in his knowledge and religion reaches him, he should not doubt it…(Sharh Riyad al-Salihin)

So here you are trying to give the people the choice and ability to take leniencies, whilst your own shaykh condemns it.
Let’s ee what other Ulama have said on the issue of following madhabs/one madhab:


Imam Ibn al-Hummam, author of many unique works in Jurisprudence and Doctrine records the view of the Hanafi scholars on Taqlid of a single Mujtahid in the commentary of Hidayah Fath al-Qadir:

(As for the layman) it is obligatory for him (Al-wajib alayh) to do Taqlid of a single Mujtahid….The jurists have stated that the one who switches from one Madhab to another by his Ijtihad and evidence is sinful deserving of being punished. Thus one who does so without Ijtihad and evidence is even more deserving. (vol.6 p.360)

Imam Nawawi writes in Al-Majmu` Sharh Al-Muhadhdhab:

The second view is it is obligatory (yalzimuhu) for him to follow one particular school, and that was the definitive position according to Imam Abul-Hassan (the father of Imam al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni). And this applies to everyone who has not reached the rank of Ijtihad of the jurists and scholars of other disciplines. The reasoning for this ruling is that if it was permitted to follow any school one wished it would lead to hand-picking the dispensations of the schools, following one’s desires. He would be choosing between Halal and Haram, and obligatory and permissible. Ultimately that would lead to relinquishing oneself from the burden of responsibility. This is not the same as during the first generations, for the schools that were sufficient in terms of their rulings for newer issues, were neither codified or did they became popular. Thus on this basis it is obligatory for a person to strive in choosing a Madhab which alone he follows. (Vol.1 p.93)

Imam Sharani, an undisputed authority in the Shafi school writes in Al-Mizan al-Kubra:

…You (O student) have no excuse left for not doing Taqlid of any Madhab you wish from the schools of the four Imams, for they are all paths to Heaven…. (p.55 vol.1)

Shaikh Salih al-Sunusi writes in Fath al-`Alee al-Malik fil-Fatwa `ala Madhab al-Imam Malik:

As for the scholar who has not reached the level of Ijtihad and the non-scholar, they must do Taqlid of the Mujtahid….And the most correct view is that it is obligatory (wajib) to adhere to a particular school from the four schools… (Section on Usul al-Fiqh p.40-41)

In Tuhfa al-Muhtaj fi Sharh al-Minhaj, Shaikh al-Islam Ahmad Ibn Hajr al-Haytami writes:

The claim the layman has no Madhab is proscribed, rather it is necessary (yalzamuhu) for him to do Taqlid of a recognised school. (As for the claim: scholars did not obligate following one school), that was before the codification of the schools and their establishment. (Vol.12 p.491-Kitab al-Zakah)

In the famous 12 volume Maliki compendium of Fataawa, Al-Mi`yar al-Mu`rib an Fataawa ahl al-Ifriqiyya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib, Imam Ahmad al-Wanshirisi records the Fatwa on Taqlid:

It is not permitted (laa yajoozu) for the follower of a scholar to choose the most pleasing to him of the schools and one that agrees the most with him. It is his duty to do Taqlid of the Imam whose school he believes to be right in comparison to the other schools. (vol.11 p.163-164)

The great authority in Usul Imam Aamidi writes in Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam:

The layman and anyone who is not capable of Ijtihad, even if he has acquired mastery of some of the disciplines (Ulum) related to Ijtihad, is obligated (yalzimuh) with following the positions of the Mujtahid Imams and taking his juristic opinions and this is the view of the experts from the scholars of the principles (Al-Muhaqqiqin minnal-Usulyyin). It was the Mutazila of Baghdad who prohibited that except if the soundness of his Ijtihad becomes clear to him. (vol.4 p.278)

Imam Zahid al-Kawthari, Hanafi jurist and senior juridical advisor to the last Shaikh al-Islam of the Ottoman Empire, wrote in a impassioned article against the growing modern trend of non-Madhabism, entitled Al-Laa Madhabiyya Qantara al-Laa Deeniyya (“Non-Madhabism is a bridge to Non-religion”):

Those who call the masses to throwing away adhering to a madhab from the Madhabs of the followed Imams, whose lives we briefly mentioned in what has passed, will be of two groups; those who consider that all the derived opinions of the Mujtahid are right, such that it is permitted for the layman to follow any opinion of any Mujtahid, not restricting himself to the opinions of a single Mujtahid whom he selects to be followed, such thinking belongs to the Mutazila. The (second group) are the Sufis who consider the Mujtahids to be all right in the sense that they seek out the hardest opinions from their positions without confining themselves to following one Mujtahid. (Published in Maqalaat al-Kawthari, p.224-225)

Imam Al-Jalaal Shams al-Din al-Muhalli writes in the commentary of the Shafi text Jam` al-Jawami,`:

And the soundest position (wal-Asahh) is that it is obligatory (yajibu) for the non-scholar/layman and other than him of those who have not reached the rank of Ijtihad, adherence of one particular school from the Madhabs of the Mujtahid Imams (iltizam Madhab Muayyan min madaahib al-Mujtahideen) that he beliefs to be preferable to another school or equal to it. (Kitab al-Ijtihad, p.93)

Imam Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the Faqih of the 19th Century, writes in Fataawa Rashidyya:

When the corruption that comes from non-specific Taqlid is obvious, and no one will deny this provided he is fair, then when specific Taqlid is termed obligatory for other than itself (Wajib li-ghayrihi), and non-specific Taqld is termed unlawful, this will not be by mere opinion, rather it is by the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), for he commanded that removing corruption is an obligation upon every individual. (p.205)

Imam Abd al-Hay al-Lakhnawi writes in his Majmuat al-Fataawa, after mentioning the various views of the scholars on Taqlid:
On this subject the soundest view is that the laypeople will be prevented from such (choosing) of different opinions, especially the people of this time, for whom there is no cure but the following of a particular Madhab. If these people were allowed to choose between their Madhab and another, it would give rise to great tribulations. (vol.3 p.195)

Imam Rajab al-Hanbali writes in his book: “Refutation of anyone who follows other than the four schools”:
…that is the Mujtahid, assuming his existence, his duty (Farduhu) is to follow what becomes apparent to him of the Truth. As for the non-Mujtahid his duty is Taqlid (p.6)

In the well known Maliki text Maraqi al-Saud, it is stated:

(Taqlid) is necessary (yalzimu) for other than the one who has achieved the rank of absolute ijtihad. Even if he is limited
(mujtahid) who is unable (to perform absolute Ijtihad). (Point 957, p.39) He writes further on: “Every school from the schools of the (four) Mujtahids is a means that reaches one to Paradise.”

In one of the most authoritative juristic commentaries of the Holy Qur’an, Al-Jami` li-ahkam al-Qar’an, by the scholar Imam Qurtubi, commenting on verse 7 in Sura Anbiya, he writes:

The scholars did not disagree that it is obligatory for the non-scholars (al-`Aamah) to do Taqlid of their scholars and they are meant in the verse: Ask the people of Remembrance if you do not know. And the scholars by consensus (Ajma`oo) stated it is necessary (laa budda) for he who is unable to see to do Taqlid of someone else who will tell him of the direction of the Qiblah, if it becomes difficult for him. Similarly, one who does no possess knowledge or insight of what the Deen teaches, then it is necessary (laa budda) for him to do Taqlid of that scholar who does. (p.181 vol.11)

You can check it out here:
http://www.euro-sunni.com/en/Shariah/taqlid-and-history.html

Now to add further to this, I want to know the following:

You claim that you and your Ulama take from the opinions of the various madhaahib? Then show us all just where and how you have done this.

1. Tell me in how many issues have you and you Ulama taken from other madhabs.

2. Mention in which issues you have taken from the Hanafi, Shafi and Maliki Madhab where it is contrary to the Hanbali madhab.

3. Explain why you sometimes abandon all four madhabs in some cases and follow other than the Mujahedeen Ulama? Albanis book being one example. The issue of 3 talaqs in one majlis being another, as well as on other issues. Where did the whole concept of taking from madhabs disappear to then? Who are you making Taqlid of there?

4. These Imams you are trying to quote, if you really accept them and take them as authorities then are you willing to accept their other statements also in regards to issues like that of aqeedah, tassuwuf and the like? If I post examples, would you accept them? Or would you reject and display your bigotry?

5. You talk about Ijmaa’? Then, if I present statements establishing that there is a Ijmaa’ (consensus) on the Muturidi and Ashari Aqeedah, are you willing to accept both of these aqeedah books? And denounce those who attack these Aqeedah texts? Before you question the relevancy of this, I want to see whether you are being hypocritical or not when it comes to Ijmaa’.

6. Same question as in no.5, except this time in regards to tassuwuf.



The Hanbalis obviously are the same in this issue, as the Hanabli Madhab by its very nature is a thorn in the throat of Mathabistic Taqleed.

lol. Is that what you tell yourself? And you actually believe it? lol. Subhanallah.


I ask you, i4s: These scholars are telling the layman to do Tarjeeh. Why couldn't they just tell the layman to follow the Madhab dominant in his area, or the mainstream of the Madhab which is dominant in his area? Or are these scholars just stupid? Open your eyes akh. Taharree can only be performed by that person who is unaware of the evidences. Mujtahids don't perform Tarjeeh via Taharree.

Again, you have not established that yet. And your concept of ‘tahharee’ in incoherent as well as lacking in meaning. I think I have established more than adequately.


Oh yes they do. Read the above quotes again.

I have done, and you should read my responses. So sorry, try again.


SF is not a hospital.

SF? Who asked you if it was a hospital or not? I never mentioned anything about a hospital.

In case you are unable to understand and comprehend, this is what you call an analogy. Do you know what an analogy is, or do I have to teach you? And you think you can discuss and debate at an academic level? Oh you do make me laugh!
Perhaps you should try and read the Quran. You will find even Allah swt the Most High using analogies in the Quran. So what will you do now, give silly replies to Allah swt on the day of judgement too? ma'adhallah!!

In Surah Baqarah (just a couple of pages in) we read:

‘Their parable is that of people who kindle a fire: but as soon as it has illumined all around them, God takes away their light and leaves them in utter darkness, wherein they cannot see:’

The above is an analogy. So what will you do now? Tell Allah swt that we are talking about guidance and not lighting fires?? Ma’aadhallah! A’oodhubillah min dhaalik.

Analogies were used by the Prophet s.a.w also.

Typical! Little, or no intelligence. You think you are responding intelligently? Yet in reality you display the opposite to be true? If you fear answering the question, in fear that it will expose you, then just simply admit you're wrong - if you are truly sincere. Pride is a dangerous thing.


Of course they are, albeit indirectly.

So you believe in the analogy I gave, that a doctor presenting a finding on a medical issue, when he asks for the audience to verify it, he is talking to the laymen also indirectly? LOL

Again I say to you, please employ some common sense. I suppose when Allah swt says in the Quran to ask the people of dhikr, the laymen are also included in the people of dhikr indirectly also? What kind of mockery are you making out of the deen?!

Explain with what logic did you come to that conclusion? And I said logically, that means don't bring any personal presumptions into the equation.


And you think obligating Mathabistic Taqleed is a viable pratical model? Following one Madhab's rulings, or one scholar, is permissible at most. It is not an obligation, or else the majority of Usoolis would have spotted this and would have obligated MT. But they didn't. They maintained UT and proposed guidelines by which laymen should stick by. Their model is absolutely perfect.

Here we go, avoiding the issue I raised. I’m still waiting for a practical model from you. All you have stated is your personal opinion on the matter. Which ultimately, was to follow one’s nafs. Here’s what you stated:


he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to do

What else do you call following one’s nafs? Explain the difference.


Following one Madhab's rulings, or one scholar, is permissible at most.

Are you trying to tell us that the following of one madhab or one scholar, falls into the category of ‘Mubah’?
And if so, why don’t you mention the shar’i definition of what ‘Mubah’ means? - This should be interesting.


Actually, it is the MT model that has flaws in it and in some cases not a viable model. This is because, MT claims to absolve the layman from Tarjeeh via Taharree. However, in some cases, a layman would be forced to do Tarjeeh via Taharree anyway, just as is the case in UT. Example of this are many: like the latest "Qasr in Mina" issue - there is no classical mainstream Hanafi solution for when Mina's buildings join up with Makkah's buildings, and we see that Hanafis are split up over this issue - Qasr or Itmaam.

Flaws? So you claim. You haven’t established any flaws. Let’s just say for arguments sake, there is ikhtilaaf in the issue you mentioned above. Then all the person needs to do is ask a mufti and take whichever verdict he gives (regardless of whichever it may be). What could be more simpler or practical than that? Lol!

Let me teach you a bit of common sense, and what we understand through logic, reason and through experience on a daily basis. The simpler the model, the more practical it is. Increase the simplicity of something, and you increase the practicality of it. But according to you, overcomplicating the matter is more simpler lol. So how is one forced to do what you allege is ‘tahharee’? You have not established yet again, another claim of yours. All you keep presenting is rhetoric. As I keep asking, where is the substance? Substantiate your claims!

To repeat again, the simpler the model, the more practical it is. Just like Allah swt has not obligated each and every person to become a Mujtahid Imam and deduce the rulings themselves, hence, making it both simple and practical (i.e. simpler = more practical). Just like the Mujtahideen Ulama did not complicate fiqhi rulings for the masses by going into details of the evidences and deduction methods. They just simply gave the ruling. As such, making it practical and easy for people.
And insha'Allah, I think it would be a good idea to quote what Ibn Qudamah says on the issue in the section of taqleed, of the book I have. Which I will perhaps do later.

So again you fail miserably in your arguments.


Well while performing Taharree and he is able to comprehend what have a brief understanding of evidences, he should analyse and then ask his heart. Look at Islamic Finance by Mufti Taqi - the book can be read by laymen, and it deals in evidences and various conflicting classical opinions.

And?

Why make ‘tahharee’? The whole concept doesn’t even make sense unless you believe out of the two opinions, one opinion to be false and the other correct. Is that what you believe? That when you have two differing opinions then only one is correct and the other an error? That the Mutahideen Ulama's fiqh is replete with errors and mistakes? Hence then the need for making what you call ‘tahharee’.

Don’t you know and realise, that determining which opinion should be taken when there is a conflict is a science of it’s own. And has it’s authorities? Are you trying to make each and every person an authority in this field, despite their ignorance of it? Subhanallah.

Asking one’s heart = asking ones nafs. I don’t think even you have a clue as to what you are talking about. It’s simply nonsensical and self-contradictory. Define to me what is meant by following the heart and what is meant by following one’s nafs, highlighting the differences.

There are people out there I have come across who like yourself, like to follow their nafs. A group of people as an example, who consider music to be halal based on a few rare opinions of certain classical ulama. They too ‘feel’ in their heart that music should be halal. So according to your arguments, their taking of these opinions is justified and since they performed what you call ‘tahharee’, what they do is valid. So according to you, music should be halal for them.

Is this the type of mockery you want people to make of the deen? You are clearly trying to open the doors for one to follow ones desires.

By the way, those books by Mufti Taqi although read by laymen are actually written with the ulama in mind. They were not meant to be for the layman. Look at any book of Mufti Taqi whose target audience is the layman, he usually does not give evidences nor cite the difference of opinions.


There is a difference between asking one's heart and following desires. Following desires is a sin, and that is what feels wrong in one own heart and you would dislike that people find out about what you are doing or what your intentions are. There is a Saheeh Hadith on this definition of sin. IAH mentions this:
أما عدم اعتقاد كونه متلاعبا بالدين متساهلا فيه فلا بد منه
As for him not having any intention of playing around with the Deen out of laxity [when taking a legal opinion], then this is necessary.

Who is IAH? Can you please stop using your own self-made abbreviations. You need to first learn to discuss something on an academic level before thinking you are capable of doing so. You clearly are not. Abbreviations, unless accompanied by either a table, or key is inappropriate.

Where have you taken the hadith from? I need to get it checked out and see what the Ulama have commentated upon it.
I fail to see how the hadith supports your arguments. You have failed to establish what type of person the hadith is directed towards. Nor is there anything in the hadith regarding what you call ‘tahharee’.


Imam al-Shatibi gave the detailed evidences for all of this, as well as IAH and others.

Let me ask you: What is the Quranic and prophetic tradition evidence you can provide the readers at SF that obligate MT upon the layman? Make sure you don't use evidences that merely obligate UT...

If there are detailed evidences, then why don’t you present them? I keep asking and you keep failing to do so. Where are they? If it’s so detailed and has all the evidences, it shouldn’t be a problem for you then should it? And here you are, clearly trying to use few ambiguous statements trying to prove your case, demonstrating just how desperate you are. All you are doing is clutching at straws. So again I ask, show us the evidence from the Quran and Sunnah!

I asked you for evidences from the Quran and Sunnah, if you don’t have any, just admit it! And stop trying to play these tricks, where in order to avoid having to provide the evidences you try to turn the tables in a desperate attempt and detract from what was asked.

Don’t worry, in addition to what I have already provided above from Ulama, including from your own, I will provide the evidences directly from the Quran and Sunnah itself (bi idhnillah). I will prove just how logical and how coherent the stance and views of the ahlu Sunnah are with the Quran and Sunnah. And I will see if you are capable of refuting what I present insha’Allah. Bitawfeeqillah. But I will do that when it is relevant. All in good time, insha'Allah.

At the moment we are discussing your claims. So before I am obligated in providing evidences, the obligation rests upon you. You need to substantiate your claims. So stop playing silly games and present the evidences from the Quran and Sunnah if you have any.

Either present your evidences, or admit you do not have any. Admit your arguments and views to be baseless and then I may present my evidences. But until you do one of the two, I am under no obligation to provide anything yet. I haven’t even made any claims in regards to what I follow on the issue of taqleed!


Mabaadiyaate Fiqh. Written by a Mufti in the UK. Endorsed by a Mufti in India. A book that also endorses an infamous fabrication against Imam Abu Hanifah.

So in other words, you don’t have anything. You were just making up claims. Before you make claims like you have done, you need evidences. But as you continually demonstrate over and over again, you are follow nothing but conjecture in these issues.

You need to quote the words of deobandi ulama who stated what you (unjustly, committing the major sin of buhtaan as stated in a hadith) accused them of. And you need to take if from a widely accept book accepted by the major deobandis. Where there is no radd upon what was stated either. Not some book, written by some mufti, endorsed by a mufti in India lol. You seriously need to learn some academia.


Besides, to think that many Deos don't advocate this belief is making a fool out of yourself.

?

I will leave it to the readers to see which one of us is making a fool out of himself. Not surprisingly, more baseless accusations.


You are so funny dude. You have provided zero evidence for the obligation of MT from the Shariah; you have failed to explain why the Ijmaa' on the obligation UT has been abrogated. Yet you have the audacity to scrutinise everything I say.

Like I said, I have not made any claims in the regard yet. So I am under no obligation to do so. And here you are again up to silly tricks in a desperate attempt to relieve yourself from having to support your claims with the relevant evidences. It’s ok though, keep talking. The more you do, the more insha’Allah the truth of things will become exposed. Your rhetoric only makes my case and proves it to be right.


Pick up any Hanbali book on Usool. Check out the chapter on Ijmaa'. You'll find it there. To make life easier for you:

How about Mukhtasar Rawdatinaadhir wa Jannatil Manaadhir of Ibn Qudamah?

Oh wait a minute, don’t I already have that kitab? Oh, so I do! O and I’ve just realised, I’ve read the ijmaa’ section a few times trying to find what you claimed. Oh, and guess what??

It wasn’t there! Oh my! What are we to do now?? What was it you were saying again?


Pick up any Hanbali book on Usool. Check out the chapter on Ijmaa'.

Yes, did that, sorry but it doesn’t support your claim. But I came across some very interesting things in there. Some nice quotations by Ibn Qudamah I can relate when establishing my case insha’Allah. Especially in the sections of Ijmaa’ and Taqleed. This should be entertaining, love to see your response. But all in good time insha’Allah. You need to deal with the issues at hand first.


Maybe you didn't read the first or second time, so here is the third time why the belief of 'the door of Ijtihad is shut forever' is annihilated by Hanbali Usool 'l-Fiqh:

You continue to make baseless accusations. It’s you falling into sin here, not those you accuse. Insha’Allah they benefit from your accusations.


Like I said before, the Hanbali Madhab is a thorn in the throats of pro-MTs.

Are you gloating here? Lol Subhanallah. Tell yourself that enough times and you will probably end up believing it.


Hanaabilah say that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. They didn't say that it is necessary to know who exactly the Mujtahids are.

Here we go again, are we going to keep going in circles or will you actually substantiate your claims?

First and foremost, you need evidences from the Quran and Sunnah. Otherwise, IF what you say is true, that would mean that the Hanaabilah invented this belief from nothing. They just made it up. So again, substantiate your claims. Show me where in the Quran and Sunnah this belief can be found. Until you do, nobody needs to accept it. There’s no ijmaa’ upon it. Nor have you established this was the majority view of the Hanaabilah.

Besides substantiating it from the primary sources, you need to demonstrate how this has been true throughout the ages. I can’t believe I keep having to tell you what you need to do in order to present something and make a case on an academic level. Is there any point discussing if you are not capable of discussing at that level? Seriously?! Your arguments don't even have any real structure.

So provide the textual evidences from the primary sources, then demonstrate it’s truth by mentioning who the mujtahideen ulama were in each era and who confirmed them to be of that calibre quoting their words verbatim. Ulama can’t just simply declare themselves to be of that level. It needs to be confirmed, their proficiency needs to be established and also they need their own usool to be considered Mujtahid mutlaq imams. Talqeed is haram upon such a person. And don't worry, I will be quoting the likes of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and other notable Ulama regarding the conditions one must meet before being considered to be a Mujtahid Imam, insha'Allah.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah:



‘With reference to Kitab and Sunnah, there is no difference between the Great Imam’s and the Mujtahideen. Accordingly, Imam Malik r.h., Layth Ibn Sa’d rh., Imam Awza’I r.h., Sufyan Thawree r.h., all are Imams (& Muujtahideen) of their era. With regards to taqleed, the command is the same, as for the others, for no muslim is able to aver that, ‘his taqleed is permissible whilst the others is impermissible.’ (p83 The Shari Reality of Taqleed by Mufti Taqi)


Besides, it is all irrelevant because the Hanaabilah opine that scholars who are aware of evidences must do Tarjeeh and cannot do Taqleed. So there you go - Hanaabilah doing Ijtihad.

Oh, so this is the part where you try to alleviate yourself from the burden of evidence, by simply brushing it all aside as ‘irrelevant’. The age-old trick lol. Show me where this is true from the classical Hanaabilah?

You really don’t know much do you? I take it then you are completely unaware of the different levels of a Mujtahid Imam.
The different levels of which there are several, and the specialities and restrictions of each. And you call me funny? What we are discussing is the Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam. Not any of the other types, of which one is where you have those whose duty is to determine which of the qawls within a madhab are taken. It has it’s authorities. So you have so far established nothing except the extent of your ignorance.


Like I said, knowing the names of the Mujtahids is not necessary.

I fully expected such a reply. And I am glad you did reply in that manner. Everybody knows why you say that, because you cannot provide any names! LOL You are unable to establish your claims. You know what you are claiming is bogus. One only needs to look through history at all the major classical Ulama (other than the al-Aimma al-Mujtahidoon) to see that they were Muqallideen who stuck to one madhab! Thus your distortions of the truth are exposed for all to see.


Whatever.

You know, people usually use words like that for one reason. When they see defeat and are backed into a corner, but refuse to accept or acknowledge it. This is what you typically hear when peoples arguments fail, and they are unable to establish their position. Your statement is self-exposing.


Wassalam

Is that it?

Back to the drawing board for you then I’m afraid. I will be awaiting your answers. If you do reply, then I am going to make sure that you have addressed each and every point before I respond properly. Otherwise, we will just have to consider it a failure on your part. And please don't do this typical job of giving the illusion of having dealt with some, using mere ‘rhetoric’, and leaving parts you ignore (simply because they refute you and you can not deal with them). So I shall wait and see insha’Allah.

I pray that Allah swt guides you and I to what is the Truth. And protects us from what is falsehood, ameen!!! I hope you sincerely make this dua too. When I make this dua, I try to make efforts to be sincere and neuteral on all issues (so as to not make the dua pointless). With same I do give you naseehah. You are a muslim brother, and despite our differences, I do want good for you. I just wish you would question what you follow as I did (and even after realising the truth, still continued to do until it's truth was just undeniable), and in sincerity seek the truth. For wallahi time is short, death is approaching and I for one truly fear what is to become of me. So the last thing I want is to get involved with some dodgey sect, and put my Iman and Akhirah in danger. I have questioned what I follow and believe many many times, comparing it with salafism and others. Looking for where the evidence leads, and everytime I always return back to what I follow now. This is where the evidence leads, salafism is in opposition to the Quran, Sunnah, Ijnaa' as well as logic and reason. Everytime I question, the more convinced I become looking at the evidences and arguments.

Tawakaltu alallah, wa bihi oodhu min kulli sharin, huwa alladhee yahdee, Allahumma ihdinaa (ameen!), fi amaanillah.

wallahu a'alam.
Wassalaam.

[imaan4success]

Correct.
here is al-Shatibi's al-Muwafaqat - an excellent resource for these masaa'il and others. It is considered to be a book on Usool 'l-Shariah and not just Usool 'l-Fiqh - the issues he discusses transcend the boundaries of his Maliki Madhab and are relevant to all Muslims. It is a must-read for students of knowledge:
http://waqfeya.net/book.php?bid=1463

Wassalam

The link you gave is to another book to do with tareekh.

I appologise, I know there are a grammar/spelling mistakes in my post, as well as words missing etc., but it took some time to type out and I can't be bothered re-checking it over and over again. I have other important commitments which unfortunately I am having to sacrifice to get into this discussion. I am busy mysefl. But I will see if you address the issues I have raised insha'Allah.

wassalaam.

My Allah swt guide us all, and especially I, ameen!!!

[akbulut]

I heart that shuraim has written some books about aqeedah, is that true? and are they available in english?

[Khali]

:salam:

Ibn Abidin says in his Hashiya in the chapter: “Ruling of Taqlid and returning from it”, about the Muqalid who follows a particular Madhab and changes sometimes:

“If one prays one day according to a Madhab and he wants to pray another day according to another, then he is not prevented from that…the conclusion is what we mentioned that there is no Iltizam for the human being to a particular Madhab and that it is permissible to act on what opposes what he acted on his Madhab, making Taqlid of other than his Imam taking his (other Imam) conditions…”


Does this mean one can simply pray everyday according to one of the madhab and change it the next day etc etc..?


:ws:

[Abdullah the Sheikh]

i dont know why we are dividing out selfs so much. We all are muslims and follow Quran and Sunnahs of our beloved Prophet P.B.U.H. we are the ones who are spliting one an other into groups which doesnt make sense. kuffars doesnt have do anything to split us in group to make us easier to conquer, we are doing it outselfs already.

[ILYAS MEMON]

See these evdence, saudi ulama accepted that they are muqallid. The attachment procedure is very complicated, thats why i am providing links

http://www.haqforum.com/vb/threads/13346-آئمہ-حرمین-اور-تقلید۔امامِ-کعبہ-شیخ-محمد-بن-عبداللہ-السبیل-کا-خط? (/http://www.haqforum.com/vb/threads/13346-آئمہ-حرمین-اور-تقلید۔امامِ-کعبہ-شیخ-محمد-بن-عبداللہ-السبیل-کا-خط?)


See this link, there is a proof about the masala of talaaq that saudi ulama are in accordance with the aqeeda of Ahle Sunnat.

http://www.thedefendersoftruth.com/TPL/Read_Or_Listen.asp?txtSer=SAUDI3T3&Type=GM&Submit=Search

Also see this evidence from the books of saudi ulama that they are hanbli.
http://www.4shared.com/document/JhmGa6YF/Taqleed_aur_Saudi_Ulema.htm

And kindly those who are Ghair Muqallid, note that: you have only 2 usool. Ateeullah wa Ateur rasool. U don't have the right to make other people act as the hujjat. Note this. and don't be out of ur rules. Otherwise I will provide the evidence of your ulama books that they have said that anyone who don't follow these 2 rules is gumrah. So beware, OTHERWISE LENE K DENE NA PARJAYE.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Ibn Abidin says in his Hashiya in the chapter: “Ruling of Taqlid and returning from it”, about the Muqalid who follows a particular Madhab and changes sometimes:

“If one prays one day according to a Madhab and he wants to pray another day according to another, then he is not prevented from that…the conclusion is what we mentioned that there is no Iltizam for the human being to a particular Madhab and that it is permissible to act on what opposes what he acted on his Madhab, making Taqlid of other than his Imam taking his (other Imam) conditions…”


As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

In such a case there shouldn't be any problem praying Witr behind a Shaafi'ee, Maalikee, or Hanbalee without the need to read it again. All one simply does is fulfill the conditions laid down by the other Imam pertaining to Salaah and Tahaarah, right?

[Khali]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

In such a case there shouldn't be any problem praying Witr behind a Shaafi'ee, Maalikee, or Hanbalee without the need to read it again. All one simply does is fulfill the conditions laid down by the other Imam pertaining to Salaah and Tahaarah, right?

:salam:

I had commented on this, but sadly my post is for some reason deleted. Can i ask the mods why ?

:ws:

[Khali]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

In such a case there shouldn't be any problem praying Witr behind a Shaafi'ee, Maalikee, or Hanbalee without the need to read it again. All one simply does is fulfill the conditions laid down by the other Imam pertaining to Salaah and Tahaarah, right?

:ws:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?49899-Complete-Hanafi-prayer-plus-things-which-invalidate-the-prayer&p=414360&viewfull=1#post414360

:salam:

[SUPERiMAN]

The funny part is SiM is not even discussing Taqlid.

It's Understanding Madhabs (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?83631-Understanding-Madhabs-The-Methodology-of-Imam-Adham-Hadith-and-the-Salafis) for now

[SUPERiMAN]

The spirit of Deoband is to look the deviants into the eye.

Deobandis are not Chicken who can be Broasted, Grilled or Fried. They wear their Kafan on their Forehead (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?42334-Shaykh-al-Islam-Husain-Ahmad-al-Madani)

Sar Bakaf Sar Buland

Deoband Deoband