Ijtihad, madhhabs et al

[dhakiyya]

Abu Zayd,

YOu said you wanted me to bring up this stuff on this forum....

I thought I'd just post my last post from ummah dot com and we'll continue the argument from there. I have attemted to read all the stuff you posted but I've been very busy lately, what with the end of term and sorting everything out for moving house so I've probably missed quite a bit of what you've tried to tell me about, so please forgive me for that....

what I last posted on Ummah in response to (paraphrased) "if they hadn't closed the gates of ijtihad we'd have hundreds of versions of Islam and people making it up as they go along"........

"I can see both sides of the argument. However we already have a situation with huge numbers of different versions of Islam, all of which are telling me to follow them because they are the only right version. So you can see why it's tempting for me to say scrap the lot of them, I'll do my own research and make my own judgements. It's only by using rational argument that I can see which versions of Islam have made good judgements and which have made bad judgements, and boy is it not so simple as that either. Each version of Islam that I've encountered has it's good points and its bad points. So, having used my rationality thus far, why should I abandon rational argument and just follow some human being other than Muhammad saw's version of Islam? Especially as the Qur'an frequently chastises the Jews and the Christians for taking their priests/rabbis as their God and following their judgements about the scripture, instead of using their reason to determine the true teachings of Jesus/Moses? Isn't there considerable danger in following without question anything other than the Qur'an? Even the Qur'an you still need to ask the question "what does Allah mean by this?" because some verses can be taken different ways.

Now I can see that what Abu Zayd is saying makes good sense, BUT there are still four such schools as he talks about, which are different from each other, and if I were to follow any of those schools, I would still feel that there is a danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah. Also, despite everything that Abu Zayd has said I am not convinced that these four schools are the only way to practice Islam. If they are as good as he says they are, then there would be nothing terribly wrong with following them, but to suggest that they are the only way would be wrong."

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum

The reason why we can only follow the 4 schools is because there has been an Ijma established on this. The Prophet said: "My Ummah will not agree on error." This was in reference to the Ulema, so in reality we are not following Men.

None of the four schools of thought say, "follow us and not them," this is simply incorrect. Further, one cannot come to conclusions regarding what he will follow and what he wont by looking at the evidence, simply because me and you are not qualified to understand the texts being brought forth or to derive rulings from them. To say we can do so rationally is absurd, since the laws come from the lawmaker, not what one perceives the laws to be, based on his intellect, since the intellect of man differs in varying cases. Whereas one may see an action to be good another may see it as bad. (See Umdat As Salik for further details)

Lastly, the verses you bring forth have all ben misinterpreted. It would be best to open up the books of Tafsir to know what they actually mean. It is sufficient to know that the Ulema from past to present always did Taqlid of a Madhab, unless we see ourselves better then them i would suggest we do what the traditional scholars did as the "ulema are the heirs of the Prophet."

Narrated from Abu al-Darda by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and Darimi in their Musnads, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and Bukhari in "inset" form (mudman), without chain nor attribution, in the Book of Knowledge of his Sahih, chapter entitled "Knowledge comes before talk and action." Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1:193) mentions its strengthening through its many chains. It is also cited by Tahawi in Mushkil al Athar, al Baghawi in Sharh al Sunna (1:275 #129 gharib), Ibn Abd al Barr in Jami Bayan al Ilm (p. 37-41), and others.

As for the gates of Ijhithad, there are 4 types of Ijtihad:

1. Absolute and independent Ijtihad i.e Ijtihad Mutlaq Mustaqil
2. Absolute and dependent Ijtihad i.e Ijtihad Mutlaq Muntasib
3. Ijtihad in the Madhab i.e Ijtihad Fi'l Madhab
4. Ijtihad in the Fatwa i.e Ijtihad Fi'l Fatwa

Ill just briefly explain the four.

1. This is the level of the Sahaba and the Imams. They dont follow the furu or Usul of anyone.

2. This is the level of the students of the Imams. They follow the Usul of their teachers but not strictly the Furu when judging sources.

3. This level consists of the great Fuqaha, who derive rulings for new cases that have arisen but sticking to the furu and usul of their Imams.

4. This level consists of those scholars who stick with the Furu and Usul of their Imam AND to the new judgements of the Fuqaha (discusses above). What they basically do is tell which of the different opinions amongst the Madhab are stronger and weaker and so forth.


1 and 2 are closed and will remain closed. As for 3 and 4 they will always remain open.

Wallahu A'lam

[AbuZayd]

Assalamu alaykum sister dhakiyya,

I await your response to brother salman's post and, in addition, could you please comment on the following :

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000889.aspx


As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah:

The fitna of La-Madhhabiyya [Not following an Islamic School] is among the modern heresies in Islam. There are many proofs against it. It is a superficial problem. One wonders why it is still around. Surely it survives only by the Divine will and is a blessing in disguise. It is a chance for learning what exactly is orthodoxy in Islam and knowing where one stands with respect to it. La-Madhhabiyya creepage is also a good indicator of the progress of anti-traditional trends inside Islam, secularism, and other stray philosophies, all of them with Muslim faces. The Prophet (saws) predicted this. He (saws) also said: "The last of this Umma will curse and disparage the first."

Following are a few basic points and some clarifying evidence on the issue. I have organized these replies around seven misconceptions related to La-Madhhabiyya.



1. The misconception that << Consultation and following of the scholars as is done for priests and rabbis, is nowhere made obligatory in this religion.>>


Learning is without doubt a categorical individual obligation (fard `ayn) in Islam. This learning is done from the People of learning since the beginning of this Deen. What was good for the best generations is good for us. Whatever is necessary toward it is also fard. Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir said in the Ghunya, "Teacher-and-Student will be the way until the Day of Resurrection."

The phrase "as is done for priests and rabbis" in this debate is a smokescreen designed to cloud the issue. It is used mostly dishonestly. Whoever preaches accuracy in explaining {ahl al-dhikr} should first practice it with the terms "priests and rabbis" and beware immensely of training the guns of such terms on the Ulema. The context of those terms in the hadith points to those interested in usurping Divine authority to mislead people and cause them to disobey Allah. This is inapplicable to the Ulema of Islam. Actually, to compare the Ulema and Imams of Islam to the Christian clergy and the Synagogue is kufr.



2. The misconception that << The obligation is to do one's best, and certainly one may consult anyone, but it is not an absolute obligation in religious affairs.>>


The reverse is true: One who is able MUST learn from the knowledgeable what the Religion requires one to learn and practice and there is NO excuse for failing to do so.

An elephant in a China shop may "do its best" also. An ignoramus fed and dressed with haram may "do his best" to supplicate Allah also. Trying to do one's best without bothering about pre-conditions is a pious wish. Allah Most High made a difference between those who know and those who do not, precisely so one is no longer excused to just "consult anyone."

There are those who argue for the irrelevancy today of {Ask the people of the remembrance if you do not know}. Apparently the angels who are in search of Ahl al-Dhikr in the earth were sent down in vain?; nor do they see from the heaven the houses of the Ahl al-Dhikr lit up with light?; nor did our Master `Ali ibn Abi Talib, when he said: "WE are the Ahl al-Dhikr," know what he was saying? (Tabari, Qurtubi) What about the Prophet (saws) who said: "The one who is ignorant is not permitted to remain mute and not ask when Allah has said: {Ask the people of Dhikr if you know not}. Each Believer must know whether his work follows guidance or not." Narrated from Jabir by Ibn Marduyah in his Tafsir.

Equally irrelevant to them would become a host of other commands, such as {Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they who are left behind may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware}. They will probably equally dismiss {The knowledgeable and the ignorant are not equal} with the defeated claim that there are close to zero truly knowledgeable Muslims today. This is all a bankrupt argument. Allah does not give inapplicable commands nor does He strike irrelevant comparisons. The Ahl al-Dhikr are the Ahl al-Qur'an wal-Sunna. They are present until the Day of Judgment so no excuse is left. Nor does He accept a criterion of "doing one's best" that one's own conscience rejects.



3. The misconception that << In worldly affairs even the prophet was told to consult with the Muslims but not in religion.>>


This is a doubly false analogy. First, the Prophet (saws) does not need a Madhhab. Second, worldly affairs are irrelevant. What is relevant here is the unchangeable fact that (a) learning the Religion is obligatory and that (b) learning is obligatorily effected through the people of learning.

Hence the need to discern character and the Sahabi's golden rule of ISNAD spelled out for the Muslims in the manner of obtaining Religious knowledge: "Verily, this knowledge is our Religion, therefore let each of you carefully observe from whom he takes his Religion!" (From Abu Hurayra and Anas in al-Khatib's al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi and al-Hakim's Mustadrak; from Ibn Sirin and Ibn `Awn in Muslim's Sahih and al-Khatib's al-Faqih wal-Mutafaqqih).

The proof of madhhabism is by definition a non-Prophetic paradigm because madhhab means road i.e. the intermediary that leads to knowledge and understanding of the Prophetic Message. Some examples:

`Ali (ra) said: "I am not a Prophet nor do I receive revelation but I put into practice the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet (saws) as much as I can. Therefore, as long as I order you to obey Allah, it is incumbent upon you to obey me whether you like it or not!" Musnad Ahmad.

Ibn Mas`ud (ra) and Ibn `Umar (ra) said: "Whoever wishes to follow the Sunna, let him follow the Sunna of those that died - the Companions of Muhammad." Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm. Abu Nu`aym, Hilya. Ibn Abi Zayd, al-Jami` fil-Sunan.

`Imran ibn Husayn (ra) said: "The Qur'an was revealed and the Messenger of Allah instituted the Sunan; so follow us [Companions] or, by Allah! if you do not, you shall go astray." Musnad Ahmad.

Ibrahim al-Nakha`i (ra) said: "If the Companions made ablution to the wrists I swear I would do the same, even as I read the verse of ablution as stating {to the elbows} (5:6)." Ibn Abi Zayd, al-Jami` fil-Sunan. This nass from the Salaf should be studied carefully and probably a whole book could be written explaining it.

Al-Hasan al-Basri (ra) said of the Companions: They were a people whom Allah I chose for His Prophet's (saws) company. Therefore imitate their manners and their ways, for truly they were - by the Lord of the Ka'ba! - on the straight path." Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm.

Muhammad ibn Sirin (ra), when asked about certain beverages, would say: "An Imam of right guidance forbade it - `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz, Allah be well-pleased with him and grant him mercy!" Abu Nu`aym, Hilya.



4. The misconception that << Those that claim religion to be confusing to the ordinary Muslim and requiring "certified" scholars (like themselves) to sort out it for the rabble, are guilty of falsely accusing the religion and misleading the people.>>


First, The ordinary Muslim is a muqallid - one who imitates his imam in Religion - and Religion is not confusing to the ordinary Muqallid. Second, no-one should let such misconceived remarks pass unchallenged. They go against so many Qur'anic verses and hadiths that they might easily meet the criteria of kufr wal-`iyadhu billah. The best minds of the Salaf conceded defeat before the cruxes of jurisprudence and thanked Allah for having people like the Four Imams around. See on this my post titled "The Superiority of Fiqh Over Hadith." This objector probably knows full well that something does not even have to be confusing to require a qualified teacher. However, his problem is with authority.

The questions were asked recently:



<< How would you respond to those modern day writers who say there is no clergy or hierarchy in Islam? How would you differentiate the hierarchy in Islam with that in Catholicism?>>


The Prophet (saws) stated there is no rahbaniyya in Islam, meaning by rahbaniyya the monastic vows of perpetual celibacy, poverty, and solitariness. However, Islam promotes modesty and chastity (haya', `iffa), simple living (zuhd), and paced retreat from the world (i`tikaf, `uzla).

The statement that there is no hierarchy in Islam is false, Allah Most High in the Qur'an differentiated between selected Prophets and others, between the earlier believers and the later believers, between those whose belief holds complete sway over them and those who admix their faith with sins, between the Anbiya', the Siddiqin, the Shuhada' and the Salihin, between the Darajaat or levels that the Believers receive from their Lord, between those who possess hikma, fiqh, albab, absar, Iman etc. as opposed to those who possess merely Islam, between those whose hearts shake at His mention as opposed to the rest, etc. It is all about hierarchy even among the disbelievers, some being closer to belief than others. To say there is no hierarchy in Islam is as novel a concept as it is a novel wording.

As for the second question the difference is that (ecclesiastical) hierarchy in Catholicism is a man-made institution while hierarchy in Islam is decreed by Allah Most High: When Allah loves someone, He decrees it to Gibril who then announces it to the angels who then announce it in the heavens and the earth, and that person becomes beloved, their prayers answered, their presence beneficial to others etc. The Awliya' or saints come second only to the Prophets in this respect, as in the verses alluded to in the previous paragraph and as in the hadith al-`Ulama' warathat al-Anbiya'. The verse stresses their spiritual primacy while the hadith stresses their primacy in knowledge. There is also Islamic hierarchy in the socio-political institution of Ahl al-Hall wal-`Aqd, which probably disappeared with the end of the rightly-guided Caliphate. And Allah knows best.



5. The misconception that << Any one that says that the law of God needs an intermediary for understanding - if they become intermediaries they are following the example of the priests and rabbis.>>


Once more the People of knowledge whom Allah named next to Himself and the angels in His book are disparaged. This is very far from the ethics of the Salaf.

`Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz (ra) said: "The Messenger of Allah (saws) and those in authority after him instituted ways (sunan). To hold to these ways is to hold fast to the book of Allah and to achieve strength in order to establish the Religion of Allah. It is not for anyone to substitute nor modify nor probe any of those ways. Whoever is guided by them is well-guided." Hilya, Siyar.

Abu Hatim al-Razi narrated in his Manaqib al-Shafi`i from Harmala that Imam al-Shafi`i said: "The Khulafa' are five: Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, `Ali, and `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz." Meaning, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. In his Diwan, al-Shafi`i named them "leaders of their people, by whose guidance one obtains guidance." Was Imam al-Shafi`i following the examples of the pontiffs of the kuffar? Subhan Allah. Ibn `Umar reviled the Khawarij for applying to the Muslims the verses revealed about the kuffar.

Some excerpts from the book of Sheikhul Hadith Moulana Zakariyya (rahimahulLah) titled al-I’tidaal, thanks to Br. `Abd Lashay:

Imam Abdul Wahab Sha’rani (R) writes: A covenant was made with us (Muslims) on behalf of Rasulullah (Sallallahu-Alaihi-wasallam) that we respect the Ulama, the saintly and the elders, whether they themselves act according to their knowledge or not. And that we shall continue to discharge their necessary rights and entrust their personal matter to Allah Ta’ala. Whosoever fails to discharge the Ulama’s rights and fails to show them the necessary respect and honor is indeed guilty of sin towards Allah and His Rasul (Sallallahu-Alaihi-wasallam), for the Ulama are the successors of the Ambiya (AS), the heirs of Rasulullah (Sallallahu-Alaihi-wasallam), the bearers of the Shariah and they are His servants. When anyone insults them, the insults set forth a chain reaction which reaches Rasulullah (Sallallahu-Alaihi-wasallam). This is Kufr. Now think for yourself: The king appoints someone as his ambassador. The king will with attention listen to this ambassador and debar the insulter from his court. On the other hand, the king will make a favorite out of that man who showed respect and honor to his ambassador and who discharged the rights due to his emissary (al-I’tidaal of H.Sheikh)

Rasulullah (Sallallahu-Alaihi-wasallam) said: In a certain house of Bani Israel, there was a bitch that was about to give birth to puppies. A guest arrived at the house. The bitch decided that she would not bark at the guest that night (so as to cause him trouble). However from inside the womb of the bitch, the puppies began to bark. Then Allah Ta’ala revealed: This is the example of that Ummah which will come after you. The foolish ones of that Ummah will overcome and subdue its Ulama (Al-I’tidaal of H.Sheikh)

Maulana Abdul Hayy (R) writes in his "Fatawa": If the object of one who humiliates and causes pain to the Ulama is because of their knowledge of Deen, then the Fuqaha have passed a verdict of Kufr. against him. If however, he has any other object then too there is no doubt in that person being a Faasiq, sinful person, worthy of Allah’s anger and deserving of His punishment in this world and the Hereafter (Al-I’tidaal of H.Sheikh)


6. The misconception that << The necessity of following a "madhhab" was not known before the death of the prophet (saws), and as such may not be considered a part of our religion.>>


This is another myth of anti-madhhabism compounded with a contrived rule.

Madhhab as "way" is synonymous with siraat and we pray seventy times a day for the siraat of the righteous in the Fatiha. Madhhab is also lexically synonymous with sunna. This is exactly the sense in which the Prophet (saws) ordered the Muslims to follow the Sunna of the rightly-guided Successors, and ordered them specifically to follow Abu Bakr and `Umar. He (saws) also ordered them at various times to follow Ibn Mas`ud, Mu`adh ibn Jabal, and `Ammar ibn Yasir. He extended this status of leadership-in-the-Religion to all the Companions: "My Companions are trust keepers for my Community." Muslim. He (saws) further extended it to the Tabi`in and the generation after them, i.e. to the Mujtahid Imams: "I recommend to you my Companions, then those that come after them, then those that come after them. Afterwards, falsehood will spread." Sunan and Sahihayn.

As for the claim that something "not known before the death of the prophet (saws)... may not be considered a part of our religion" this rule is simply not recognized in the principles and practice of Islam. Such a rule calls for people to disobey all seven of the hadiths cited above. What a curse must such a person bear, to be forced to violate his own rule every time he opens a Mus-haf!



7. The reductionist misconception that << The necessity is only of being a Muslim and following the commandments of God and His Messenger.>>


Is it permissible for a Muslim to "follow the commandments of God and His Messenger" in ignorance - or independently - of the practice of the Companions and Mujtahid Imams for those commandments? If one answers yes, one has nullified {Siraat al-ladheena an`amta `alayhim}. If one answers no, then he agrees that following authority is obligatory even in the understanding of such basic commands as {Establish Salat} and "Pray as you see me pray."

There is no disagreement between the seventy-three sects over "the necessity is only of being a Muslim and following the commandments of God and His Messenger" (saws). Seventy-two of those sects are in the Fire. The Khawarij had plenty of similar words of truth spoken in the pursuit of misguidance. They misconstrued the Qur'an so as to part ways with the Jama`a. The wise should not be bitten from the same hole twice.



Was-Salam.
Hajj Gibril

[dhakiyya]

Reply to Salman: (just edited this in, Abu Zayd's post wasn't there when I started replying, and I cooked a pizza between starting and finishing the post :D)

Can you provide Qur'an verses or authentic hadiths to support your statement that I should consult books of tafsir before heeding what the Qur'an says? I don't see how the early Muslims could have done this, as those books did not exist. As to following an interpretation of the Qur'an written by a human being other than Muhammad (saw), which one should I pick? There are loads of them. Most semi decent translations of the Qur'an have interpretations with them.

Also, given that the Qur'an is a guide to the righteous (as it says at the beginning of chapter 2) why would Allah make a guide to the righteous unaccessible to everyone but the most learned scholars? Why does it say in the Qur'an to study it? Every judgement I ever make about anything comes from looking at the evidence available and making a decision. Deciding to follow any madhhab (should I decide to do this) will be a decision I make having considered the evidence. If I can't make a decision based on considering the evidence available, then why should I follow *your* way of doing things? Why not some southern baptist bible thumper? Why not the Ayatollah of the Shia'as? Why not Aleister Crowley for that matter? - you say that the madhhabs don't say to "follow us and not them" - yet without being allowed to consider matters rationally, how can you do anything but follow?

I have no intention of making rulings for other people to follow, because I'm not in a position of government (and that's a whole other can of worms), I just make decisions on how to live my own life... Can I not decide for myself what a verse in the Qur'an means...... seeing that it will be me, on my own, with no intercession from any human being when I face Allah on Judgement day..... what will I say in defence of things I did wrong? so-and-so told me to do it?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as-salamu alayum

dhakiyya said:

"and if I were to follow any of those schools, I would still feel that there is a danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah"

indeed, the word of man is indeed the word of man, there is no doubting that. Ijtihad is a rigorous process which involves the ability to interpret the primary texts and derive legal rulings following usul al-fiqh. it is natural that there will be differences of opinion. it comes down to difference in interpretation and differences in usul.

at the end of the day, one follows man's understanding of the deen in many matters whether you like it or not.

[Mossy]

You know, I agree that the four schools are not the only way to follow Islam.

You could read the Qu'ran (or translations thereof), the books of hadith etc and come up with a completely internally coherent belief system based on a certain set of axioms of analysis from which you work.

However, I reckon that's very unlikely to occur.

I've always liked the game of Go - it's simple to play, hard to master.

I think Islam is the same. Nobody knows what the Shariah is save those who have wahy - the anbiya who are closest to Allah (swt) and know what his divine will is.

So we do the best we can. In anything as we learn, we require teachers. There is a minimal level of knowledge required for someone to be a muslim. Beyond that, there is the argument enquiring as to why the detailed knowledge should be the preserve of the scholars alone - surely Islam should be readily understandable for all?

The truth of the matter is that it is. You can be a muslim by the basics on which everyone agrees. If you want more knowledge, you have specialists (the scholars), who are perfectly willing to share their knowledge (be it in the form of a fatwa (a legal conclusion) or as a teacher should you choose to be a student).

You can't understand the Qu'ran without learning arabic. How do you learn arabic? You are taught. Everyone has their own set of knowledge - we choose to learn from those with more knowledge. Indeed, the Qu'ran says (as a translation/interpretation of course): ask those with knowledge if you yourself do not know.

The verses of the Qu'ran were also revealed within a specific historical context. The tafsir are nice for seeing this sometimes - those at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) were raised both speaking arabic and knowing their history. The also trusted the views of those who had done more study than they had and had, and this is quite an interesting point, been close to the Prophet (pbuh). Why? Because they had the specific knowledge of the actions of the Prophet (pbuh), who was undoubtedly on haqq.

Hence, if you want to analyse, you need to learn from somewhere. The more sources of rigourous knowledge you employ, the more likely you will be to grasp the right end of the stick. The Prophet (pbuh) was a man. The Sahaba were men and women. We learnt Islam from these, who devoted their lives to propogating our religion. The ulema are an extension of this and we continue to learn from those who are specialists in their field, just as a neurosurgeon is in his - not many would do a brain operation without being qualified or experienced.

And what area could be more worthy of care and objective analysis of those who have devoted their life to their learning than this?

One final point - the madhabs each work from their own axiomatic basis, the differences between the madhabs stem from these, although for the basics of faith, they all agree. Each of these works from a premise of rationality which has been checked and counter-checked over the years.

They are rational. It is a rational art. One should not decieve oneself into believing it is a dogma that stems from simple uniformed/subjective opinion. One should also be aware that there is no blame in working within this framework but not adhering to a madhab in every ruling should one prove not to make much sense on first view (although invariably, we should seek to look deeper).

In the end everyone follows their own path and their own unique implementation. I personally believe that learning from those with knowledge is the key to success - the fact is these people are there. We are not alone. Just as the Qu'ran you have before you is a tool, so are these people. It is possible for anyone who chooses to learn the ins and outs of their religion and build on the work of those who have gone before. The people at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) learned from those who had seen him and studied under him, and thus we learn.

And pizza is good. Mash'Allah :)

[Muawiyah]

«and if I were to follow any of those schools, I would still feel that there is a danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah»

If you were to follow your own opinion regarding the ayaat of Allah ,you would be in greater danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah.

[dhakiyya]

As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah:

The fitna of La-Madhhabiyya [Not following an Islamic School] is among the modern heresies in Islam.

I don't see how this can be, since the Madhhabs did not exist to start with, and whilst it would be quite reasonable to say that Muhammad guided the first Muslims in this way... well what about from the time of Muhammad's death until the first madhhab came into existance? If the Madhhabs are so right, then why are the four of them different? And why follow a Madhhab as opposed to Shia'ism?


The Prophet (saws) predicted this. He (saws) also said: "The last of this Umma will curse and disparage the first."

this quote can refer to any innovation, and the first of the Ummah did not follow a madhhab




1. The misconception that << Consultation and following of the scholars as is done for priests and rabbis, is nowhere made obligatory in this religion.>>


Learning is without doubt a categorical individual obligation (fard `ayn) in Islam.

agreed


This learning is done from the People of learning since the beginning of this Deen.

Who are the "people of learning" from the first generation of Muslims?


Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir said in the Ghunya, "Teacher-and-Student will be the way until the Day of Resurrection."

Shaykh 3abd al Qadir is not Allah or Muhammad (saw) so what authority does he have to say what is the way until the day of Ressurection?


The phrase "as is done for priests and rabbis" in this debate is a smokescreen designed to cloud the issue. It is used mostly dishonestly. Whoever preaches accuracy in explaining {ahl al-dhikr} should first practice it with the terms "priests and rabbis" and beware immensely of training the guns of such terms on the Ulema. The context of those terms in the hadith points to those interested in usurping Divine authority to mislead people and cause them to disobey Allah. This is inapplicable to the Ulema of Islam. Actually, to compare the Ulema and Imams of Islam to the Christian clergy and the Synagogue is kufr.

Corruption in Christianity and Judaism comes from people making mistakes as well as from deliberate and dishonest misleading of people. Having studied the way that Christianity has become corrupted, I would say that there is a great deal more mistakes involved than deliberate corruption. In a lineage of teachers going back centuries, it only takes one dishonest one to completely distort the teachings, followed by generations of refusing to question.

I will compare Islamic scholars and Imams to Priests and Rabbis if they are behaving like them. When is making statements of fact ever kufr? Note, I do *not* make blanket statements like all islamic scholars are behaving like Rabbis, because it is not true of all of them. However, if I see specific incidences of imams or scholars behaving like southern baptist bible thumpers, then I will point it out.



2. The misconception that << The obligation is to do one's best, and certainly one may consult anyone, but it is not an absolute obligation in religious affairs.>>

The reverse is true: One who is able MUST learn from the knowledgeable what the Religion requires one to learn and practice and there is NO excuse for failing to do so.

So who is knowledgeable? How do you know that a scholar is teaching real Islam or a version of Islam full of mistakes? The Shi'a scholars say the exact same things as to why I should follow them.


An elephant in a China shop may "do its best" also. An ignoramus fed and dressed with haram may "do his best" to supplicate Allah also. Trying to do one's best without bothering about pre-conditions is a pious wish. Allah Most High made a difference between those who know and those who do not, precisely so one is no longer excused to just "consult anyone."

Prove to me that Allah considers your scholar to be one of "those who know" and that Allah considers the scholar that my Shia'a friend consults to be one of "those who do not know"


There are those who argue for the irrelevancy today of {Ask the people of the remembrance if you do not know}.

if you do not know. How do you know whether you know or not? Why can't I see for myself what the Qur'an says, and if I don't understand the Qur'an, ask someone or people whose learning and opinion I trust?



Equally irrelevant to them would become a host of other commands, such as {Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they who are left behind may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware}. They will probably equally dismiss {The knowledgeable and the ignorant are not equal} with the defeated claim that there are close to zero truly knowledgeable Muslims today. This is all a bankrupt argument. Allah does not give inapplicable commands nor does He strike irrelevant comparisons. The Ahl al-Dhikr are the Ahl al-Qur'an wal-Sunna. They are present until the Day of Judgment so no excuse is left. Nor does He accept a criterion of "doing one's best" that one's own conscience rejects.

Refusing to follow is not the same as refusing to consult someone else ever about something, or learn from people. I just reserve the right to disagree, if I have reason to, and to consult alternative opinions, and to make judgements based on individual situations. No human being is beyond error, no matter how learned, and many that consider themselves learned (from any walk of life) are dogmatic and not open to suggestions that they might be wrong about some things.




3. The misconception that << In worldly affairs even the prophet was told to consult with the Muslims but not in religion.>>


This is a doubly false analogy. First, the Prophet (saws) does not need a Madhhab. Second, worldly affairs are irrelevant. What is relevant here is the unchangeable fact that (a) learning the Religion is obligatory and that (b) learning is obligatorily effected through the people of learning.

Hence the need to discern character and the Sahabi's golden rule of ISNAD spelled out for the Muslims in the manner of obtaining Religious knowledge: "Verily, this knowledge is our Religion, therefore let each of you carefully observe from whom he takes his Religion!" (From Abu Hurayra and Anas in al-Khatib's al-Jami` li-Akhlaq al-Rawi and al-Hakim's Mustadrak; from Ibn Sirin and Ibn `Awn in Muslim's Sahih and al-Khatib's al-Faqih wal-Mutafaqqih).

The proof of madhhabism is by definition a non-Prophetic paradigm because madhhab means road i.e. the intermediary that leads to knowledge and understanding of the Prophetic Message. Some examples:

[quote]

There are no intermediaries in Islam. I thought that this is one of the most fundamental principles of Islam. You face Allah alone on Judgement day. Why then, do you need other human beings to interpret the word of Allah for you?

[quote]
4. The misconception that << Those that claim religion to be confusing to the ordinary Muslim and requiring "certified" scholars (like themselves) to sort out it for the rabble, are guilty of falsely accusing the religion and misleading the people.>>


First, The ordinary Muslim is a muqallid - one who imitates his imam in Religion - and Religion is not confusing to the ordinary Muqallid. Second, no-one should let such misconceived remarks pass unchallenged. They go against so many Qur'anic verses and hadiths that they might easily meet the criteria of kufr wal-`iyadhu billah. The best minds of the Salaf conceded defeat before the cruxes of jurisprudence and thanked Allah for having people like the Four Imams around. See on this my post titled "The Superiority of Fiqh Over Hadith." This objector probably knows full well that something does not even have to be confusing to require a qualified teacher. However, his problem is with authority.

Why is fiqh superior to hadith? It seems to me that more and more layers are being built up by humans surrounding the word of Allah. First you're supposed to accept the hadith (at least all the sahih ones) even though they're the word of man and can still contain errors...... now I'm supposed to accept scholars opinions in addition to all that....

I'll leave it there for now.......

[dhakiyya]

as-salamu alayum

dhakiyya said:

"and if I were to follow any of those schools, I would still feel that there is a danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah"

indeed, the word of man is indeed the word of man, there is no doubting that. Ijtihad is a rigorous process which involves the ability to interpret the primary texts and derive legal rulings following usul al-fiqh. it is natural that there will be differences of opinion. it comes down to difference in interpretation and differences in usul.

at the end of the day, one follows man's understanding of the deen in many matters whether you like it or not.

Yeah, but if I'm going to burn for mistakenly following a human's opinion, then I'd rather it was my own, than someone elses mistaken opinion. Especially if I had the opportunity to discover that this person's opinion was mistaken, had I done the research.

[dhakiyya]

You know, I agree that the four schools are not the only way to follow Islam.

You could read the Qu'ran (or translations thereof), the books of hadith etc and come up with a completely internally coherent belief system based on a certain set of axioms of analysis from which you work.

This is what I do, and will continue to do... yes I consult books and/or scholars where necessary, but I don't see why I should only pick certain scholars, and I'm dubious of those who say I should only follow them, or those from their school.

I agree pretty much with what you say, the idea that I object to is that I should follow human beings rather than use my own judgement.




And pizza is good. Mash'Allah :)

It was a very good pizza :D

[dhakiyya]

«and if I were to follow any of those schools, I would still feel that there is a danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah»

If you were to follow your own opinion regarding the ayaat of Allah ,you would be in greater danger of taking the word of man to be like the word of Allah.

my opinions or someone elses opinions.... the difference is.....?

I actually try to follow the Qur'an and Sunnah, as opposed to what some human being tells me the Qur'an and Sunnah says. I consult many sources, including scholars and books written by scholars, I just refuse to pick one and follow it without question.

[Mossy]

This is what I do, and will continue to do... yes I consult scholars where necessary, but I don't see why I should only pick certain scholars, and I'm dubious of those who say I should only follow them, or those from their school.

I think it's an interesting point to discern exactly "where necessary" is. The fact is, you can't. Everyone has their own implementation of Islam. No two people or the scenario's they are in are the same.

Now, as you read the Qu'ran, you use your arabic knowledge (if you read the original arabic?) from those who taught you arabic (as nobody is born knowing (well, 'cept certain Prophets..)). You contextualise these verses (I hope) by what you've learnt from your history books (or do you strike off fingertips often?) - hadith are basically this: contextualisation/explanatory notes which are checked for accuracy. The Qu'ran is similar, but higher than all forms of hadith save textual mutawatir in terms of transmission accuracy. Hence hadith back up the Qu'ran rather than supplant it.

Therefore you are relying on external knowledge from the very start.

You then read the texts and come to your conclusions - perhaps you should draw a robe around you when you go outside. Not drink alcohol.

In doing this, you will be working from a base set of axioms - your own basis for your personal exegesis of the Qu'ran. You have certain resources available to you, you do not have others immediately available (although I am sure you could obtain them if you so desired).

The madhabs also work from a base set of axioms - eg Maliki fiqh being based on amal ahl al madina.

They have a certain set of sources they work from within this, they have full access to them to do their best to ensure they don't base a ruling on one text, while ignoring another which qualifies it. The advantage of beign a muahaddith/hafiz ;)

In the end, they agree on most things, and thse things they agree upon shouldn't have any room for wiggle. Those areas on which they do not, different techniques come into play, which sometimes do rely heavily on "opinion" - qiyas etc. You can choose not to follow these all you want, but there is one crucial distinction..

Informed vs uninformed opinion.

People who indicate you should stick to one madhab and one madhab only do it because they don't trust themselves to remain objective and rational. It's also due to a sense of loyalty that can occur - you believe a certain way is right and you like to promulgate that. Fair enough.. Again, everyone is free to follow who they choose.

As a word of warning..The more sources you take, the more you will mix axiomatic bases and the more chance you have of coming to an overall system which does not agree with any - your own included. Just ensure to take care and review each action against your base principles (having formalised them) as you live your life. Think on why you do things - sometimes it's because we feel like it/it seems the easy way out. Other times it's because we really believe it is the action with the strongest argument backing it..


I agree pretty much with what you say, the idea that I object to is that I should follow human beings rather than use my own judgement.

You're a human too sis.. But that's been said before.

As I said, they are but tools - every verdict (well, most) in the madhab structure has a daleel which fits in with that framework - you can find those out if you enquire. They're all available. You can choose what level of trust to put in that, just as you placed your trust in the person that taught you Qu'ranic arabic or translated that piece. Some place full trust, others not much.

We should never discount the opinions of those who have spent a lifetime learning.

To do so is neither rational nor objective (although objectivity can be hard when people nag you ;)).


It was a very good pizza :D

Mash'Allah. Now I'm hungry :(

As an aside, the Sahaba were the first people of knowledge in the first generation. Some knew more than others of course - but it should be noted that they did not always agree.

[dhakiyya]

Mossy - I agree with what you are saying, and I don't discount the opinions of people who have spent a lifetime learning, but I believe that such people don't need to tell others to follow them, or that not following them is wrong, (as a number of scholars/ followers of scholars that I come across try to tell people). I also agree where there is a uniform consensus among many scholars, then it is very likely that they are correct, though there are one or two issues that worry me, where there is (or appears to be) a uniform consensus for something that seems wrong, and also is not supported by any verse in the Qur'an. That's when I hear warning bells and start to ask questions, and if scholars can't cope with being questioned... isn't that a problem with the ego? (not that I'm perfect in that respect!)

I don't yet speak enough Arabic to properly understand the Qur'an in Arabic, but I have access to at least eight different translations, which vary in quality (could be more than that cause I downloaded several from the internet, and it's hard to keep track of how many I have) and some are definitely better than others.

[Mossy]

Some things can seem a bit funky at first because we're used to thinking in a certain way.. Either that or we lack understanding. Of course, every so often it's just plain wrong, but hey ;)

I'd be curious as to what issues on which there is an ijma you don't find supported in the Qu'ran at all - maybe a seperate thread? We have some scholars who help around here and donate their time - insh'Allah more will join and help as we grow..

Some scholars can be egorific, others are fantastic. Again they are but human.. But devoted ones mash'Allah. Don't let the nagging ones or their followers put you off completely - there are some great examples of humankind out there.. Who also respect the fact that they can err and they do not have a monopoly on the truth - the adab of ikhtilaf..

A word of warning with translations: some are better than others as you have said, but bear in mind certain words of the Qu'ran do not have an exact translation into English, or can mean multiple things. You are of course placing your trust in the exegesis of the translators.. Who are but human. Check out their background and (on occasion) motivations - for example, the Rashid Khalifah "translation" seems quite nice and reads well, but, err.. It's just plain wrong or biased in a number of places.

G'luck.

[dhakiyya]

well I quite agree about Rashid Khalifa :lol: it's either the second or third worst of the ones I've come across.

The issue that springs to mind is stoning to death of adulterers... I'll post it in a separate thread, lemme go copy and paste stuff I wrote from the other forum...

[Muawiyah]

«my opinions or someone elses opinions.... the difference is.....»


The difference is that the Imaams are an authority by ijma' of the muslimeen and you are not.

Do you think people who have become so-called Ahl-ul-Quraan (i.e deniers of the Sunnah) or Qadiyani on the basis of their "independant research" will be able to present their "research" as a proof on the day of judgement?

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


Can you provide Qur'an verses or authentic hadiths to support your statement that I should consult books of tafsir before heeding what the Qur'an says? I don't see how the early Muslims could have done this, as those books did not exist. As to following an interpretation of the Qur'an written by a human being other than Muhammad (saw), which one should I pick? There are loads of them. Most semi decent translations of the Qur'an have interpretations with them.

The Quran repeatedly stresses that the people with knowledge are far superior to the people without knowledge. It repeatedly distinguished those who understand from those who do not. The number of verses are numerous and i shall leave you to find them.

The concept of Tafsir is not some thing new, it is well rooted amongst the early days of the Ashab, a most notable example being Sayyidina Ibn Abbas. Anyone with minor knowledge of the history of Islamic sciences would know that the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran has begun from the time of the Sahaba and the Tabieen. The only thing the Mufassirun did was bring forth these opinions. The hadith in Bukhari and Muslim states:

"Whoever interprets the Quran without knowledge let him take his place in hell."

The hadith expresses two things:

1. Those who do not have knowledge of the Quran should not try to interpret its verses.
2. It doesnot forbid those who do have knowledge to interpret it.

If you believe that Ikhtilaf is forbidden and a Fitna, then you have accused the Sahaba of the Prophet of Fitna.

Some differences amongst the Sahaba:

1. The punishment of the Deceased.
2. Ifrad Hajj and Qiran Hajj.
3. When Ahram is to be started.
4. Not shortening prayers when one is travelling.
5. Sharecropping.
6. Umrah during Rajab.
7. Ghusl and Fasting.
8. Iddah
9. What invalidates wudhu
10. Actions in prayers.

(Ikhtilaf Al Aimma)

These are just ten of many.


Also, given that the Qur'an is a guide to the righteous (as it says at the beginning of chapter 2) why would Allah make a guide to the righteous unaccessible to everyone but the most learned scholars? Why does it say in the Qur'an to study it?

As i stated in my earlier response that Allah celarly distinguishes the knowledgable from others.

Those who strive hard in Us, We shall most surely guide them in our Ways (29:69)

And the hadith:

-- Ittaqullah yu`allimukumullah

Be aware of Allah, and Allah Himself will teach you

-- Man ya`malu ima bima ya`lamu yu`allimuhullahu ma lam ya`lam

Whoso acts according to what he knows, Allah will teach him what he did not know.

Understanding the Quran is not simply opening up the Quran and taking it at face value. When one does this he is treading on dangerous ground. May Allah Save us!

-- Ask ahl al-dhikr if you do not know (16:43)

-- Say: Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? (39:9)


Every judgement I ever make about anything comes from looking at the evidence available and making a decision. Deciding to follow any madhhab (should I decide to do this) will be a decision I make having considered the evidence.

May we know your qualifications in the Arabic language, the sciences of hadith and Quran, Qiyas etc. ? Or is this decision making based on your limited knowledge of a few texts?


Why not some southern baptist bible thumper? Why not the Ayatollah of the Shia'as? Why not Aleister Crowley for that matter? - you say that the madhhabs don't say to "follow us and not them" - yet without being allowed to consider matters rationally, how can you do anything but follow?

The Prophet said: "My community will not agree on error."

The hadith also refers to the unity of doctorine, which is certainly not the Shias or the Wahabis or any other sect except the Ahly As Sunnah Wal Jamaah.


Can I not decide for myself what a verse in the Qur'an means...... seeing that it will be me, on my own, with no intercession from any human being when I face Allah on Judgement day..... what will I say in defence of things I did wrong? so-and-so told me to do it?

Alot of flaws in your statement.

1. One can only interpret the Quran when one is qualified to do so, this qualification is simply not the understanding of the Arabic language but much more.

2. The intercession of Humans will be made available to you ont hat day, starting from the Prophets then the Martyrs, Siddiqs and the Awliya, even to the extent that those whom you gave water to when they were thristy will say that so and so helped me so i intercede for him.

3. The so and so told me to do it that you are referring to are those whom Allah has blessed with Ilm of this deen, something which me and you do not have an ounce of. I have already provided the Hadith of the position of the Ulema to you.

-- The Ulema are the heirs of the Prophet.

Narrated from Abu al-Darda by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and Darimi in their Musnads, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and Bukhari in "inset" form (mudman), without chain nor attribution, in the Book of Knowledge of his Sahih, chapter entitled "Knowledge comes before talk and action." Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1:193) mentions its strengthening through its many chains. It is also cited by Tahawi in Mushkil al Athar, al Baghawi in Sharh al Sunna (1:275 #129 gharib), Ibn Abd al Barr in Jami Bayan al Ilm (p. 37-41), and others.



I don't see how this can be, since the Madhhabs did not exist to start with, and whilst it would be quite reasonable to say that Muhammad guided the first Muslims in this way... well what about from the time of Muhammad's death until the first madhhab came into existance? If the Madhhabs are so right, then why are the four of them different? And why follow a Madhhab as opposed to Shia'ism?

The least one can do is write Prophet before the name of our Lord and Master Muhammad - May my soul be his. As for the MAdhabs, then the concept of taqlid was well initiated during the time of the Sahaba. Te Ijma of the Ulema that came after them stated that following a Madhab was a must, and Ijma is one of the sources of Islam. Whoever denies thsi denies the words of the Prophet.

As for the MAdhabs differing, then the differences appeared because the Sahab themselves differed on certain issues. If you would like to make that your point of criticism then go ahead, but note that the best community was in the same position.

Ibn Qayyim said:

-- The obligatory taqlid is the taqlid of those who know better than us. (A'lam)

There is a consensus that there has been no Mujtahid Mutlaq after the 4 Imams. (please see further details on Ijma below)

Further Imam Ahmad said:

-- iyyaka an tatakallama fi mas'alatin laysa laka fiha imam

Beware of speaking on a matter regarding which you don't stand on an imam (Masail al Kharqi and Masail Abdullah bin ahmad)


Shaykh 3abd al Qadir is not Allah or Muhammad (saw) so what authority does he have to say what is the way until the day of Ressurection?

But he is one of the Awliya and as Allah said:

Lo! Verily the friends of Allah are those on whom fear cometh not, nor do they grieve (10:62)


So who is knowledgeable? How do you know that a scholar is teaching real Islam or a version of Islam full of mistakes? The Shi'a scholars say the exact same things as to why I should follow them.

Prove to me that Allah considers your scholar to be one of "those who know" and that Allah considers the scholar that my Shia'a friend consults to be one of "those who do not know"

I have already answered the Shia questions.

`alaykum bi al-sawad al-a`zam = "follow the greater mass."

And thisis definitely neither the Shia nor the "Salafis", but only Ahly Sunna wa al-Jamaa, and they are unmistakably recognizable nowadays.

Imam Shafi said:

-- The Prophet's order that men should follow the Muslim community is a proof that the Ijma of the Muslims is binding. (Risala)

Imam Tahawi said in his Aqida tahawiyya:

-- Wa la nukhalifu jama`at almuslimin

We do not separate from the largest group of the Muslims.

The "largest group of the Muslims" here refers to the ijma mujtahidin or consensus of major scholars as the commentators have explained.


Why is fiqh superior to hadith?

Sufyan ibn Uyayna said:

-- Hadith is a Pitfall except for the Fuqaha.

Abdullah bin Wahb, the companion of Imam Malik said:

-- Hadith is a pitfall except for the Ulema. Every memorizer of hadith that doesnot have an Imam in Fiqh is misguided.

Sufyan Thawri said:

-- The explanation of hadith is better then the hadith.

Sources:

Ibn Abi Hatim in the introduction of al-Jarh wa Al Tadill; Ibn abi Zayd in Al jami; Ibn Abd Al Barr in Intiqa and Imam Dhahabi in Tadhkirat.

Wallahu A'lam

[dhakiyya]

Having considered all the points raised, I can see that there is value in seeking the opinion of someone who is more learned than you. Actually, I always saw the value in this, I just don't think that you should follow whatever they say without considering the matter using your own reasoning. One thing that the Salafis do is explain how they came to the judgements they make. I've seen madhhab type scholars make what appears to be snap judgements with no explanation whatsoever. I'm not saying that they haven't considered the evidence, but I want to see how they got to the judgements they made. You never see articles in any scientific journals, no matter how learned the scientists, without lenghthy explanations of how they made their conclusions. In fact, undergraduate science students' and even A-level students' essays would fail automatically without this.

In addition, I would like to know what systems there are within the madhhabs of criticism of present and past decisions, laws, fatwas etc. Every human being is capable of error, and any system of scholarship, where information is passed down through generations of scholars, there is the possibility of transmitting errors in judgement down the line along with good judgement and scholarship. In addition to this, it just takes one corrupt person to pollute the whole thing, and unless a critical view is taken and used continuously, the corruption is passed down, along with errors. How do modern day scholars critically appraise the judgements of their predecessors? Are there any examples of rulings that have existed for generations being found to have been erroneous and subsequently discarded or reevaluated? Thinking about this whole issue rationally, it's not the idea of learning from scholars that I have a problem with, if they're really as good as you say then bring them on! What I am afraid of is following error and innovation, which is taught to me as Islamic law, but is in fact innovation. If the meanings of certain verses and hadiths are so subtle as you say (and I don't doubt that many of them are) then it must be easy for the weak hearted or the corrupt to subtly distort their meanings to fit in with their desires, and teach people the distorted meanings and warn them not to trust their own judgement when they question this distorted meaning. How do scholars from subsequent generations root out such distortion?

It is clear to me that many Salafis and people like Rashad Khalifa who question the maddhabs have ended up with something much more erroneous, but that in itself does not mean that the did not have a valid point to make at the very beginning, i.e. that there is error in the maddhabs, and they are too set in their ways to see it. What do the scholars have to say to prove these people wrong about this single point? (i.e. not by showing error in their judgement or their inabilty to make judgements, but by demonstrating that their own house is in order)

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


Having considered all the points raised, I can see that there is value in seeking the opinion of someone who is more learned than you.

Alhamdulilah


I just don't think that you should follow whatever they say without considering the matter using your own reasoning.

The evidence is the texts, not what ones reasoning states. The text is understood by the scholars, not by us, since we have no qualification.


One thing that the Salafis do is explain how they came to the judgements they make.

They explain half the story, meaning they pick the hadith they like and ignore the ones they dont.


I've seen madhhab type scholars make what appears to be snap judgements with no explanation whatsoever. I'm not saying that they haven't considered the evidence, but I want to see how they got to the judgements they made. You never see articles in any scientific journals, no matter how learned the scientists, without lenghthy explanations of how they made their conclusions. In fact, undergraduate science students' and even A-level students' essays would fail automatically without this.

The MAdhab type scholars make up 95 percent of the scholars of the Ahly Sunnah from past to present, which include the giants such as ibn Hajar, Imam Suyuti, Imam Ghazali, Imam Al Haramayn, Ibn Abidin, Imam Fakhr, Ibn Kathir, Al Qurtubi, Ibn Abd Salam, Ibn Khafif, Al Jawzi, Ibn Taymiyyah and so forth. The list is never ending.

The reason why the scholars sometimes do not bring forth their proof is when they address the laymen, simply because the laymen cannot and will not be able to understand the evidence being brought forth, most if not all, without being totally confused with the methodology being employed. However, the ulema do have books in which they detail their evidence for a particular ruling.


Every human being is capable of error, and any system of scholarship, where information is passed down through generations of scholars, there is the possibility of transmitting errors in judgement down the line along with good judgement and scholarship. In addition to this, it just takes one corrupt person to pollute the whole thing, and unless a critical view is taken and used continuously, the corruption is passed down, along with errors. How do modern day scholars critically appraise the judgements of their predecessors?

This is near impossibilty since there have been verifying scholars in great numbers in every generation. Some examples of mistakes being made was Ibn taymiyyas fatwas againt Tawassul, Ibn Al Jawzis Fatwas on the use of Aql, others such as wiping over socks and the position of our Imam Abu hanifa in hadith and so forth. The Umma has had centuries of practice in detecting and exposing heresy.


What I am afraid of is following error and innovation, which is taught to me as Islamic law, but is in fact innovation. If the meanings of certain verses and hadiths are so subtle as you say (and I don't doubt that many of them are) then it must be easy for the weak hearted or the corrupt to subtly distort their meanings to fit in with their desires, and teach people the distorted meanings and warn them not to trust their own judgement when they question this distorted meaning. How do scholars from subsequent generations root out such distortion?

Please see my above response to this. The Ulema do not concur on Error and innovation, and even if one or two or even three did innovate something in the deen that would be detected immediately. These are not men like me and you, they are the Ulema/Awliya of Allah. If their position was to be looked upon with suspicion the Prophet would not have said:

"The Ulema are the heirs of the Prophet"

and

"Follow the greater Majority."

Nor would Imam Shaif have said, "Ijma is binding" and nor would Imam Abu Hanifa have said, "The Ulema are the Awliya of Allah."


It is clear to me that many Salafis and people like Rashad Khalifa who question the maddhabs have ended up with something much more erroneous, but that in itself does not mean that the did not have a valid point to make at the very beginning, i.e. that there is error in the maddhabs, and they are too set in their ways to see it. What do the scholars have to say to prove these people wrong about this single point? (i.e. not by showing error in their judgement or their inabilty to make judgements, but by demonstrating that their own house is in order)

There are no errors in Madhabs, since the differences of the MAdhabs originate from the Differences of the Sahaba, Unless one is implying that the actions of the Sahaba and their legal rulings were incorrect?

Wallahu A'lam

[Mossy]

There are no errors in Madhabs, since the differences of the MAdhabs originate from the Differences of the Sahaba, Unless one is implying that the actions of the Sahaba and their legal rulings were incorrect?

Erm.. Not really.. The differences betwixt the madhabs come from the differential in their juristic basis on the whole - if you have the same evidences but accord each part a different emphasis, you can end up with a different result where there is a slight variation..

As for the rulings of the Sahaba being incorrect - this raises an interesting point. Is the Shariah a fixed and immutable Truth - is there only one way in which to satisfy the Divine Will and live one's life according to it? Or are there multiple truths, each of which is valid in its own way. This would certainly seem to be the case - in some areas there is simply no right or wrong, but equally valid approaches in finality to an issue..

Of course, that's what makes it easy to say there are no errors - if truth comes in many forms, then who's to say what isn't truth? ;)


"The Ulema are the heirs of the Prophet" and "Follow the greater Majority."

A literal reading of the former would indicate that all ulema had inherited a similar rank to the Prophet (pbuh). If one extrapolates this to mean that the ulema were beyond suspicion, surely one must then apply this catchet to all members of the ulema? If you do not include the whole ulema, then it is clear that there must be some level of suspicion that can be levelled at any member and, indeed, they are not above this.

What then does ulema mean - does it include "salafi" scholars? Scholars of years gone by who disagreed with the mashur opinions of their madhab - or indeed did not ascribe to a madhab?

A literal reading of the second of these would indicate there is no place for ikhtilaf in fiqh. Everyone should follow the majority opinion - so everyone should be Hanafi?


Nor would Imam Shaif have said, "Ijma is binding" and nor would Imam Abu Hanifa have said, "The Ulema are the Awliya of Allah."

Passing a critical eye over those two comments.. Does the first include silent ijma as something which is binding? As for the second.. How did Imam Abu Hanifa know? Or was he being metaphorical in this case? Plus of course, if we follow the approach from someone who is trying to be objective and the request for evidences from a Divine source, neither of these two count..

But that's just me playing devil's advocate (idiomatically speaking). Bad Mossy :(

[Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman]

:bism:





But that's just me playing devil's advocate (idiomatically speaking). Bad Mossy :(


Actually,the proper smiley would have been :evil:

:cheesygri

In any event, thanks for livinening up the conversation, as it were!

Salaam!
Zaid

[dhakiyya]

But that's just me playing devil's advocate (idiomatically speaking). Bad Mossy :(

It's not "bad Mossy" cause you saved me from asking a lot of questions, cause you answered quite a few already :thumbsup:

[AbuZayd]

A nice related article:

http://www.albalagh.net/qa/0025.shtml

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


Erm.. Not really.. The differences betwixt the madhabs come from the differential in their juristic basis on the whole - if you have the same evidences but accord each part a different emphasis, you can end up with a different result where there is a slight variation..

That is one reason, but is that the only reason? A great number of the issues they do differ on is because of different narrations and different views held by the Sahaba and so forth. That is why we have narrations from Al Qasim and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz saying:

-- It would not please me more if the Companions of Muhammad did not differ among them, because
had they not differed there would be no leeway for us.

I have already provided a list of only 10 things which the Sahaba had differing views on. There are many more which i will type up in the upcoming days, Insha'Allah.

Lastly, i will once again repeat that i do not disagree with what you have said but i have merely stated that if a person wishes to attack us for not condemning differences amongst the Madhabs, then he should first look at those through whom this deen spread.


As for the rulings of the Sahaba being incorrect - this raises an interesting point. Is the Shariah a fixed and immutable Truth - is there only one way in which to satisfy the Divine Will and live one's life according to it? Or are there multiple truths, each of which is valid in its own way. This would certainly seem to be the case - in some areas there is simply no right or wrong, but equally valid approaches in finality to an issue..

Of course, that's what makes it easy to say there are no errors - if truth comes in many forms, then who's to say what isn't truth?

The Answer is evident, and the concept all 4 Madhabs being correct explains it. As for who is to say what isnt truth, there is no Madhab that accuses the other of falsehood, nor do they accuse the other of being wrong. Truth lies within the four. That is the Ijma. As Ibn Tayimiyya said:

Al Aimma ijtima`uhum hujjatun qati`atun wa ikhtilafuhum rahmatun wasi`a

-- The consensus of the Imams of fiqh on a question is a definitive proof, and their divergence of opinion is a vast mercy... If one does not follow any of the four Imams of fiqh... then he is completely in error, for the truth is not found outside of these four in the whole sharia. (Mukhtasar al Fatawa)

I have already explained the concept of Ijma in my previous posts and as it is one of the sources of Law it should be sufficient to answer ones question. Consensus is possible in theory and has happened in practice. It is impossible for the ummah to be mistaken in their consensus.


Does the first include silent ijma as something which is binding?

No


A literal reading of the former would indicate that all ulema had inherited a similar rank to the Prophet (pbuh). If one extrapolates this to mean that the ulema were beyond suspicion, surely one must then apply this catchet to all members of the ulema? If you do not include the whole ulema, then it is clear that there must be some level of suspicion that can be levelled at any member and, indeed, they are not above this.

A literal reading will often lead one astray. The hadith is very clear, the Ulema inherit what the Prophets leave behind i.e their knowledge. As for them not being looked upon with suspicion, then yes this is applied to all the Ulema, unless one does something explicitly of suspicious nature. Even if they do it is no place for a layman to go and spread Fitna and Fasad by involving himself deeply in such matters. The job of correcting is the job of the Ulema and the Ulema have been doing it for centuries. The last thing one needs to do, being a layman, is looking at a scholar with suspicion. Who exactly are you to do so and what kind of knowledge do you possess to claim such a thing? The question "What if they did this and that" and "what if they are wrong in their Fatwas" is not applicable. We do not go around with "Ifs" and "Buts" otherwise we would never get anything done.

Also, to me this is a very weak attempt to show how the system of Taqlid and Madhabs is flawed, since one cannot prove that the majority or even a considerable number of Ulema have passed suspicious Fatwas. It is once in a bluemoon and even when it does happen it is always detected and exposed.

Lastly, the word suspicioun is in itself wrong, because that would mean we consider the Ulema as distrustful. Even if they pass a wrong Fatwa, that does not necessitate them doing it intentionally and it should be noted that the Prophet did say:

-- The one who makes Ijtihad and is correct shall get two rewards and the one who makes Ijtihad and is incorrect shall get one.

As a shaikh one said, " The disease of suspicion is fit only for necrophilous cannibals; not Muslims."


What then does ulema mean - does it include "salafi" scholars? Scholars of years gone by who disagreed with the mashur opinions of their madhab - or indeed did not ascribe to a madhab?

Whenever i say Ulema i refer to the Traditional scholars. In the sense you are portraying it to be, even the Shia scholars would be considered Ulema since they have inherted some of the knowledge given by the Prophet. Generally, the world Ulema has a very inclusive meaning to us i.e the Scholars of Ahly As Sunnah.


A literal reading of the second of these would indicate there is no place for ikhtilaf in fiqh. Everyone should follow the majority opinion - so everyone should be Hanafi?

Once again who has said take it literally? The hadith does not even mention the scholars or Mujtahid Imams, but simply "The majority." If we were to take it literally, then the first thing to pop up in ones mind is does this refer to every individual? If 80 out of 100 Muslims do one thing does that necessitate it being correct? We have no place for literal interpretations here. The hadith refers to the vast majority of the scholars -- who are the ones that must be followed. The Arabic text is clear when it states:

`alaykum bi al-sawad al-a`zam

Al Sawad Al A'zam means,"Massive gathering" and not just simply majority in the sense of 51 percent to 49. A simple majority opinion does not make something binding and that answers the hanafi question.

This "Massive gathering" is considered to be the opinions of the overwhleming majority of the Mujtahid Imams of a certain age in a given area. I believe Umdat As Salik (Reliance of the traveller) by Shaikh Al Misri has explained the requirements of an Ijma.

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali said in Al Aqaid:

-- The difference in opinion in the Community is a mercy, and their agreement is a proof

Wallahu A'lam

[Mossy]

Each of the madhabs had access to the differences in the conclusions of the Sahaba.. The one's they chose/combinations fit in with their methodology as fiqh is a rational and methodological process.. Hence we can see that methodological differences are at the core of ikhtilaf in the current situation..

Ibn Taymiyya's comment is irrelevant as a proof or evidence within the context of this discussion, as he was contained within the madhab structure in terms of his fiqh (aqeedah we won't get into.. then again, no ijtihad in aqeedah ;)).


A literal reading will often lead one astray. The hadith is very clear, the Ulema inherit what the Prophets leave behind i.e their knowledge.

If it is clear, then we follow the literal meaning - there is no ambiguity :)


As for them not being looked upon with suspicion, then yes this is applied to all the Ulema, unless one does something explicitly of suspicious nature.

As I stated, you have extrapolated this from the inheritance of the ulema from the Prophet (pbuh) - you have stated this is the inheritance of knowledge. This does not correlate to the ulema being above suspicion and indeed there is no indication of such a link if one works from that basis. It is different if the ulema were inheritors of both the Prophet's (pbuh) knowledge and the application of that knowledge.


Even if they do it is no place for a layman to go and spread Fitna and Fasad by involving himself deeply in such matters.

The meaning of suspicion is something that should probably be cleared up.

There are two ways one could look at this:

a) The "scholarly" individual in question is deliberately delivering a misguided opinion in order to lead others astray
b) The individual in question slips from the required standards, speaks without knowledge of an area in which knowledge is required (not every scholar is a mujtahid mutlaq) or simply misinterprets the available data.

b) is the scenario that sr dhakiyya seems to be concerned with - scholars are only human as we all agree (although there is the point of the awliya, but that is a discussion for another time). There are plenty of instances in which someone of knowledge has had their honest mistakes pointed out by someone with less knowledge - I believe there was an instance where Umar (or was it ibn Umar?) was corrected by a woman in the mosque? If the Sahaba could be corrected, surely everyone else is susceptible to honest query too?

Of course, then there is the question of the spreading of fitnah and fasad. The layman could be doing this deliberately, ie he doesn't like society and evilly plots to spread confusion and ill will. Or, as is the generally the case, what he sees simply doesn't make sense and he simply wishes to have the issue clarified - if the individual launches into an attack on the scholar in question, this is clearly wrong. If the individual questions the scholar, is this impermissable?


The job of correcting is the job of the Ulema and the Ulema have been doing it for centuries. The last thing one needs to do, being a layman, is looking at a scholar with suspicion. Who exactly are you to do so and what kind of knowledge do you possess to do such a thing?

Me? Is there any need for ad hominems here? Or is that a rhetorical you? ;)

The ulema can be corrected by other ulema and this should be the norm. The layman, unless he is arrogant, should always give the scholar the benefit of the doubt simply because he is a specialist in his field. This does not mean there is no possibility the scholar is wrong, nor that

Trust is something which generally has to be earned - sr dhakiyya pointed out that one of the things that puts her off is that there are a number of scholars who claim theirs is the correct path - it is haqq. No other viewpoints are provided or even aluded to. Does this mean we only are provided with a portion of the truth (as indeed you agreed it is all truth)? It is, of course, for our own good (as obviously it saves us from the dangers of talfiq)..

Taqleed can easily lead to partisanship. It's not only followers that can be affected by this, but the ulema too.. Or would you disagree with this statement?


Also, to me this is a very attempt to show how a the system of Taqlid and Madhabs is flawed, since one cannot prove that the majority or even a considerable number of Ulema have passed suspicious Fatwas. It is once in a bluemoon and even when it does happen it is always detected and exposed.

A very.. attempt? Bad? I'd just like to point out that I'm a fan of the madhab system (hence the Hanafi under my title and helping set this forum up :)). We again see the topic of "suspicious" fatwa - indicating a concious misleading of the populace, hence the "exposed".

But I'll leave it there.

Debates of this form can often become arguments as we have seen developing in this case - my apologies if I have offended you with my statements bro, I was merely trying to outline some of the common objections and worries that people have and the inadequacies of common responses to these within a rational framework..

PS by silent ijma I meant ijma sakuti as opposed to explicit ijma

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum

Jazakallah for the post. Ill try to make this short:


Ibn Taymiyya's comment is irrelevant as a proof or evidence within the context of this discussion, as he was contained within the madhab structure in terms of his fiqh (aqeedah we won't get into.. then again, no ijtihad in aqeedah ).

95 percent of the past Ulema were, does that mean their Fatwas in this regard are irrelevant?


If it is clear, then we follow the literal meaning - there is no ambiguity

Even if we do follow the meaning literally the inheritance could be of two types:

1. Wealth
2. Knowledge

Wealth does not even come into the picture, it is impossible and simply absurd to think that. Even the most feeble mind would understand the context of this hadith.


As I stated, you have extrapolated this from the inheritance of the ulema from the Prophet (pbuh) - you have stated this is the inheritance of knowledge. This does not correlate to the ulema being above suspicion and indeed there is no indication of such a link if one works from that basis. It is different if the ulema were inheritors of both the Prophet's (pbuh) knowledge and the application of that knowledge.

The only thing i have extrapolated from this hadith is the high status of the Ulema and the respect that should allocated to them. Suspicion should not be our default setting, but it is a cmmon to see it as such especially amongst the La Madhabis.


b) is the scenario that sr dhakiyya seems to be concerned with - scholars are only human as we all agree (although there is the point of the awliya, but that is a discussion for another time). There are plenty of instances in which someone of knowledge has had their honest mistakes pointed out by someone with less knowledge - I believe there was an instance where Umar (or was it ibn Umar?) was corrected by a woman in the mosque? If the Sahaba could be corrected, surely everyone else is susceptible to honest query too?

I have already explained the concept of making an unintentional mistake while doing Ijtihad. Yes, Umar (Ra) was corrected by a woman, however, can this apply to us today? The Sahaba often corrected one another. Other examples would be Ayesha correcting Ibn Umar on the hadith of the torture of the deceased, Ibn Abbas correcting Abu Hurayra on what nullifies Wudhu and so forth. In this day and age we do not possess such sound knowledge of hadith and nor do we understand the mehtodology used to derive fiqhi rulings. The question is not about a Knolwedgable person being corrected by a less knowledgable, but a Scholar being corrected by a scholar of less calibre, not necessarily the layman.


Of course, then there is the question of the spreading of fitnah and fasad. The layman could be doing this deliberately, ie he doesn't like society and evilly plots to spread confusion and ill will. Or, as is the generally the case, what he sees simply doesn't make sense and he simply wishes to have the issue clarified - if the individual launches into an attack on the scholar in question, this is clearly wrong. If the individual questions the scholar, is this impermissable?

There is no harm in questioning a scholar by one who possesses the prerequisite knowledge of what is being questioned. We must make a clear dictinction between a scholar being corrected by another scholar - who may be of less calibre - and a schoalr being corrected by a layman with no formal education in the science of Fiqh. Also note that Taqlid is in Fiqh, and the rulings of the MAdhab are Fiqhi rulings. The scholars being corrected is not being done so in aspects such as Akhlaq and so forth, but law, something we are not knowledgable enough to comment on in most cases.


Me? Is there any need for ad hominems here? Or is that a rhetorical you?

Its not a you as in "You" : P


The ulema can be corrected by other ulema and this should be the norm. The layman, unless he is arrogant, should always give the scholar the benefit of the doubt simply because he is a specialist in his field. This does not mean there is no possibility the scholar is wrong, nor that [/quote

Agreed. The scholar may be wrong, but still there would be no harm in following his position is he was sincere in his Ijtihad and if the ruling is supported by his Madhab. Incorrect rulings that just pop out of nowhere by one or two scholars are usually detected and removed immediately and i have given examples (Wiping over socks, supported by Ibn Taymiyya and Maududi).

[quote]Trust is something which generally has to be earned - sr dhakiyya pointed out that one of the things that puts her off is that there are a number of scholars who claim theirs is the correct path - it is haqq. No other viewpoints are provided or even aluded to. Does this mean we only are provided with a portion of the truth (as indeed you agreed it is all truth)? It is, of course, for our own good (as obviously it saves us from the dangers of talfiq)..

I have not yet seen a Traditional Sunni scholar saying our way is Haq, but they say the 4 Madhabs are all on Haq. There is a sufficient amount of evidence in books, speeches, fatwas etc. to support this. Trust is not to be earned, but trust is a default when it comes to the righteous, just liek you trust your Math teacher when you enter class, or do you test him first to see if he knows what he is doing?


Taqleed can easily lead to partisanship. It's not only followers that can be affected by this, but the ulema too.. Or would you disagree with this statement?

No i would not disagree, its happened in the past when the Hanafis drove out the Shafis such as Imam Al Haramayn but these are rare cases and cannot be used as binding proof to attack madhabs. then again there was even oppoisition amongst the Sahaba which even lead to blood shed.


I'd just like to point out that I'm a fan of the madhab system

I guessed that : )

Jazakallah

Wallahu A'lam

[Mossy]

Eh, you got the wrong end of the stick on some of my comments, but khalas, we'll leave it at that for our personal discussion :)

How are you doing in your current frame of mind sr dhakiyya? I hope the below has been helpful insh'Allah.

[Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman]

:bism:

Sallamu Alaikum

The reason why we can only follow the 4 schools is because there has been an Ijma established on this. The Prophet said: "My Ummah will not agree on error." This was in reference to the Ulema, so in reality we are not following Men.

None of the four schools of thought say, "follow us and not them," this is simply incorrect. Further, one cannot come to conclusions regarding what he will follow and what he wont by looking at the evidence, simply because me and you are not qualified to understand the texts being brought forth or to derive rulings from them. To say we can do so rationally is absurd, since the laws come from the lawmaker, not what one perceives the laws to be, based on his intellect, since the intellect of man differs in varying cases. Whereas one may see an action to be good another may see it as bad. (See Umdat As Salik for further details)

Lastly, the verses you bring forth have all ben misinterpreted. It would be best to open up the books of Tafsir to know what they actually mean. It is sufficient to know that the Ulema from past to present always did Taqlid of a Madhab, unless we see ourselves better then them i would suggest we do what the traditional scholars did as the "ulema are the heirs of the Prophet."

Narrated from Abu al-Darda by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and Darimi in their Musnads, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and Bukhari in "inset" form (mudman), without chain nor attribution, in the Book of Knowledge of his Sahih, chapter entitled "Knowledge comes before talk and action." Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1:193) mentions its strengthening through its many chains. It is also cited by Tahawi in Mushkil al Athar, al Baghawi in Sharh al Sunna (1:275 #129 gharib), Ibn Abd al Barr in Jami Bayan al Ilm (p. 37-41), and others.

As for the gates of Ijhithad, there are 4 types of Ijtihad:

1. Absolute and independent Ijtihad i.e Ijtihad Mutlaq Mustaqil
2. Absolute and dependent Ijtihad i.e Ijtihad Mutlaq Muntasib
3. Ijtihad in the Madhab i.e Ijtihad Fi'l Madhab
4. Ijtihad in the Fatwa i.e Ijtihad Fi'l Fatwa

Ill just briefly explain the four.

1. This is the level of the Sahaba and the Imams. They dont follow the furu or Usul of anyone.

2. This is the level of the students of the Imams. They follow the Usul of their teachers but not strictly the Furu when judging sources.

3. This level consists of the great Fuqaha, who derive rulings for new cases that have arisen but sticking to the furu and usul of their Imams.

4. This level consists of those scholars who stick with the Furu and Usul of their Imam AND to the new judgements of the Fuqaha (discusses above). What they basically do is tell which of the different opinions amongst the Madhab are stronger and weaker and so forth.


1 and 2 are closed and will remain closed. As for 3 and 4 they will always remain open.

Wallahu A'lam


For clarification, why do 1 & 2 remain closed?

[Mossy]

For clarification, why do 1 & 2 remain closed?

Why, because all the students of the Imams are dead. It's hard to do ijtihad in that state..

;)

Search for gates and ijtihad, there's another thread on this exact topic.. Kinda..

[Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman]

:bism:


Why, because all the students of the Imams are dead. It's hard to do ijtihad in that state..

Way to deadpan it, akhi :lol:

A rephrase: What are the logical arguments that *only* the students of the Imams and the Imams themselves are capable of such ijtihad?

I've heard all the stock answers before, but frankly, none of them make any logical sense to me. Perhaps you can provide a more satisfactory explanation?

Wasalaam,
Zaid

[Mossy]

A rephrase: What are the logical arguments that *only* the students of the Imams and the Imams themselves are capable of such ijtihad?

I've heard all the stock answers before, but frankly, none of them make any logical sense to me. Perhaps you can provide a more satisfactory explanation?

The validity of any "logical" argument is dependent upon the framework one uses as the basis for this..

Here is the thread (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378) I alluded to earlier.

I'm not knowledgable or learned - I'm just a moderator - a janitor in the school of sunniforum (no Will Hunting either ;)).

I don't know what answer you would find logically acceptable (or indeed, which I'd find no fault with if I was feeling picky).

As I have work tmrw and am still unpacking from moving house today, I don't have the time to consider this question within my limited capabilities either ;)

I've raised a few of my prior musings and observations for what they're worth in that other thread - care to provide some input of your own?

[Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman]

:bism:

The validity of any "logical" argument is dependent upon the framework one uses as the basis for this..

Here is the thread (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378) I alluded to earlier.

I'm not knowledgable or learned - I'm just a moderator - a janitor in the school of sunniforum (no Will Hunting either ;)).

I don't know what answer you would find logically acceptable (or indeed, which I'd find no fault with if I was feeling picky).

As I have work tmrw and am still unpacking from moving house today, I don't have the time to consider this question within my limited capabilities either ;)

I've raised a few of my prior musings and observations for what they're worth in that other thread - care to provide some input of your own?

:jazak: for the link. As soon as I get some rest and some food, and my brain starts functioning on something resembling normality again, I'll review it and post my thoughts, :insh:


Wasalaam,
Zaid

[dhakiyya]

I'll be away for a couple of weeks, then I'll check back on the threads I've started, so if people want to make further comments whilst I'm away feel free, but I won't be able to read them for a while.