Is It Possible to Have One Fiqh

[Abba]

Is it possible to have one Fiqh at least theoratically?

I am a physician and the Medical Science has devised Guidelines for practicing physicians who do not have time to go thru huge pages of research published every day.

These Guidelines are based on Evidence or Opinion.
Each Guuideline if followed by evidence on which it is based,then evidence is graded as strong/weak/very weak
At places where direct evidene in not available it is written that this is the Opinion of majority of authorities.

This is quite similar to science of Fiqh.

Why can't major Ulema of all 4 Fiqh,gather together and analyze the evidence in favour of their Fatawa and come up with one Fiqh.I do agree that at some situations evidence reaching a unanimous decision will not be possible but this cannot be the case in everything.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

as you should know, medical science varies slightly from country to country. the guidelines that are perhaps used in the UK (the NICE) are not necessarily the same as the ones used in the US, again varying with other countries in Europe also. yes, the evidence is the same everywhere - as in fiqh, but the application may be different. also, from my experience, guidelines are there to guide - not necessarily to stick to rigidly, and each physician must use his or her knowledge in that field as well. even in medical science, there are situations where two or three things have clear evidence, yet one country or even hospital may adopt one method, another hospital another - and no-one criticises each other - because the decisions are made based on local needs, resources and efficiency.

unforunately, the salafi's have attempted what you say, and while the ummah was content with four great schools, what we have now are millions of sects within the salafi school, all in-fighting - differing on matters of fiqh.

it is not possible to come up with one fiqh - because each imam has so much evidence in their favour, one cannot disregard them entirely.

also, when asked to produce one fiqh for all the lands by the khalifa of his time, Imam Malik outright refused, recogising that differences of opinion are a mercy as long we all agree to disagree and not condemn the differences (so long as the differences are based on evidence and are within shari'a).

and really, differences of opinion are a mercy. it would be tremendously hard for this ummah for everyone to stick to one fiqh. i will give you an example that Shaykh Hamza gave. in the west, people are generally fond of pets, specifically dogs. in the maliki school, the sweat, saliva of the dog is NOT najas. doesn't this provide some ease for the followers or even blind people who need guide dogs?, even though the opinion is sound, it differs from the 3 other schools. you will never get ulama from all four schools agreeing on one fiqh. so lets stick four, and not attempt one leading to thousands - as has happened.

[tazkiyyah]

SUbhanallah.
If you look at medical science...It keeps changing its views every few days.
Yesterday rofecoxib was a wonder drug...for pain relief. Today it is hazardous and implicated in Ischaemic cardiac type problems.

yesterday..HRT was wonderful..Today everyone is questioning the more neoplastic associations.

If we were to follow in the way of an empirical science based approachto fiqh we would put our hands by our sides in prayer on monday..then the next monday the latest evidence based fiqh would say...OHO Guys...put them on your chest etc!

The madhabs are filtered evidence based fiqh..solidifed over centuries...

Stick to them insha'allah

[Abba]

Ok,medical science changes every day WHY? bcoz the evidence it is based upon changes ,when on gets new evidence one puts new guidelines,This is not the case in Fiqh,Quran and Sunnah and Hadeeth are there,we do not expect any new evidence to emerge.

OK i agree that guidelines differ from place to place ,coz of economic reasons or bcoz of resources available or there are gray areas,but,by and large people everywhere agree on strength or weakness of evidence that is basis or guidelines.

in the maliki school, the sweat, saliva of the dog is NOT najas. doesn't this provide some ease for the followers or even blind people who need guide dogs?,
Now also regarding the dogs to be kept for blind people Fiqh can gives "Rukhsa" for special circumstances,one need not have more than one Fiqh to get such "Rukhsa"

[tazkiyyah]

Have you read reasons for the differences of the ulema
by mawlana zakariyya khadnalwi

www.alrashad.com

[Sunni_Student786]

Bro Abba,

The VAST majority of differences in fiqh are due to differences in their methodology for derivation of law from the primary sources. Each madhab has it own set of derivational principles/methodology, hence the reason for the differences. Derivational principles/methodologies can only be devised by Mujtahid Mutlaqs. Since there have really been no Mujtahid Mutlaqs for at least 800 years, the Ulema coming after them had to simply follow the derivational principles/methodologies that were developed by Muhtahid Mutlaqs. The only way that you could have only "One Fiqh" would be to disregard 3 of the four methodologies for the derivation of law from the primary sources that we have inherited (which are to be found in the 4 madhabs, madhabs being a codification of the rulings derived after the careful application of the derivational principles established by the Mujtahid Mutlaq by scholars trained in the application of that methodology.).

But please bear in mind that in the early days of Islam after the time of the Prophet (peace be upon) there were MANY valid methodologies for the derivation of law from the primary texts. But because those Mujtahid Mutlaqs, or their students, did not continue to produce Ulema who were conversant with the application of the derivational methodology that they developed, those derviational methodologies (which were codified in the form of a body of scholars conversant with the methodology, called a "madhab") fell out of use and it became impermissible to be follow them.
The only derivational methodologies for which a body of scholars continue to exist till this day that are conversant with the methodology and have been authorized to implement and instruct other in it, are those of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Ash-Shafi, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them all).

Please read the above carefully and you'll see why there can't just be "one fiqh"

[tazkiyyah]

If i may be allowed to be honest.The real problems are not caused by madhabs.
I have seen malikis and shafis and hanafis etc sit together without arguing and generally chill with each other.

What we need is to unite the hearts.
These r just schools of fiqh...its not important the names.

the hearts must be one
ukhuwwa

This is what the title should be...is it possible to have united hearts?

[Mossy]

Let's be honest, even salafi and madhabi scholars don't argue all that much, or certainly not like the lay peeps do.

There won't be one fiqh until the coming of Imam Mahdi as there is simply no reconciling the different axiomatic bases as there is no rule to measure them against in the absence of wahy and directed ilham.

Actually, we do have one fiqh - the mass of positions promulgated by the four madhabs. It's a very broad one, mash'Allah ;)

[Omar HH]

No Imam Mahdi has his own madhab for his own time from what i've understood - he will not create one "super-madhab"

The madhabs will continue, except some may or may not become extinct (such as the Thawri and Dhariri schools, etc.)

[Mossy]

Yeah, but his positions will the ones that will be followed according to his own usul - ie he certainly has haqq. So to speak. The reason we have all these methodologies is that we honestly don't know which one is "right" (of course, all could be).

His fiqh will be in line with the Shariah absolutely, right?

Then again, it goes when he goes..

[muslim786]

the fighting starts when people who do not know the Alif Baa of fiqh come and tell us wht is bidah and wht is kufr and wht is haraam and wht is shirk.. that is hwere the problem is.. thinknig ure self to be an alim as if the ulema didnt know anything...

In bengali these people are know as 2 taka mullahs. :D ie you can guess what is implied.

[tazkiyyah]

Many of the debates i see between madhabis and sunnis are nothing to do with fiqh.

It could just as easily be about football as hadeeth
The debates are about a madhabi nafs against a salafi nafs

If we tame our nafs we will have no interest in the arguments.
We have better things to do with our breath-pas anfaas

the ulema who have tamed their hearts may occasionally speak on the issue out of necessity.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

No Imam Mahdi has his own madhab for his own time from what i've understood - he will not create one "super-madhab"

The madhabs will continue, except some may or may not become extinct (such as the Thawri and Dhariri schools, etc.)

well, shaykh al-yaqoubi mentioned that imam mahdi would abolish the four schools, and people would adopt his maddhab.

Allah knows best

[Omar HH]

well, shaykh al-yaqoubi mentioned that imam mahdi would abolish the four schools, and people would adopt his maddhab.

Allah knows best

Allahu 'Alam, I did not hear this though.
Thanks for telling me.

[Omar HH]

Here's where I take it from, the Guiding Helper website:

> I have been told Imam Mahdi is a Mujtahid Mutlaq and his Ijtihaad
> will be greater then the 4 Dominant Imams in history only to be
> surpassed by The Sahabaah. If all follow the Mahdi's (Mathaab) in the
> times of his arrival why lay stress on following Imam Malik's Mathaab
> and it being vital in rebuilding the Islamic society after those events?

You understand correctly that the Mahdi will issue laws inspired by Allah
which apparently contradict the established laws (in other than the basics
of the acts worship or tenets of faith). But, the reality of the matter is that
these laws are time-specific and due to special circumstances which his
followers will face at that time.

The Mahdi will not be a normally educated scholar like Imam Malik (but will
derive his knowledge from a spiritual ilhaam source), nor will he have time
to teach people "his madh-hab" (due to his continuous military campaigns),
such that it is impractical to expect Muslims to have an understanding
of the details of his madh-hab after he passes away. And people who claim
to follow his madh-hab after he passes away are likely to cause much
dissention by speaking about matters which he clearly did not have time
to elucidate (and they clearly are not qualified to derive laws for these
matters themselves).

Our educated estimate here is that only the Maliki School will survive
intact come the eighth year (due to our and the previous Maliki scholars
preconceived preservation attempts (which allow the school to function
without a great number of teachers)). And the blow to the other schools
will be too much for them to continue for an extended period of time
after the second pass (e.g., past a few remnant generations).

> Not to ask a dumb question will you elaborate on the Mahdi differing with
> THE MAJORITY OF THE MODERN SCHOLARS? What degree will the
> "so-called Ulamas" rebellion be?

Ok. Yes. You have hit the crux of the matter that the Mahdi will de-legitimize
these government puppets across the Middle East, which people refer to
as `ulama'. And this is the reason that, initially speaking, there will be
many verdicts against him.

[Abba]

Lots of speculations

[Sadiq]

I think, if anyone who wishes to understand "truly", why there are differences or the beauty of differences...

should really purchase the book, as the brother mentionshed;

The Differences of the Imams (http://www.al-rashad.com/product_info.php/products_id/333?osCsid=24619955a4a72cb0749964ddcd78d7e0) Shaykh Zakariyya Kandhlawi.

Its a great book, that explains, in a short concise manner (compared to many great books that explain it too)... in how, and why there are differences.

One thing, i learnt from my days with the "salafies" was that, one of the reasons of differences is, as mentionshed is, how they derive rules..

For example, our beloved prophet did action A, and the were companions who noticed it and followed it, after few years, the beloved prophet did another action contray to A, which is B, and companions were also present, who followed it.... this is one example of "why" there are differences...

Now, if we choose one option, then we rather "blank" out the actions of the beloved, so the four established schools, rather complete the sunnah, the prophets action, for they are all from "his life". So, in reality, we are "all" following the prophet and also keeping alive his tradition....

Step aside from 2D world, and see the 3D world, as one shaykh told me, you can see various angles in anything you read, view... this is mercy, this is a blessing...

Get the book, and you will see how beautiful our ulama are...!

[PocketY]

The Differences of the Imams (http://www.al-rashad.com/product_info.php/products_id/333?osCsid=24619955a4a72cb0749964ddcd78d7e0) Shaykh Zakariyya Kandhlawi.



Assalamu alaikum

I agree it is a wonderful book, very concise and explains the subject matter in a way that is easy to understand. I gained a better understanding of the fallacies of the DIY-Fatwa approach using one's copies of the Sahih Bukhari & Muslim.

[Abba]

For example, our beloved prophet did action A, and the were companions who noticed it and followed it, after few years, the beloved prophet did another action contray to A, which is B, and companions were also present, who followed it.... this is one example of "why" there are differences...


I thought in Fiqh we are supposed to follow the later action

[Omar HH]

Assalum Alaykum Sidi Abba,

Let's think about it. Ok, let's say we'd have one fiqh. Who's to say what would be right or wrong? There are differences between everyone. I mean we are all praying different - Malikis, Shafiis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, Wahhabis, Shi'a, etc. Which one is the right one? Even if everyone came together to try to find out what was the "one fiqh" different people have different evidences and different classifications of stronger and weaker.

Even after the Prophet :saw: died you had Ibn Mas'ud (who the Hanafi school bases many things on) saying one thing and some different scholars of Madina (whom the Maliki school bases many things on) saying another! The Prophet :saw: said differences of opinion are a mercy to the Ummah.

[Omar HH]

> 1) On the day of Judgement, if we followed a valid legal opinion
(under a madhab) be it minority or
> majority, strong or weak, and it turns out to be incorrect - will it
count as sin?

No. It will not count as an act of disobedience as long as the person
who issued it was an absolute
mujtahid (e.g., Imam Malik or Imam Abu Hanafi) or a mujtahid within a
madh-hab (e.g., al-Qarafi,
Qadi `Iyad, Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Ibn al-`Arabi, Ibn Rushd al-Kabir, etc.).

The proof for this is the hadith of the Prophet (May Allah bless him
and give him peace) in
Sahih Bukhari:

"idha hakama l-hakimu fa j-tahada thumma
asaba, falahu ajrani wa idha hakama fa j-tahada thumma
akhta'a, falahu ajrun [{Bukhari, i`tisam bi l-kitab qa
s-unnah,
ajru l-hakimi idha j-tahada, hadith #6805}).

“When a haakim (i.e. absolute or restricted mujtahid) gives
a legal ruling and
is actually correct, he has two rewards. When a haakim
gives a legal ruling
and is actually wrong, he still gets one reward.”

The fact that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace)
states that there is
reward in the errant opinion of a mujtahid demonstrates that those who
follow the mujtahid
are forgiven and *rewarded*.

This is the meaning of the hadith: "ikhtilafu l-`ulama' rahmatun li
ummati." The meaning is:
"Disagreement of the scholars of din [in this world] is [reason for] a
mercy for the members of
my ummah [in the next world].

[Omar HH]

From the Guiding Helper Notes of Sources of Main Text:

This brings us to the question of how we can reconcile differences opinion within our intellect while knowing that Allah is one and His
din is one. The following excerpt summarizes what the authentic scholars say about this subject:
Issues of din can be divided on the top-level into two categories (we are talking on a simple level and not on a detailed level):
(I) Issues that only have one correct answer for all members of the din.
(II) Issues that have multiple (two or more) valid answers which do not take a person outside the pale/sphere of Islam.
Disagreements about issues in category (II) can be further divided into two sub-categories:
(a) Issues which in Allah's sight actually have only one true answer. And other differing answers are in reality a mistake
committed by a mujtahid imam. (this is proven by the hadith "When a judge rules by his ijtihad and falls upon the correct
answer, he has two rewards. And when a judge rules by his ijtihad and falls upon the wrong answer, he has one reward."
(idha hakama l-hakimu fa j-tahada thumma asaba, falahu ajrani wa idha hakama fa j-tahada thumma akhta'a, falahu ajrun)
[{Bukhari, i`tisam bi l-kitab wa s-sunnah, ajru l-hakimi idha j-tahada, hadith #6805}). Allah will not punish any person for
following such incorrect views issued from a qualified mujtahid scholar (e.g., Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi`i, Imam Abu
Hanifah, etc.). This is the meaning of the hadith: "ikhtilafu l-`ulama' rahmatun li ummati." The meaning is: "Disagreement
of the scholars of din [in this world] is [reason for] a mercy for the members of my ummah [in the next world].
(b) Issues which in Allah's sight have multiple (two or more) correct answers. This is proven by the Prophet (May Allah bless
him and him peace) allowing his Companions to perform the same act in multiple different ways without finding fault with
them. Such as the event in which he stated "None of you should pray `Asr except in Bani Quraydhah" and some Companions
prayed before reaching Bani Quraydhah (due to their fearing that `Asr's time would pass and) due to interpreting the Prophet's
statement to mean that they should reach Bani Quraydah by the time of `Asr) while others interpreted His statement literally
and prayed `Asr only after reaching Bani Quraydhah. And the Prophet expressed that both parties had followed through with
His command. [Bukhari, Jumu`ah, salah al-talib wa l-matlub, hadith #894}] There are many similar events that prove that
sometimes more than one correct answer is allowed.
The later scholars of `aqidah, fiqh, and tasawwuf tried to formulize a standard system that the common man could apply in
his life and with which the governors of Islam could use to rule their territory consistently. For this reason, they chose one of
these multiple correct ways as the one taught to people and regarded by people as the "right" opinion. [As a final note, only a
very small number of detailed issues in `aqidah may fall in category (II.b); almost all issues in `aqidah are in category (I); and
a few detailed issues are in category (II.a).]
If a person wants to know what issues fall in which category, we would recommend the books: (1) al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama al-
Maqdasi, (2) al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah by Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi's, and (3) Bidayah al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (al-Saghir).
References:
[Usūl al-Fiqh al-Islāmī: volume 2: page(s) 1091-1109: {fasl 2, chapter 7 - ijtihad, mabhath 8 - al-isabah wa l-khata'u fi l-ijtihad}]

[Sadiq]

I thought in Fiqh we are supposed to follow the later action

Brother, if you really wanna learn, get the book....

A simple example is given from the life of our prophet;




The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself has allowed for differences in fiqh. A clear example of this is the incident involving the issue of praying salatul-`asr in Bani Quraitha. He had set out for the expedition by announcing to people "none of you should pray the `asr except in Banu Quraitha." However, his companions became divided in applying this rule of the Prophet as one group thought the Prophet wanted them to pray the `asr only in Banu Quraitha regardless whether they catch it in time or not. The other group thought he only meant it if they could catch it on time, otherwise one should pray before reaching there.

Thus, one group prayed, while another group missed the prayer as they had postponed it to Banu Quraitha. When later on they referred this matter for settlement, the Prophet told both groups that they were both right.

I think this is a simple example that shows the possibility of diverse interpretations. You would find so many of such differences among the Prophet’s Companions and they never fought among themselves over such minor differences." From Shaykh Ahmad Kutty...

Also this quote... from a very long, detailed.... truly eye revealing article...




Or consider the Qur’anic text in surat al-Ma’ida:

"The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them" (Qur’an 5:5).

This is a general ruling ostensibly pertaining to all their food. Yet this ruling is subject to takhsis, or "restriction" by more specific rulings that prove that certain foods of Ahl al-Kitab, "those who have been given the Book," such as pork, or animals not properly slaughtered, are not lawful for us.

Ignorance of this principle of takhsis or restriction seems to be especially common among would-be mujtahids of our times, from whom we often hear the more general ruling in the words "But the Qur’an says," or "But the hadith says," without any mention of the more particular ruling from a different hadith or Qur’anic versethat restricts it. The reply can only be "Yes, brother, the Qur’an does say, ‘The food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you,’ But what else does it say?" or "Yes, the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari says the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bared his thigh on the return from Khaybar. But what else do the hadiths say, and more importantly, are you sure you know it?"

The above examples illustrate only a few of the methodological rules needed by the mujtahid to understand and operationalize Islam by joining between all the evidence. Firstly, we saw the principle of takhsis or "restriction" of general rules by more specific ones, both in the example of fasting on the Day of ‘Arafa when it falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and the example of the food of Ahl al-Kitab. Secondly, in the Khaybar hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari about baring the thigh and the hadiths commanding that the thigh be covered, we saw the principle of how an explicit prophetic command in words is given precedence over a mere action when there is a contradiction. Thirdly, we saw the principle of nasikh wa mansukh, of "an earlier ruling being abrogated by a later one," in the example of the initial prohibition of women visiting graves, and their subsequently being permitted to.

These are only three of the ways that two or more texts of the Qur’an and hadith may enter into and qualify one another, rules that someone who derives the shari‘a from them must know. In other words, they are but three tools of a whole methodological toolbox. We do not have the time tonight to go through all these tools in detail, although we can mention some in passing, giving first their Arabic names, such as:

—The ‘amm, a text of general applicability to many legal rulings, and its opposite:

—The khass, that which is applicable to only one ruling or type of ruling.

—The mujmal, that which requires other texts to be fully understood, and its opposite:

—The mubayyan, that which is plain without other texts.

—The mutlaq, that which is applicable without restriction, and its opposite:

—The muqayyad, that which has restrictions given in other texts.

—The nasikh, that which supersedes previous revealed rulings, and its opposite:

—The mansukh: that which is superseded.

—The nass: that which unequivocally decides a particular legal question, and its opposite:

—The dhahir: that which can bear more than one interpretation.

My point in mentioning what a mujtahid is, what fiqh is, and the types of texts that embody Allah’s commands, with the examples that illustrate them, is to answer our original question: "Why can’t we take our Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, which are divinely protected, instead of taking it from mujtahid Imams, who are not?" The answer, we have seen, is that revelation cannot be acted upon without understanding, and understanding requires firstly that one have the breadth of mastery of the whole, and secondly, the knowledge of how the parts relate to each other. Whoever joins between these two dimensions of the revelation is taking his Islamic practice from the word of Allah and His messenger, whether he does so personally, by being a mujtahid Imam, or whether by a means of another, by following one.

From Why Muslims Follow Madhhabs (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhabstlk.htm) by Shaykh Nuh.

Again, going back to the way, rules are derived, the different ways, different methods, all in themselves being correct.

Another quote, that may explain, "why there is not one"...




Some scholars adopted the principle of al masaalih al mursalah (public interest) which is neither commanded nor prohibited in any primary source but is based on the conviction that all the laws of the Sharee`ah are intended for realizing the welfare or the good of mankind. Others did not take this principle as a valid source of law, and this led to actual differences in formulating laws.

There are many other principles of this kind on which the scholars were at variance. They differed over the admissibility of using the principles of "blocking the means to wrongdoing" (sadd al dharaa'i`); "juristic preference (istihsaan); "presumption of continuity" (istishaab); "adopting the more cautious" (al akhdh bi al ahwat); "adopting the more lenient" (al akhdh bi al akhaff); "adopting the more severe" (al akhdh bi al athqal); "customary law" (al `urf); and "local custom" (al `aadah). They also differed on the implications of primary texts, the methods of arriving at these implications, and what could justifiably be supported from these texts. In this way, there arose many differences in the field of subsidiary laws
From Chapter Seven: Reasons for Differences (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/alalwani_disagreement/chapter7.html)

enjoy...

[Abba]

Assalum Alaykum Sidi Abba,

Let's think about it. Ok, let's say we'd have one fiqh. Who's to say what would be right or wrong? There are differences between everyone. I mean we are all praying different - Malikis, Shafiis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, Wahhabis, Shi'a, etc. Which one is the right one? Even if everyone came together to try to find out what was the "one fiqh" different people have different evidences and different classifications of stronger and weaker.

Even after the Prophet :saw: died you had Ibn Mas'ud (who the Hanafi school bases many things on) saying one thing and some different scholars of Madina (whom the Maliki school bases many things on) saying another! The Prophet :saw: said differences of opinion are a mercy to the Ummah.

Wa alaikumussalaam!

what does sidi mean?

I asked the question coz lets say if we have an Islamic government then which Fiqh will be applied as the common law.

[Omar HH]

each region would have their own respective fiqh...or the khalifa could rule which fiqh to follow....

No no, here is the legal principle I have heard (you may be right i'm just repeating what I have heard):

The ruling of the Khalifa over rules the differences in Imams.

Therefore they'd have to pick one madhab and stick with it.

Sidi means "Master" it's a term of respect.