Sh. ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah on Adherance to a Madhab

[godilali]

:salam:

I recently came across an interesting discussion regarding adherence to one of the four madhabs in the biography of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah at the beginning of one of his books, Safahat Min Sabr al-‘Ulama.` When reading his answer, please bear in mind that the shaykh was opposed to what is known as tatabbu’ al-rukhas, or excessively seeking out dispensations, as well as adopting shadh (unsound/minority) opinions.
________________________

His son, Shaykh Salman, states:

He [my father] was asked the following question in the Ithnayniyyah (a gathering held in Jeddah to honor 'ulama):

There are always differences amongst the scholars regarding issues of fiqh, each one of them ascribing to one of the four madhabs and not willing to diverge from the position of his madhab, to the extent of clinging on to it, which further complicates matters of fiqh and fatwa, so what is the opinion of Your Eminence regarding this matter?

He answered:

Firstly, adhering to the madahib in fiqh is necessary for any individual who has not reached the level of ijtihad and does not possess a comprehensive understanding of the shari’ah and its usul and furu.’ This is what Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, has made incumbent upon us: “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know.” As for rigid adherence to one particular madhab, then this is not obligatory in the shari’ah. It is permitted for me to learn or act on a particular issue in accordance with the Hanbali madhab , and if I come across another issue, to act in accordance with the Shafi’i madhab, or if I find an issue to be strict or difficult in the Hanbali madhab, then I may resort to the Hanafi madhab on that particular issue. All of this falls under adherence to the guidance of Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, and that of His prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. There was no fundamental difference amongst those imams, since each of them tried to make his ijtihad in conformity with the word of Allah and His messenger to the best of his ability. Due to this, we find that if one of them arrives at a legal ruling one day, then reexamines the issue after a number of months or years and develops new insights into the matter, he changes his ruling without being embarrassed, and if he is not aware of the answer, he says so without any embarrassment. Why? Because the shari’ah is more valuable to him than his own existence.

A man from ‘Iraq once came to Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, presenting him with forty questions, and Imam Malik only answered six of them, so he said,

“Oh Abu ‘Abd Allah, I traversed the earth and walked across deserts to come to you, the scholar of Madinah, wanting to know the answer to all of these questions. What then, will I tell my people upon returning?”

He [Imam Malik] replied,

“I don’t know! It does not harm me for people to say about me, ‘He said I don’t know,’ because this religion is too valuable to me to become embarrassed in its path.”

Hence, it is a flaw for a person to blindly and fanatically adhere to a particular madhab. It is incorrect for a person to assume that he should be a Hanabli simply because his father was a Hanbali or a Shafi’i because his father was a Shafi’i. He may be either or. This is from the broadness of Islam, because following any madhab amounts to following the Qur`an and sunnah, and this ijtihad is speculative and not definitive, so a person is permitted to adopt the opinion of whichever scholar he chooses. As for partisanship and factionalism, then it is neither a principle of the religion of Islam, nor is it a principle of fiqh. Due to this, the students of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah be merciful with him, differed with him and compiled their differences in his presence without any problem, because this is the religion of Allah, which dictates ijtihad to ascertain what is most correct regarding it. Therefore, what is known as fanaticism or partisanship, or clinging to a particular madahib without diverging from them, all constitute a personal flaw, so it behooves a human being to refrain from such an approach and to become more flexible in his attitude and opinions, while acknowledging the virtue, knowledge, and lofty status of each Imam. No one of the imams is better than the other, and all of them refer back to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

And Allah knows best.

Abu Ghuddah, '. a.-F. (2009). Safahat Min Sabr al-'Ulama (9 ed.). Cairo: Dar al-Salam.

[chinzo]

jazak Allah

[Abdullah288]

Assalamu alaykum

JazakAllah khairan was very beneficial

is there any books in english by Sh. ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah??

[Abdullah288]

Assalamu alaykum

do the arab hanafis hold the same opinion on taqleed as the shaykh??

[Sunni_Student786]

Assalamu alaykum

do the arab hanafis hold the same opinion on taqleed as the shaykh??

From my experiences, most of the Shaami Ulema at least do.

[Sunni_Student786]

:salam:

I recently came across an interesting discussion regarding adherence to one of the four madhabs in the biography of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah at the beginning of one of his books, Safahat Min Sabr al-‘Ulama.` When reading his answer, please bear in mind that the shaykh was opposed to what is known as tatabbu’ al-rukhas, or excessively seeking out dispensations, as well as adopting shadh (unsound/minority) opinions.
________________________

His son, Shaykh Salman, states:

He [my father] was asked the following question in the Ithnayniyyah (a gathering held in Jeddah to honor 'ulama):

There are always differences amongst the scholars regarding issues of fiqh, each one of them ascribing to one of the four madhabs and not willing to diverge from the position of his madhab, to the extent of clinging on to it, which further complicates matters of fiqh and fatwa, so what is the opinion of Your Eminence regarding this matter?

He answered:

Firstly, adhering to the madahib in fiqh is necessary for any individual who has not reached the level of ijtihad and does not possess a comprehensive understanding of the shari’ah and its usul and furu.’ This is what Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, has made incumbent upon us: “Ask the People of Remembrance if you do not know.” As for rigid adherence to one particular madhab, then this is not obligatory in the shari’ah. It is permitted for me to learn or act on a particular issue in accordance with the Hanbali madhab , and if I come across another issue, to act in accordance with the Shafi’i madhab, or if I find an issue to be strict or difficult in the Hanbali madhab, then I may resort to the Hanafi madhab on that particular issue. All of this falls under adherence to the guidance of Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, and that of His prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. There was no fundamental difference amongst those imams, since each of them tried to make his ijtihad in conformity with the word of Allah and His messenger to the best of his ability. Due to this, we find that if one of them arrives at a legal ruling one day, then reexamines the issue after a number of months or years and develops new insights into the matter, he changes his ruling without being embarrassed, and if he is not aware of the answer, he says so without any embarrassment. Why? Because the shari’ah is more valuable to him than his own existence.

A man from ‘Iraq once came to Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, presenting him with forty questions, and Imam Malik only answered six of them, so he said,

“Oh Abu ‘Abd Allah, I traversed the earth and walked across deserts to come to you, the scholar of Madinah, wanting to know the answer to all of these questions. What then, will I tell my people upon returning?”

He [Imam Malik] replied,

“I don’t know! It does not harm me for people to say about me, ‘He said I don’t know,’ because this religion is too valuable to me to become embarrassed in its path.”

Hence, it is a flaw for a person to blindly and fanatically adhere to a particular madhab. It is incorrect for a person to assume that he should be a Hanabli simply because his father was a Hanbali or a Shafi’i because his father was a Shafi’i. He may be either or. This is from the broadness of Islam, because following any madhab amounts to following the Qur`an and sunnah, and this ijtihad is speculative and not definitive, so a person is permitted to adopt the opinion of whichever scholar he chooses. As for partisanship and factionalism, then it is neither a principle of the religion of Islam, nor is it a principle of fiqh. Due to this, the students of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah be merciful with him, differed with him and compiled their differences in his presence without any problem, because this is the religion of Allah, which dictates ijtihad to ascertain what is most correct regarding it. Therefore, what is known as fanaticism or partisanship, or clinging to a particular madahib without diverging from them, all constitute a personal flaw, so it behooves a human being to refrain from such an approach and to become more flexible in his attitude and opinions, while acknowledging the virtue, knowledge, and lofty status of each Imam. No one of the imams is better than the other, and all of them refer back to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

And Allah knows best.

Abu Ghuddah, '. a.-F. (2009). Safahat Min Sabr al-'Ulama (9 ed.). Cairo: Dar al-Salam.

What about the problems that other scholars highlight when discussing follow multiple madhabs such as Talfiq and how to prevent seeking out dispensations, even if only subconsciously?

[-Hussain-]

:ws:

jazakallah khair

Deobandi scholars should admit that there isnt really an ijma on taqleed shakhsi and that theres valid difference of opinion on it because this issue is calling a lot of disunity amongst Muslims. On one extreme we have Salafi-laymen-'mujtahids' telling everyone to do ijtihad, on the other extreme we have Deobandi-laymen (and speakers) telling everyone to stick to one madhab otherwise you're guilty of "heresy". Surely the balanced view is that theres ijma on taqleed for laymen- but theres no ijma on how this taqleed should be done. Sh. Ramadan al-Buti said: "Madhhabism is that a person - who has not reached the level of Ijtihad - adheres to an Imam, whether it is one Imam or more."

[Hafiz Gee]

salam

and how exactly does a laymen follow multiple imams? do i say that since imam abu hanifa holds that wudu does not break when you touch a woman i will follow the hanafi opinion and what the hell ill eat crabs to and follow tha shafii opinion....does this make sense to you?

no disrespect intended but this is your second such post where your promote the idea of people following multiple imams, which is absurd. it makes more sense to find a reliable salafi alim and follow him in EVERYTHING he does rather than picking and choosing which is what the layman WILL DO.

at the very least you should clarify EXACTLY what you or you mean when you say follow multiple imams.

[-Hussain-]

What about the problems that other scholars highlight when discussing follow multiple madhabs such as Talfiq and how to prevent seeking out dispensations, even if only subconsciously?

Theres a [clip] thread on this over at IA Forums[/URL]. It mentions the classical scholars of Uool al-Fiqh and the measures they have put in place to prevent forbidden type of Talfeeq. One of the things mentioned is that it is not allowed the layman to constantly switch opinions. But it is said that none of the major scholars of Usool mentioned specific taqleed of one madhab as the way to prevent people from falling into desires.

[-Hussain-]

salam

and how exactly does a laymen follow multiple imams? do i say that since imam abu hanifa holds that wudu does not break when you touch a woman i will follow the hanafi opinion and what the hell ill eat crabs to and follow tha shafii opinion....does this make sense to you?

no disrespect intended but this is your second such post where your promote the idea of people following multiple imams, which is absurd. it makes more sense to find a reliable salafi alim and follow him in EVERYTHING he does rather than picking and choosing which is what the layman WILL DO.

at the very least you should clarify EXACTLY what you or you mean when you say follow multiple imams.
:ws:

Its not me saying it so dont all jump on me... (Im Hanafi :) )

The opening post is an answer by Sh. ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah
I quoted Sh. Ramadan al-Buti

I think its simple really what is meant by ask any Imam... If a layman has a question about something, he asks a pious scholar he trusts, the scholar gives him the answer and if his heart is content with it and believes the answer is close to the Sunnah, then he acts on it.

[Hafiz Gee]

btw my answer will not be affected by whether your a hanafi, a maliki or even a quranist.

how does a layman decide on what is "closer to the sunnah" furthermore in a place like north America every second scholar will give you a different opinion on the same issue. therefore at the very least you must stick to one shcolar consistently on the issues to which there are a wide variety of opinions...or even better follow a madhab thasn you have mutliple resources at your disposal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16625601/Legal-Status-of-Following-a-Madhab

p.s. IA forums sux. every second thread there is by jealeous ppl who get kicked off this forum for calling ppl "idol worshipers" or cursing allamah kawthari are these the kind of ppl you want to take your deen from? dont reply.

[-Hussain-]

how does a layman decide on what is "closer to the sunnah" furthermore in a place like north America every second scholar will give you a different opinion on the same issue. therefore at the very least you must stick to one shcolar consistently on the issues to which there are a wide variety of opinions...or even better follow a madhab thasn you have mutliple resources at your disposal.

I said if his heart is content with it believing its closer to the Sunnah. For example, if someone gave me fatwa that I am allowed to draw pictures of people based on the opinion of Imam Malik rahimahullah, then I wouldnt follow it because my heart is not content with it. This does not mean I consider myself mujtahid, that I am able to pick the stronger view etc. Same thing for other issues of differences of opinion.

A question to you, my brother, what do you do when there are different opinions within the Hanafi madhab, or different opinions amongst Deobandi 'ulama? How do you stop yourself from following your desires? I think you will find that the same rule applies.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/16625601/L...owing-a-Madhab

Ive read Mufti Taqi Usmanis book. Its a very good refutation of those who want everyone to do their own ijtihad and completely reject taqleed, but I'm sure other scholars (like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread) would disagree with the part about specifiying one madhab. Because that is an issue of valid ikhtilaf.

Just to clarify I'm not saying you should stop following the 'ulama of one madhab, rather I'm saying that you should respect the view of those who don't. It shouldnt be labelled as a heresy or anything silly like that, especially as its the view of the majority of (Non-Deobandi) scholars.



p.s. IA forums sux. every second thread there is by jealeous ppl who get kicked off this forum for calling ppl "idol worshipers" or cursing allamah kawthari are these the kind of ppl you want to take your deen from? dont reply.
I dont know who "allamah kawthari" is. But you could say the forum has lack of moderation policy as it lets all sorts of people air their view, but you cant generalise about all the members like that. Because the same could be said about this forum where extreme-sufis are allowed to promote their stuff (some of which goes unchallenged, at least on IA the views are countered). So will you stop taking knowledge from here also just because an extreme-sufi came and made a post promoting shirk?

[Rifai]

As-salamu ´alaykum,

It is permissible to follow different Imams on different issues according to the Shafi'i school as per the words of Al-Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, rahmatuLlahi ´alayh. The question only arises when it comes to following different Imams in relation to the same action. But there is agreement that it is ok to follow Imam Shafi'i in Salah and Imam Malik in Fasting for example. But it is impermissible to seek out dispensations just for the sake of leniency, for that amounts to following ones nafs and making a game of the Deen.

waLlahu a'lam
wassalam

[bugmenot]

It is permissible to follow different Imams on different issues according to the Shafi'i school as per the words of Al-Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, rahmatuLlahi ´alayh. The question only arises when it comes to following different Imams in relation to the same action. But there is agreement that it is ok to follow Imam Shafi'i in Salah and Imam Malik in Fasting for example. But it is impermissible to seek out dispensations just for the sake of leniency, for that amounts to following ones nafs and making a game of the Deen.
:jazak: for your input.

:ws:

[dr.ati]

:salam:

In "The legal status of following a Madhab" Mufti Taqi Uthmani db has criticized certain extremes in Taqleed. He has devoted a whole chapter to it in the end named "Inertia in Taqleed". He gives the example of raising finger in Tashahhud about which Imam Abu Hanifa ra has no ruling but Mufti Taqi Uthmani db says that since the raising finger in Tashahhud was proven through several sound hadiths so it is practiced (by the Hanafis). He then says that rejecting a sunnah on the basis that Imam Abu Hanifa did not rule in reference to this is also a fanatical adherence to one's madhab.(something similar is said by the Salafis)
My question is that why can not the other fiqhi issues be resolved in the light of this example like Rafa ul Yadain etc where apparently Fiqh hanafi goes against hadiths? Why is silence on the part of Imam Abu Hanifa ra needed for the acceptance of a Sunnah which is proved through several Hadiths?

http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/116-117.htm
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/118-119.htm


:jazak:


http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/116-117.htm

http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/118-119.htm

[-Hussain-]

:ws:


My question is that why can not the other fiqhi issues be resolved in the light of this example like Rafa ul Yadain etc where apparently Fiqh hanafi goes against hadiths? Why is silence on the part of Imam Abu Hanifa ra needed for the acceptance of a Sunnah which is proved through several Hadiths?

Brother according to the understanding of the Hanafi 'ulama not doing rafa al-yadain is the sunnah method. And they also bring their proofs for that. We believe in following the understanding of the earlier generations over that of the later generations. Therefore as this is an issue of valid ikhtilaf since the time of the Salaf so the method we follow is to believe in one opinion but dont do complete inkar of the other, as in a lot of cases the differences amongst the Salaf are an extension of diferences amongst the Sahaba.

Whereas for the finger in tashahud there is nothing mentioned in the old texts (zahir al-riwayah) of the madhab and I'm assuming theres also no proofs for not raising it. So for rafa al-yadain theres a balanced argument for both sides from the Salaf, and for raising the finger theres not (from what I know).

[AbuFatimah]

brother hussein, jazak allahukhair your posts are beenciail. Im not looking to research it for teh moment, but do you think for future reference you could provide some references on where i can learn about teh different types of taqleed, different oppinions on it etc inshAllah so I can get a full understadning on whats allowed and whats nto such as sticking to one imam etc

[maneatinglizard]

:salam:

In "The legal status of following a Madhab" Mufti Taqi Uthmani db has criticized certain extremes in Taqleed. He has devoted a whole chapter to it in the end named "Inertia in Taqleed". He gives the example of raising finger in Tashahhud about which Imam Abu Hanifa ra has no ruling but Mufti Taqi Uthmani db says that since the raising finger in Tashahhud was proven through several sound hadiths so it is practiced (by the Hanafis). He then says that rejecting a sunnah on the basis that Imam Abu Hanifa did not rule in reference to this is also a fanatical adherence to one's madhab.(something similar is said by the Salafis)
My question is that why can not the other fiqhi issues be resolved in the light of this example like Rafa ul Yadain etc where apparently Fiqh hanafi goes against hadiths? Why is silence on the part of Imam Abu Hanifa ra needed for the acceptance of a Sunnah which is proved through several Hadiths?

http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/116-117.htm
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/118-119.htm


:jazak:


http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/116-117.htm

http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/118-119.htm

:salam:

Rafa` al-Yadain: The Obsession of the Ahlul Hadith

There's plenty of evidence for not doing it. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[maneatinglizard]

I said if his heart is content with it believing its closer to the Sunnah. For example, if someone gave me fatwa that I am allowed to draw pictures of people based on the opinion of Imam Malik rahimahullah, then I wouldnt follow it because my heart is not content with it. This does not mean I consider myself mujtahid, that I am able to pick the stronger view etc. Same thing for other issues of differences of opinion.

That's pretty much the very definition of following the desires. What if a person's heart isn't content with abandoning music?


A question to you, my brother, what do you do when there are different opinions within the Hanafi madhab, or different opinions amongst Deobandi 'ulama? How do you stop yourself from following your desires? I think you will find that the same rule applies.

The extent of difference between Hanafi and Deobandi Ulema is much smaller than the total spectrum of Islamic scholarship. For a person who allows unrestricted Taqleed, what are the boundaries of whom can be followed?


Ive read Mufti Taqi Usmanis book. Its a very good refutation of those who want everyone to do their own ijtihad and completely reject taqleed, but I'm sure other scholars (like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread) would disagree with the part about specifiying one madhab. Because that is an issue of valid ikhtilaf.

Just to clarify I'm not saying you should stop following the 'ulama of one madhab, rather I'm saying that you should respect the view of those who don't. It shouldnt be labelled as a heresy or anything silly like that, especially as its the view of the majority of (Non-Deobandi) scholars.

The slanderers at IA are the ones who fail to respect the difference, not us.


I dont know who "allamah kawthari" is. But you could say the forum has lack of moderation policy as it lets all sorts of people air their view, but you cant generalise about all the members like that. Because the same could be said about this forum where extreme-sufis are allowed to promote their stuff (some of which goes unchallenged, at least on IA the views are countered). So will you stop taking knowledge from here also just because an extreme-sufi came and made a post promoting shirk?

Allamah Zahid al-Kawthari :rahma: was a great scholar of recent times, and the teacher of Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah :rahma:. The IA crew call him a "Dajjal" amongst other slanders.

Then again, IA users even attack Multaqa Ahlul Hadith, so it's not like we shouldn't have expected them to slander someone who was harshly opposed to them. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a forum with worse manners than IA, and this includes kuffar forums with bad mouthed teens. I can't believe anyone would browse there for guidance.

[dr.ati]

:salam:

Rafa` al-Yadain: The Obsession of the Ahlul Hadith

There's plenty of evidence for not doing it. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

:salam:

I think you missed the whole point of my post. If there is plenty of evidence then it should be compiled in the form of a book. The Ahlul Hadith use it mostly to convert the Deobandis.

:jazak:

[dr.ati]

Allamah Zahid al-Kawthari :rahma: was a great scholar of recent times, and the teacher of Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah :rahma:. The IA crew call him a "Dajjal" amongst other slanders.



Zahid Al kawthari was a Takferi himself. He spoke ill of many Muhaditheen and Fuqaha. To add to the atrocities , he did Takfeer of Shaykh Ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah.

[Ansari]

Zahid Al kawthari was a Takferi himself. He spoke ill of many Muhaditheen and Fuqaha. To add to the atrocities , he did Takfeer of Shaykh Ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah.

Where did he call him a kaafir? Note: I am not asking for statements where he said he committed kufr, but statements where he called him a kaafir. I am sure you know the subtle difference between the two. So please cite clear quotes from Imam Zahid al-Kawthari.

The Salafis themselves admit that he held the opinion of the hellfire coming to an end which is clear kufr.

And when have you become a takfiri for making takfeer of a person committed kufr?

[maneatinglizard]

:salam:

I think you missed the whole point of my post. If there is plenty of evidence then it should be compiled in the form of a book. The Ahlul Hadith use it mostly to convert the Deobandis.

:jazak:

There are multiple books on the topic. Allamah Kashmiri wrote Nayl al-Farqadayn, which can be found here:

http://attahawi.com/2009/02/22/nayl-al-firqadayn-fi-masalah-rafal-yadayn-by-allamah-muhammad-anwar-shah-kashmiri/

[maneatinglizard]

Zahid Al kawthari was a Takferi himself. He spoke ill of many Muhaditheen and Fuqaha. To add to the atrocities , he did Takfeer of Shaykh Ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah.

Albani :rahma: also spoke ill of Muhaditheen and Fuqaha, and many Salafis slander Imam ar-Razi :rahma: of kufr and propagating it. So are they all Dajjals as well?

You slandered Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: and spread false narrations that claimed he allowed the worship of shoes and then claimed those narrations were sahih. Can I call you a Dajjal?

[dr.ati]

Where did he call him a kaafir? Note: I am not asking for statements where he said he committed kufr, but statements where he called him a kaafir. I am sure you know the subtle difference between the two. So please cite clear quotes from Imam Zahid al-Kawthari.

The Salafis themselves admit that he held the opinion of the hellfire coming to an end which is clear kufr.

And when have you become a takfiri for making takfeer of a person committed kufr?

Kafir is the subjective form of Kufr so its obvious that if i say that X committed kufr then i mean that X became a Kafir by doing that.Leaving the eternity of hell fire issues aside , Zahid Al Kawthari was more inclined towards the Jahamiyyte interpretaions , considering Ibn Taymiyya an anthropomorphist.
I hope you were around here these days > http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?1611-Albani-and-his-Mubtadi-Imams-exposed-Scanned-evidence
PS. Ibn Taymiyyah is not the only one Zahid Al Kawthari has slandered.

[amr123]

:salam:

Reminder. Its Ramadan.

:jazak:

[Ansari]

Kafir is the subjective form of Kufr so its obvious that if i say that X committed kufr then i mean that X became a Kafir by doing that.Leaving the eternity of hell fire issues aside , Zahid Al Kawthari was more inclined towards the Jahamiyyte interpretaions , considering Ibn Taymiyya an anthropomorphist.
I hope you were around here these days > http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?1611-Albani-and-his-Mubtadi-Imams-exposed-Scanned-evidence
PS. Ibn Taymiyyah is not the only one Zahid Al Kawthari has slandered.

No because it is narrated that Ibn Taymiyya repented for his beliefs. So saying X committed kufr is TOTALLY different than to saying X is a Kaafir. So it seems you can not proove he did takfeer except with your false interpretation.

Why leave the eternity of the hellfire aside? Do you agree he held this believe and this is KUFR?

Do you know how many scholars Ibn Taymiyya "slandered"? Do you know how many scholars the Salafis "slander"?

Seriously, just say you belong to the other camp and don't come with lame excuses of "he slandered" someone because your scholars do that all the time when it comes to Maturidis and Asharis. You just did it right know with your Greek logic deeming valid stances as "Jahmite" interpretations.

[dr.ati]

Albani :rahma: also spoke ill of Muhaditheen and Fuqaha, and many Salafis slander Imam ar-Razi :rahma: of kufr and propagating it. So are they all Dajjals as well?

You slandered Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: and spread false narrations that claimed he allowed the worship of shoes and then claimed those narrations were sahih. Can I call you a Dajjal?

Oh really ? You have started beating your favorite horse against me again. it seems that you just wait for a chance to repeat this slander against me. All what i said was that if Tareekh e Baghdad is such an unreliable source of narrations regarding the Huffaz and Fuqaha of Baghdad , it should not be quoted for the sake of establishing Ta'deel or narrating Manaqib as well.
Kindly show me the evidence of Shaykh Albani rahimahullah speaking ill of Muhaditheen and if you don't then i would take it as you slandered the Muhaditheen and Shaykh Albani Rahimahullah.

[maneatinglizard]

Kafir is the subjective form of Kufr so its obvious that if i say that X committed kufr then i mean that X became a Kafir by doing that.Leaving the eternity of hell fire issues aside , Zahid Al Kawthari was more inclined towards the Jahamiyyte interpretaions , considering Ibn Taymiyya an anthropomorphist.
I hope you were around here these days > http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?1611-Albani-and-his-Mubtadi-Imams-exposed-Scanned-evidence
PS. Ibn Taymiyyah is not the only one Zahid Al Kawthari has slandered.

You just accused Imam al-Kawthari :rahma: of being inclined toward kufr (Jahmiyyism is kufr, let's not forget). I don't really see how you can blame him for doing the same as you have.

[Ansari]

Oh really ? You have started beating your favorite horse against me again. it seems that you just wait for a chance to repeat this slander against me. All what i said was that if Tareekh e Baghdad is such an unreliable source of narrations regarding the Huffaz and Fuqaha of Baghdad , it should not be quoted for the sake of establishing Ta'deel or narrating Manaqib as well.
Kindly show me the evidence of Shaykh Albani rahimahullah speaking ill of Muhaditheen and if you don't then i would take it as you slandered the Muhaditheen and Shaykh Albani Rahimahullah.

Even Salafis from his own camp like Tuwayjiri made takfeer upon him in issues like the niqaab:

الشيخ التويجري مرارا (ص: 163 و 226 و 265)، ونسبني بسبب مخالفتي إياه إلى الإلحاد فقال (ص: 233): (وكلام الألباني في تفسير آية الأحزاب لم يسبقه إليه أحد من الصحابة والتابعين، وقد خالف ما جاء عن حبر الأمة وغيره من أكابر التابعين في تفسيرها؛ فهو إذا من الإلحاد في آيات الله تعالى وتحريف الكلم . . .). كذا قال - هداه الله - ولست أقابله إلا بقوله تعالى تعليما لنا: (وإنا أو إياكم لعلى هدى أو في ضلال مبين) سبأ: 24. ولكني سأثبت لكل منصف أن كلام الشيخ سيحور عليه، مصداق قوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - في الحديث المتفق على صحته (صحيح): (ومن دعا رجلا بالكفر أو قال: (عدو الله) وليس كذلك إلا حار عليه). وقول المثل السائر: (رمتني بدائها وانسلت).

http://cb.rayaheen.net/showthread.php?tid=35932

So your own camp is fighting with each other.

[dr.ati]

No because it is narrated that Ibn Taymiyya repented for his beliefs. So saying X committed kufr is TOTALLY different than to saying X is a Kaafir. So it seems you can not proove he did takfeer except with your false interpretation.

And Kawthari did not come across the "repentance" before attacking Shaykh Ul Islam rahimahullah you are talking about ?

Why leave the eternity of the hellfire aside? Do you agree he held this believe and this is KUFR?


Do you know how many scholars Ibn Taymiyya "slandered"? Do you know how many scholars the Salafis "slander"?

Kindly present the quotes and enlighten me. Though by staring with "Do you know how many scholars Ibn Taymiyya "slandered" you are trying to justify slandering Shaykh Ul Islam ra.

Seriously, just say you belong to the other camp and don't come with lame excuses of "he slandered" someone because your scholars do that all the time when it comes to Maturidis and Asharis. You just did it right know with your Greek logic deeming valid stances as "Jahmite" interpretations.

Don't we agree on the Takfeer of the Jahamites ?If there is some difference of opinion about that then do mention that please. If someone has a stance that Ashari and Maturids evolved from the Jahamites then it should be taken on merits instead of taking it as a "slander". After Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's acceptance in his Taqreer e Termizi that Taweel of Siffat came after the Salaf , one should come out of the notion that "Ashari and Maturudis" are the two universal schools of Aqeedah in Islam and raising any objection about them is like raising objection against Islam.

[maneatinglizard]

Oh really ? You have started beating your favorite horse against me again. it seems that you just wait for a chance to repeat this slander against me. All what i said was that if Tareekh e Baghdad is such an unreliable source of narrations regarding the Huffaz and Fuqaha of Baghdad , it should not be quoted for the sake of establishing Ta'deel or narrating Manaqib as well.
Kindly show me the evidence of Shaykh Albani rahimahullah speaking ill of Muhaditheen and if you don't then i would take it as you slandered the Muhaditheen and Shaykh Albani Rahimahullah.

Here are your exact words:


I think you need to open the volume 13 of Tareekh e Baghdad or atleast read the commentary on "masnad e Imam Azam" printed by maktaba rehmania. I don't know what praise do u look for in tareekh e baghdad after this.
"Abu hanifa said that it is permissible for a person to worship a shoe to gain the Qurb of Allah"

Reported by Imam Yahya bin Hamza,Imam saeed Bin Abdul Aziz with authentic chain( tareekh e baghdad volume 13 page 374)
Plz do tell me that you follow Imam Abu hanifa ra in furu and this issue is related to his Aqeedah so its irrelevant.

Here are some other slanders you have made against the Hanafi Imams:


Infact , not a salafi but Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jillani has included Hanfiya among the 72 misguided sects.
In his book , Ghaniat Ut talibeen , he has classified Hanfiya as murjiyyaa. ( Page 133)


Here is a detailed analysis of Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani's unreliability in Hadiths

In fact, let me ask you this question again, as I don't believe you ever answered it:


Look, we aren't going to be fooled by you, mr "ex-Deobandi."

Just tell us, you claimed the narration in Tarikh Baghdadi accusing Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: of allowing the worship of shoes to be sahih.

Do you believe this, or were you lying previously?

That's all we need to know. Answer that question or stop trying to spread more lies and slanders.

Note that my question is in regards to the truthfulness of the narration, not its sanad.

As for Albani speaking ill of Muhaditheen:


Looking at what Bakr Abu Zayd mentioned in his Rudud - there is clear proof that they despised Abu Ghudda vehemently as did al-Albani who cursed him with these disgraceful words in his Kashf al-Niqab (p. 52):

أشل الله يدك وقطع لسانك

Meaning: “May Allah paralyse your hand and cut your tongue!”

[maneatinglizard]

And Kawthari did not come across the "repentance" before attacking Shaykh Ul Islam rahimahullah you are talking about ?

He was attacking what was spread by Ibn Taymiyyah :rahma:, which was deviance. Whether or not Imam Ibn Taymiyyah :rahma: repented from his previous positions (as I know that the Salafis doubt that he ever did truly repent, as do some Asharis), his positions were problematic. And so it becomes very important to speak against them, especially when we face a group with a great deal of funding spreading those problematic positions as if they were the true Islamic Aqeeda.


Kindly present the quotes and enlighten me. Though by staring with "Do you know how many scholars Ibn Taymiyya "slandered" you are trying to justify slandering Shaykh Ul Islam ra.

He slandered the entire body of Asharia and Maturidi scholars by calling the Jahmiyyah. As for specifics, he called Imam al-Izz ibn Abdus-Salam :rahma:, known as Sultan al-Ulema, a Jahmi.


Don't we agree on the Takfeer of the Jahamites ?

Then don't call our scholars (and by extension, us) Jahmis, as you are claiming that our scholars are kuffar.


If there is some difference of opinion about that then do mention that please. If someone has a stance that Ashari and Maturids evolved from the Jahamites then it should be taken on merits instead of taking it as a "slander".

Some kuffar took the stance that Islam was a corruption of some small sect of Christianity. Is that a slander or not? Yes, and so is affiliating the Asha`irah and Maturidiyyah with the Jahmiyyah.


After Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's acceptance in his Taqreer e Termizi that Taweel of Siffat came after the Salaf , one should come out of the notion that "Ashari and Maturudis" are the two universal schools of Aqeedah in Islam and raising any objection about them is like raising objection against Islam.


That's entirely irrelevant, since neither Asharism nor Maturidism obligate ta'wil. By the way, belief in the temporality of hellfire and the eternality of the genus of creation are not concepts that existed amongst the Salaf, so then why does your camp attempt to portray Ibn Taymiyyah :rahma: as the de-facto representative of the Salaf?

[dr.ati]

Though i won't like to pollute my hands in the slander game you are used to,here is a brief response.

In fact, let me ask you this question again, as I don't believe you ever answered it:

In fact ,i had answered your slander in the same thread and many times more since you raised the issue.


You need glasses. When did i accuse Abu hanifa ra? I quoted Khateeb Al baghdadi ra who has reported this narration in Tareekh e Baghdad.Khateeb Al Baghdadi was an Ahli Hadith? "objectivity" is abstract for you probably.

My stance regarding the unreliability of Muhammad bin Hassan Al Shaybani in Hadith was no slander. If i say that Sufyan thawri rahimahullah used to do Tadlees , will it become a slander against him?
Rest of your accusations are just random pickings from threads , completely out of context.

[maneatinglizard]

Though i won't like to pollute my hands in the slander game you are used to,here is a brief response.

In fact, let me ask you this question again, as I don't believe you ever answered it:

In fact ,i had answered your slander in the same thread and many times more since you raised the issue.



My stance regarding the unreliability of Muhammad bin Hassan Al Shaybani in Hadith was no slander. If i say that Sufyan thawri rahimahullah used to do Tadlees , will it become a slander against him?
Rest of your accusations are just random pickings from threads , completely out of context.

Look, I have a very simple question for you, and you still to this day refuse to answer it:

Did Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: allow the worship of shoes?

It's a very simple yes or no question.

[dr.ati]

Look, I have a very simple question for you, and you still to this day refuse to answer it:

Did Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: allow the worship of shoes?

It's a very simple yes or no question.


You are at it again. When did i say that Imam Abu Hanifa ra allowed worship of shoes ( Na'audubillah)?


Adding Na'audhubillah is done for affirmation or negation?

[maneatinglizard]

Adding Na'audhubillah is done for affirmation or negation?

You tell me.

If I say, "So and So has said words of kufr (Na`udhubillah)," this doesn't mean that that person didn't say those things, it means that I rejected his kufr.

[al_Zayn]

You tell me.

If I say, "So and So has said words of kufr (Na`udhubillah)," this doesn't mean that that person didn't say those things, it means that I rejected his kufr.

I would agree with Brother MEL.

[dr.ati]

You tell me.

If I say, "So and So has said words of kufr (Na`udhubillah)," this doesn't mean that that person didn't say those things, it means that I rejected his kufr.

After trolling into Abu Zakarya , you are trying your luck at me.
It was not " So and so said words of Kufr Na'audhubillah". It was " When did i say..... Na'audhubillah"

[PirBaba]

I think you need to open the volume 13 of Tareekh e Baghdad or atleast read the commentary on "masnad e Imam Azam" printed by maktaba rehmania. I don't know what praise do u look for in tareekh e baghdad after this.
"Abu hanifa said that it is permissible for a person to worship a shoe to gain the Qurb of Allah"

So dear brother, what should a muslim make out of it after reading this? what do you think about Imam Sahab now after reading he said this? IF a barelvi does this in india what is your fatwa on him? If imam sahab is asking to do this what is your fatwa on him? curious to know

[maneatinglizard]

After trolling into Abu Zakarya , you are trying your luck at me.
It was not " So and so said words of Kufr Na'audhubillah". It was " When did i say..... Na'audhubillah"

You're hilarious.

You completely derailed this thread (and others), simply due to your adamant refusal to answer a simple yes or no question. This isn't a difficult question that requires much thought. Either you believe Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: allowed the worship of shoes (and hence was a kaffir wa al-Iyadhubillah), or he didn't, end of story.

Just answer the question.

[dr.ati]

You're hilarious.

You completely derailed this thread (and others), simply due to your adamant refusal to answer a simple yes or no question. This isn't a difficult question that requires much thought. Either you believe Imam Abu Hanifa :rahma: allowed the worship of shoes (and hence was a kaffir wa al-Iyadhubillah), or he didn't, end of story.

Just answer the question.

This makes me sure that you are a troll. Why on earth would you ask the same question which i have answered many times in other threads on your demand ? If i search for it , i would find more than 10 such instances.


The thread was named "Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani's Reliability in Narrating Hadith " and most of the narrations were taken from Tareekh e Baghdad. All i meant was that if the Manaqib in Tareekh e Baghdad are authentic ( Also taken by the translator of "Musnad e Imam E Azam") then why would one deem everything which is negative as Dae'f? It was not like I believed that Abu Hanifa ra permitted so. ( Na'audubillah)

[Sultaan]

Then again, IA users even attack Multaqa Ahlul Hadith, so it's not like we shouldn't have expected them to slander someone who was harshly opposed to them. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a forum with worse manners than IA, and this includes kuffar forums with bad mouthed teens. I can't believe anyone would browse there for guidance.

At least they don't incite the kuffar against other Muslims like many of your anti-Salafi, Ash'ari/Sufi shuyookh and I think your newfound Ash'arism is a fraud, as it is clear you are making taqleed of the Arab Ash'ari shuyookh and their followers in the West, many of whom are brazenly hypocritcal, collaborating with the mujassimah Nusayris like the Ahbash, congratulating the Christian archbishops on their day of tajseem and kufr, calling on the Nasara to hold onto their aqeedah of kufr as per the Common Word, signed by many of your shuyookh, favouring the Nasara over the "Wahabis", etc. and why do you pretend that Ibn Taymiyyah was the only anti-Ash'ari when there were hundreds of ulama from the Hanabilah and Ahl al-Hadeeth and even some of the Malikis and Shafi'is like this?

[dr.ati]

The dishonest troll who raised this issue against me must have gone through this post of mine.


:salam:

I am aware of the pretensions of Salafis against Imam Abu Hanifa ra. I myself had fallen into this propaganda in the beginning but later i realized that how erroneous it is to castigate or think bad of an Imam from the Salaf based on the narrations recorded mainly in volume 13 of Tareekh Baghdad by Khateeb. I have read Shaykh Muqbil's book and he has gathered all such narrations in it. I think it would have been better if he would have avoided writing the book.The book served no good purpose and if one starts collecting all the jarah of the Muhaditheen and take it as some normal bashing , i think very few Muhaditheens and narrators will stay safe then.
I once heard a nauseating speech of Shamshad Salafi , who is infamous for his attacks on Imam Abu Hanifa ra , in which he compared the Imam with Muslima Kadhab(Auzoo bilahi Min Zalik). Unfortunately the speech was recorded in Saudi Arabia and it went unnoticed. I have recently been vocal against such tendencies with in the Salafis. Such Tabara at the Salaf and a pathologically greater interest in antithesis than the thesis itself is the trademark of Shias. This does not leave a good impression.

[dr.ati]

Does anyone have an explanation for this Tabdi' made on Shaykh Ul Isma rahimahullah ? If this is the state of your affairs , why would you expect a Salafi respect Imam Abu Hanifa rahimahullah?




I don't know who created that website, but it is probably a Habashi - they do believe that ibn Taymiyya was a Kafir. As for me personally, then i consider him to be a Mubtadi as I already indicated in the header.

[verdana]

shaykh was opposed to what is known as tatabbu’ al-rukhas, or excessively seeking out dispensations, as well as adopting shadh (unsound/minority) opinions.


If that's the case, then the picking and choosing from this and that madhab mentioned below becomes difficult to understand.


His son, Shaykh Salman, states:.... He answered:

Here is the point of caution. If I understood it correctly, that the narration of his son, not the actual writing of Shaikh Abu Ghuddah. His son might be mistaken or forgot the actual wording. Otherwise, the quote is problematic. Nevertheless, let break it down:


It is permitted for me to learn or act on a particular issue in accordance with the Hanbali madhab , and if I come across another issue, to act in accordance with the Shafi’i madhab, or if I find an issue to be strict or difficult in the Hanbali madhab, then I may resort to the Hanafi madhab on that particular issue. All of this falls under adherence to the guidance of Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, and that of His prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

If these are the exact wordings of Shaikh Abu Ghuddah, then he is clearly referring to himself - who was at the level of Mujtahid. And as for this,


clinging to a particular madahib without diverging from them, all constitute a personal flaw..

This is a problematic statement to accept, unless he clearly wrote it down in his book. Since this is only a translation of a "narration", which actually goes against his well-known position in the madhab, then this statement must be rejected.

Why?

Because picking and mixing different rulings in many issues across the madhaahib, due to logical fallacy, is a chaos.

And Allah knows best.

[verdana]

shaykh was opposed to what is known as tatabbu’ al-rukhas, or excessively seeking out dispensations, as well as adopting shadh (unsound/minority) opinions.


If that's the case, then the picking and choosing from this and that madhab mentioned below becomes difficult to understand.


His son, Shaykh Salman, states:.... He answered:

Here is the point of caution. If I understood it correctly, this is merely the narration of his son, not the actual writing of Shaikh Abu Ghuddah. His son might be mistaken in his quote or forgot the actual wording. Otherwise, the quote is problematic. Nevertheless, let's break it down:


It is permitted for me to learn or act on a particular issue in accordance with the Hanbali madhab , and if I come across another issue, to act in accordance with the Shafi’i madhab, or if I find an issue to be strict or difficult in the Hanbali madhab, then I may resort to the Hanafi madhab on that particular issue. All of this falls under adherence to the guidance of Allah, the Most Esteemed and Glorious, and that of His prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

If these are the exact words of Shaikh Abu Ghuddah, then he is clearly referring to himself - who was at the level of Mujtahid anyway. And as for this,


clinging to a particular madahib without diverging from them, all constitute a personal flaw..

This is a problematic statement to accept, unless he clearly wrote it down in his book. Since this is only a translation of a "narration", which actually goes against his well-known position in the madhab, then this statement must be rejected.

Why?

Because picking and mixing different rulings in many issues across the madhaahib, due to logical fallacy, is a chaos.

And Allah knows best.

[numanthabit]

It does not matter what Sh. Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah's position was. If his son Salman is right and Shaykh Abu Ghuddah indeed said one may leave the following of a single maddhab, then he was wrong.

[numanthabit]

In "The legal status of following a Madhab" Mufti Taqi Uthmani db has criticized certain extremes in Taqleed. He has devoted a whole chapter to it in the end named "Inertia in Taqleed". He gives the example of raising finger in Tashahhud about which Imam Abu Hanifa ra has no ruling but Mufti Taqi Uthmani db says that since the raising finger in Tashahhud was proven through several sound hadiths so it is practiced (by the Hanafis). He then says that rejecting a sunnah on the basis that Imam Abu Hanifa did not rule in reference to this is also a fanatical adherence to one's madhab.(something similar is said by the Salafis)
My question is that why can not the other fiqhi issues be resolved in the light of this example like Rafa ul Yadain etc where apparently Fiqh hanafi goes against hadiths? Why is silence on the part of Imam Abu Hanifa ra needed for the acceptance of a Sunnah which is proved through several Hadiths?

Mufti Taqi Usmani never understood what you are implying. The later Hanafi jurists after Abu Hanifa have already adjusted Abu Hanifa's positions where he erred if he did not have access to hadith according to his usul. Our taqlid is to the entire maddhab, whose hundreds of experts have vindicated and examined with a fine pen every minute detail of the maddhab, not to one modern scholar who determined that hadith we had always deemed sahih were da'if and those that the muhaddithin had termed daif were now sahih.

So WE need not do anything, let alone go against a position as well established as not doing rafa' al yadayn, whose ahadith Abu Hanifa was more than well aware of but chose not to act upon in favor of Ibn Mas'ud's position that one should not do it.

Wallahu A'lam

[ENIGMA]

:salam:

brother verdana

imo, there is a big difference in 'excessively seeking out dispensations for each and everything' as oppose to seeking out dispensations on certain matters. To me, the quote you quoted by the shaykh which was posted by godilali, meant that the shaykh was against constant jumping from one madhab to another for no other reason than for ease of the nafs as oppose to creating ease for purely practical reasons.

[numanthabit]

:salam:

brother verdana

imo, there is a big difference in 'excessively seeking out dispensations for each and everything' as oppose to seeking out dispensations on certain matters. To me, the quote you quoted by the shaykh which was posted by godilali, meant that the shaykh was against constant jumping from one madhab to another for no other reason than for ease of the nafs as oppose to creating ease for purely practical reasons.

Its possible that your interpretation is right, though its also possible that Shaykh Abu Ghuddah meant it the way akhi verdana meant it; the Shaykh was, after all, an Ikhwani, and Ikhwani's are lax in matters such as these.

[-Hussain-]

It does not matter what Sh. Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah's position was. If his son Salman is right and Shaykh Abu Ghuddah indeed said one may leave the following of a single maddhab, then he was wrong.

I'm just wondering, do you do such full out inkar of different views in all issues where there is valid ikhtilaf?

How can we single out Super-Salafis for criticism on lack of tolerance of different opinions when fellow Madhabis are not really any different..

[numanthabit]

I'm just wondering, do you do such full out inkar of different views in all issues where there is valid ikhtilaf?

How can we single out Super-Salafis for criticism on lack of tolerance of different opinions when fellow Madhabis are not really any different..

I speak for myself only, but I criticize Salafis for being wrong, not for being intolerant. I follow the practice of "nahi an al munkar" so when my fellow "Muslims" at my college supported the homosexual group in an attempt to curry political favor, I was "intolerant" of them. I know your going to say that that is not a legitimate position, but I asked Maulana Bilal Ali Ansari about doing inkar about legitimate positions from other schools, and his reply was:

"Jurists agree, in accordance with accepted rules of usul al-fiqh and usul al-ifta', that it is not academically acceptable to severely criticize the preferred opinions of legitimate schools. If, however, someone follows a weak opinion (in the sense that it is not the opinion upon which fatwa is given, even if it is attributed to the Imam) without severe necessity, then academically speaking one can be criticized for following such a weak opinion. Even then, one should differentiate between academic differences of opinon and severe, harsh enmity and opposition."

So there can be inkar of a weak position, like following multiple maddhabs when a non-mujtahid (and no, Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, despite his lofty status, was not a mujtahid) has no way of doing correct ijtihad and thus falls in impermissible talfiq. Besides, Shaykh Abdul Hayy Al Laknawi also stated when asked about this issue that such statements are dangerous to say to laymen, even if there is legitimate ikhtilaf, because they will feel that they can follow the easiest path. And that is what I have seen Salafis, Ikhwanis, and their ilk do.

Keep in mind that I never said that Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah was definitely wrong, but only if the statement that Shaykh Salman said he made was accurate, then he is wrong, and there is nothing extreme in such a statement, especially since all of our akabir have stated the same. Wallahu A'lam.

[ENIGMA]

I'm just wondering, do you do such full out inkar of different views in all issues where there is valid ikhtilaf?

How can we single out Super-Salafis for criticism on lack of tolerance of different opinions when fellow Madhabis are not really any different..

Hit the nail on the head bruv.

[-Hussain-]

I speak for myself only, but I criticize Salafis for being wrong, not for being intolerant. I follow the practice of "nahi an al munkar" so when my fellow "Muslims" at my college supported the homosexual group in an attempt to curry political favor, I was "intolerant" of them. I know your going to say that that is not a legitimate position, but I asked Maulana Bilal Ali Ansari about doing inkar about legitimate positions from other schools, and his reply was:

"Jurists agree, in accordance with accepted rules of usul al-fiqh and usul al-ifta', that it is not academically acceptable to severely criticize the preferred opinions of legitimate schools. If, however, someone follows a weak opinion (in the sense that it is not the opinion upon which fatwa is given, even if it is attributed to the Imam) without severe necessity, then academically speaking one can be criticized for following such a weak opinion. Even then, one should differentiate between academic differences of opinon and severe, harsh enmity and opposition."

So there can be inkar of a weak position, like following multiple maddhabs when a non-mujtahid (and no, Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, despite his lofty status, was not a mujtahid) has no way of doing correct ijtihad and thus falls in impermissible talfiq. Besides, Shaykh Abdul Hayy Al Laknawi also stated when asked about this issue that such statements are dangerous to say to laymen, even if there is legitimate ikhtilaf, because they will feel that they can follow the easiest path. And that is what I have seen Salafis, Ikhwanis, and their ilk do.

Keep in mind that I never said that Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah was definitely wrong, but only if the statement that Shaykh Salman said he made was accurate, then he is wrong, and there is nothing extreme in such a statement, especially since all of our akabir have stated the same. Wallahu A'lam.

So if you came across a Maliki praying with his hands on the side would you also "enjoin good and forbid evil" and inform him of what you believe is the most correct view (i.e. tie your hands below the navel)? That sounds like a very 'Salafi' thing to do...

The homosexuality thing is not relevant, there can never be any difference on that.

What we're talking about here is a furu issue where differences are acceptable and have always existed.

Also the majority view is one that differs with the Deobandi view. So a more accurate analogy, as a brother put it, would be of a Maliki brother going round and telling the entire ummah to pray with their hands on the side. How would you like that? Thats what the situation looks like to non-Deobandis looking in on the Deobandi obsession with taqleed of one madhab.

[maneatinglizard]

So if you came across a Maliki praying with his hands on the side would you also "enjoin good and forbid evil" and inform him of what you believe is the most correct view (i.e. tie your hands below the navel)? That sounds like a very 'Salafi' thing to do...

No, because that isn't an issue where a person is following a weak opinion within his school.


The homosexuality thing is not relevant, there can never be any difference on that.

We all have our own tolerance levels. You say we should never be tolerant of people who hold certain beliefs, and I say we should never be tolerant of people who hold other beliefs, and so on for every single person.

While you're right that homosexuality is something that we can never accept, this way will never lead us anywhere, because the entire issue is that we differ on what is acceptable as differences. We may agree here, but it doesn't follow that we do or even should agree everywhere else.


What we're talking about here is a furu issue where differences are acceptable and have always existed.

Again, you claim that difference here is acceptable, and others claim it isn't. So what changes because you hold that it is acceptable?


Also the majority view is one that differs with the Deobandi view.

Here your problem is even bigger, because you make a claim that is simply not accepted by our Ulema.

Most of us here don't follow Harris Hammam and the users of IA/Multaqa Ahlul Hadith, so you repeating their claims here does little. In fact, it doesn't really do anything.


So a more accurate analogy, as a brother put it, would be of a Maliki brother going round and telling the entire ummah to pray with their hands on the side.

That's not an accurate analogy at all.


How would you like that? Thats what the situation looks like to non-Deobandis looking in on the Deobandi obsession with taqleed of one madhab.

There isn't any obsession. The Deobandi Ulema countered the false claims of the Ghayr Muqallids of the Ahlul Hadith sect. The Ahlul Hadith retaliated with their own arguments, as did other Salafi groups, and so the Deobandi Ulema retaliated yet again. What do you expect to happen? Should the Deobandi Ulema just stay silent and not bother with replying to the claims of those who disagree with them? It's like you have your opinion, and you just expect everyone to shut up and accept your opinion even if they disagree. Why? Because you claim it's the dominant position?

I find it hilarious that we are being told that not only is our opinion a minority one (and some wont even accept that much), but that we should never bother with defending it either, because doing so would constitute "obsession" or "extremism."

You don't accept our opinion, even if you claim you do. If you did accept it, you wouldn't have a problem with us mentioning it or defending it.

:ws:

[numanthabit]

So if you came across a Maliki praying with his hands on the side would you also "enjoin good and forbid evil" and inform him of what you believe is the most correct view (i.e. tie your hands below the navel)? That sounds like a very 'Salafi' thing to do...

The homosexuality thing is not relevant, there can never be any difference on that.

What we're talking about here is a furu issue where differences are acceptable and have always existed.

Also the majority view is one that differs with the Deobandi view. So a more accurate analogy, as a brother put it, would be of a Maliki brother going round and telling the entire ummah to pray with their hands on the side. How would you like that? Thats what the situation looks like to non-Deobandis looking in on the Deobandi obsession with taqleed of one madhab.

If I saw a Maliki practicing sadl, I would not prohibit him from doing that because that is not a weak position. If you studied Maliki usul, you would know they follow the asl of the 'amal ahlil madinah, which is not a weak position in their maddhab.

[-Hussain-]

The point with bringing the Maliki into it was that his way of Salah is weak according to your opinion, yet you wouldnt condemn it. Similarly, taqleed mutlaq in todays age is weak according to your view and not weak according to other scholar of other madhabs and within the Hanafi madhab. So what gives you the right to condemn it?



We all have our own tolerance levels. You say we should never be tolerant of people who hold certain beliefs, and I say we should never be tolerant of people who hold other beliefs, and so on for every single person.

Again, you claim that difference here is acceptable, and others claim it isn't. So what changes because you hold that it is acceptable?
Have you changed your stance since this previous post?

I know there is a difference of opinion on the matter of Taqleed of one Madhab versus unrestricted Taqleed

And I find it very strange that you seem willing to tolerate different opinions regarding shirk vs. tawheed (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?71067-Ibn-Mas-ud%28ra%29-amp-Loud-Zikr-Shaykh-Faraz-explains.&p=662861&viewfull=1#post662861), but unwilling to tolerate on this issue of taqleed shakhsi vs. taqleed mutlaq. Your priorities are really in the wrong place.




There isn't any obsession. The Deobandi Ulema countered the false claims of the Ghayr Muqallids of the Ahlul Hadith sect. The Ahlul Hadith retaliated with their own arguments, as did other Salafi groups, and so the Deobandi Ulema retaliated yet again. What do you expect to happen? Should the Deobandi Ulema just stay silent and not bother with replying to the claims of those who disagree with them? It's like you have your opinion, and you just expect everyone to shut up and accept your opinion even if they disagree. Why? Because you claim it's the dominant position?

I find it hilarious that we are being told that not only is our opinion a minority one (and some wont even accept that much), but that we should never bother with defending it either, because doing so would constitute "obsession" or "extremism."

You don't accept our opinion, even if you claim you do. If you did accept it, you wouldn't have a problem with us mentioning it or defending it.

The problem is not really with Deobandis defending it, the problem is them forcing it down everyones throats. Theres countless Deobandi literature and lectures telling people that a supposed ijma obligates everyone to stick to one madhab and doing otherwise is a heresy/deviancy. Thats what I'm calling an obsession. And the problem is exacerbated by many people who still seem to be in the back home mentality so they automatically assume that because someone differs with my view on taqleed they must be from the anti-taqleed ahlul hadith group of the sub-continent. Even when that is clearly not the case.

[numanthabit]

The point with bringing the Maliki into it was that his way of Salah is weak according to your opinion, yet you wouldnt condemn it.

I don't have an opinion. The Maliki position is not weak according to my opinion because I dont do ijtihad to determine the weakness or strength of that position. That is what you dont understant--that a non-mujtahid HAS to do taqlid because he or she does not have the capability of forming an position; and yes, that means taqlid shakhsi, because if I do taqlid of various imams, then I am in fact exercising ijtihad by choosing which imam to follow on what position. Its pretty simple--either there is taqlid shakshi or no taqlid, and you cannot have it both ways.

As for shoving it down people's throats, then I hope no one is doing that. For me, I make it a point of importance because I have seen countless of people do impermissible talfiq, and make a mockery out of our din. I mean, someone who does not follow one maddhab can even do a marriage without both a wali (Hanafi position) and two witnesses (Maliki position). So according to you, that should be alright?

[-Hussain-]

I don't have an opinion.
You seemed to have an opinion when you condemned a scholars view a few posts back...


The Maliki position is not weak according to my opinion because I dont do ijtihad to determine the weakness or strength of that position.
Okay you must have understood what I meant though, so I'll just reword it more clearly, the Maliki way of Salah is weak according to the (Hanafi) opinion you follow, but not weak according to Malikis. So you dont go round condemning them.

Taqleed mutlaq is weak according to the (Deobandi) opinion you follow, but not weak according to non-Deobandis. Yet you still go round condemning it.
That is the intolerance I was talking about.

The rest of what you said has already been explained in previous posts on this thread by myself and other brothers. So I'm not going to go round in circles.

But I'll just say if you find someone doing impermissible talfiq then you should condemn that specifically and not condemn what is a valid opinion held by many scholars.

[-Hussain-]

Theres a [clip] thread on this over at IA Forums[/URL]. It mentions the classical scholars of Uool al-Fiqh and the measures they have put in place to prevent forbidden type of Talfeeq. One of the things mentioned is that it is not allowed the layman to constantly switch opinions. But it is said that none of the major scholars of Usool mentioned specific taqleed of one madhab as the way to prevent people from falling into desires.

The link from this post has been edited so I wont post it again. But for anyone interested they can find it by searching IA forums on google > click the first Islamic site that comes up > go to sub-forum Fiqh and its Application > and then the sticky "The Deception of Sunniforum Vis-à-vis Taqlīd"

[godilali]

@numanibnthabit

Don't you find it ironic that you as a layperson deem yourself fit to reject the opinion of a scholar in such authoritative terms, while espousing the concept of taqlid shakhsi? The concept is based on the premise that a layperson is not qualified to derive opinions in matters of deen, yet you are debating an issue that is not merely a matter of furu' but is a matter of usul, and you are dismissing an opinion (i.e. a layperson being obligated to follow scholars in general but not necessarily one madhab in all issues) held by prominent usuliyyin from various madhahib as being weak or spurious.

[numanthabit]

You seemed to have an opinion when you condemned a scholars view a few posts back...




I don't have an opinion on the qabd vs sadl issue, because I am not a mujtahid. I am simply a muqallid of the Hanafi maddhab, and that is why I follow it, not because my ijtihad confirms the Hanafi maddhab--that's ridiculous.

I do have an opinion on the taqlid shakhsi issue, obviously; as I mentioned before over and over, something which you simply seem to be incapable of understanding, there are only two options for an individual to take--taqlid of one maddhab, or no taqlid. I've noticed that you have not answered the question of how a non-muqallid would choose between multiple maddhabs. Would he choose based on his desires? Or based on what he thinks is more strong?

[numanthabit]

@numanibnthabit

Don't you find it ironic that you as a layperson deem yourself fit to reject the opinion of a scholar in such authoritative terms, while espousing the concept of taqlid shakhsi? The concept is based on the premise that a layperson is not qualified to derive opinions in matters of deen, yet you are debating an issue that is not merely a matter of furu' but is a matter of usul, and you are dismissing an opinion (i.e. a layperson being obligated to follow scholars in general but not necessarily one madhab in all issues) held by prominent usuliyyin from various madhahib as being weak or spurious.

I am not debating authoritatively; it is the position of the akabir of Deoband. If you have an issue, take it up with them.

[godilali]

I am not debating authoritatively; it is the position of the akabir of Deoband. If you have an issue, take it up with them.

So you are making tarjih of their position over that of Abu Ghuddah's. Once again, you are contradicting your principles.

BTW I'm not against taqlid shakhsi; I'm against your attitude.

[numanthabit]

So you are making tarjih of their position over that of Abu Ghuddah's. Once again, you are contradicting your principles.

BTW I'm not against taqlid shakhsi; I'm against your attitude.

I am following their position, and their position only, which is a confirmation of the principle of taqlid shakhsi that I have been espousing from the beginning.

I know you are not against taqlid shakshi, but you live in Chicago; you live amongst likeminded people all the time, so you do not realize the damage that these people who espouse the following of multiple maddhabs do. I live in the Northeast US, and am not so naive.

[ENIGMA]

hussain,do you have any references from scholars,especially classical scholars who allowed taqlid mutlaq. I read something some time ago which says historically thats how people were generally,but can't remember the names given in the article.

[ENIGMA]

You seemed to have an opinion when you condemned a scholars view a few posts back...


Okay you must have understood what I meant though, so I'll just reword it more clearly, the Maliki way of Salah is weak according to the (Hanafi) opinion you follow, but not weak according to Malikis. So you dont go round condemning them.

Taqleed mutlaq is weak according to the (Deobandi) opinion you follow, but not weak according to non-Deobandis. Yet you still go round condemning it.
That is the intolerance I was talking about.

The rest of what you said has already been explained in previous posts on this thread by myself and other brothers. So I'm not going to go round in circles.

But I'll just say if you find someone doing impermissible talfiq then you should condemn that specifically and not condemn what is a valid opinion held by many scholars.

excellent points!

[ENIGMA]

Hussain, also, you must understand the deoband stance on taqlid shakhsi based on a historical context as a way to counter ahlul hadith/ghair muqallid when they first hit the sub continent causing issues.

[-Hussain-]

@Numan, I've made my point in as simple a words as I could. If you still cant understand then theres not really much more I can do.


hussain,do you have any references from scholars,especially classical scholars who allowed taqlid mutlaq. I read something some time ago which says historically thats how people were generally,but can't remember the names given in the article.
Theres lots of quotes on that IA Forum thread. Have a read through it, in'sha'Allah.

But I'll still c&p some here later, in'sha'Allah.



Hussain, also, you must understand the deoband stance on taqlid shakhsi based on a historical context as a way to counter ahlul hadith/ghair muqallid when they first hit the sub continent causing issues.

Yes I understand that it was a reflex reaction to the circumstances at the time. But today, especially in UK, its causing a lot of fitna amongst people when they still insist on enforcing those views in a different environment.