Sunni Schools of Religious Thought

[jacklfuller]

As I have just begun my research of Sunni schools of thought in Islam, I have discovered there are four main versions. Hanafi is the oldest and most legally oriented. Is that correct? If so, what makes Hanafi legalism significant? Does it mean legal as in religious and civil courts or regarding the interpretaion of the Koran and other sacred writngs? Can someone explain that to me please.

[Muawiyah]

It probably refers to the preponderance of methodological rules in the Hanafi fiqh, for interpretation of religious texts or judgment of civil cases

[jacklfuller]

Thanks for the responses. You say ten year olds understand all this? Hmmm. Maybe I ought to stick with the simpler stuff. Maybe politics. That's simpler isn't it? Nothing complicated there.

[abdulwahhab]

I wouldn't say "most legally oriented" since all the four schools are dealing with legal issues rather than issues of belief (aqida). All four are correct, of course.

[source1984]

As I have just begun my research of Sunni schools of thought in Islam, I have discovered there are four main versions. Hanafi is the oldest and most legally oriented. Is that correct? If so, what makes Hanafi legalism significant? Does it mean legal as in religious and civil courts or regarding the interpretaion of the Koran and other sacred writngs? Can someone explain that to me please.

Jack,

Hanafi is just one of the four main schools of thought in Sunni Islam. The schools mainly have to do with legal differences in regards to religious practices but mostly in regards to legal rulings. For example, the pre-sunset prayer is prayed by the Hanafi school one hour later than the others. Minor things. Honestly, most Muslims barely know the differences. Ones who are more educated in their religion's matters know the differences. I myself can't tell what school of thought my friends follow -- most people don't even bother asking.

The view of the scholars is that all the schools of thought are correct -- they just involve different ways to reason and interpret legal/technical matters of the religion. Each school was founded by a specific scholar and then built up by the students and succeeding scholars that came after. Hanafi is the most common -- this is probably because the Ottoman Empire adopted the Hanafi school of thought for its courts and affairs. Other than that, Hanafi isn't really much more significant -- except its founder, Imam Hanafi, was the only one who had contact with a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). But each school of thought has its own strengths.

Peace.

[jacklfuller]

So the school the Imam attended guides his thinking on religious matters more than persnal understanding and preferense? An Imam holds to his school's tradtions and teachngs and does not strike out on his own like so many Christians do? (Mormons don't do this. We follow only one way as set out by official church doctrine. Some other Christian denominations allow the establishment of a new church by a paster who wants to emphasize certain elements of his understanding over others. Baptists I think do this.) Do I understand this practice correctly in this context?

[jacklfuller]

Regarding other schools, the most problematic for westerners seems to be the Wahhab as practiced by the Saudis. They appear highly intolerant even among their own adherents. How can one group be so divisive and others take another path and yet all claim to strictly observe Islam? I understand relatively minor understanding and variances of observances due to tradition or local political/social environmental considerations, but this group seems radically different even allowing for the internal problems the Saudi’s face. This is the face of Islam so many of us see. I acknowledge that western TV and its obligatory sensationalism colors our view but discounting the prejudice that generates, Wahhabis seem awfully brutal. I offer the girls the religious police (Mutaween) allowed to burn to death in Mecca because they were not dressed appropriatly enough to be rescued. According to the BBC report, they were not wearing an abaya.

[Hmmm]

Hello,

In Islam we have the concept of the Shariah, the will of Allah (swt).

The Qu'ran is an eternal revelation that provides our framework for trying to understand what the will of Allah (swt) is on any given topic/action.

The lives of the Prophets (pbut) are actualisations of the Shariah for given time periods and given circumstances.

So, the life of the Prophet (pbuh) is the final actualisation of the will of Allah (swt) for that time period, using the Qu'ran as a framework.

Now, the key question arose, how to understand the Shariah once the Prophet (pbuh) left?

To understand and analyse the available evidences, one needs an objective framework and axiomatic basis (usul) so that subjectivity and whim doesn't kick in.

Initially these weren't codified as the lay people asked those of knowledge who had studied with the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions. As time passed, the need was realised to codify these basic principles to answer all future questions, which led to four basic methodologies (all based on revelation) being refined and developed over the years, each associated with a respective initial scholar (Shafi, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali). Each successive generation would learn the methodology and check and cross check proofs arrived at using the methodology in the light of all available evidences (each methodology assigning different weights to individual methodologies) to ensure as accurate results as possible. Examples of how these can differ include providing different weighting to hadith when in apparent contradiction to Qu'ran, considering physical actions permissable until proven impermissable or vice versa or considering deliberately performing discouraged actions habitually as equivalent to performing a forbidden action deliberately.

When issues came up that did not already have rulings, or circumstances changed, the methodologies allowed for new rulings to be conceived, checked and cross checked in as accurate a manner as possible.

Details of the differenecs can be found in most fiqh (understanding, basically Islamic law books), such as foundations of Islamic law by Hisham Kamali (who some on this forum don't like, but I found pretty objective) or the Four Imams by Sh Abu Zahra, which provides a more historical overview of the lives of these four important scholars and their methods.

Now, it is important to distinguish between fiqh, or law, which is what the madhabs/methodologies are concerned with, and aqeedah, or belief.

The "Wahabbis" ultimately have a slightly (some would say radically) different belief system to other sunni muslims, with different beliefs on who are disbelievers and what exactly you should do to them/how you should treat them.. This, combined with a variation on the Hanbali methodology for their fiqh, which can at times be rather strict, has led to some of the less savoury items that you may have seen.

Hope that helps,

Hmmm

[jacklfuller]

I notice some people write Qu'ran, others Koran. The spelling KORAN seems to be the Anglicized version and Qu'ran the Islamic/Arabic. I understand Arabic has no vowels but among Muslims, is there a widely accepted prefence for Englsih speakers? Also, when mentioning the Prophet's name, many times the phrase peace be upon his name is uttered or written afterward. Is that a mandate or for reasons other than respect?

[abdulwahhab]

I notice some people write Qu'ran, others Koran. The spelling KORAN seems to be the Anglicized version and Qu'ran the Islamic/Arabic. I understand Arabic has no vowels but among Muslims, is there a widely accepted prefence for Englsih speakers? Also, when mentioning the Prophet's name, many times the phrase peace be upon his name is uttered or written afterward. Is that a mandate or for reasons other than respect?

The Qur'an is the correct way since that is the closest way of writing it in Latin script to have it be pronounced to the Arabic word. The word 'Koran' is acceptable, but the word Qur'an is the closest; most Muslims use 'Qur'an'.

The phrase "peace be upon him" (in Arabic, it would be 'alayhis salam = ) is not mandatory, but a sign of respect; it is reserved for the prophets (the Shi'a like to use it for the family members (the ahlul bayt *) of the Prophet . For the Prophet Muhammed , the phrase is slightly modified to "peace and blessings of Allah be upon him". This is a sign of respect and is a highly recommended act. Continuously omitting to do so can be seen as a sign of disrespect.

* = radhiallahu 'anhum, which means Allah ** is pleased with them
** = subhana wa ta'ala, exalted and high is He.

This might be of some help:
http://www.muslimtents.com/aminahswo...n_phrases.html