Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
wa alaykum assalaam wr wb,Originally Posted by Abu Zayd al-Atharee
Agreed. Ameen to your duas. May Allah swt guide us both, ameen. I appologise if I came accross harsh. Unfortunately I can sound harsh, which is a dieffieciency in myself. So forgive me and remember me in your duas, jazakallah khairan.
wassalaam.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Alhamdulillah, I am happy we were able to end on a happy note. No need to ask for forgiveness, but please do make dua' for me too. May Allah reward you, wa salaam alaikum.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
Assalamu'Allaikum brother Harris,
Jazakum Allah for the lengthy response, it was most beneficial. You have raised some thought-provoking questions that must be addressed by someone who is knowledgeable. I can tell you that in the last few days, I have come to a new understanding with regards to the issue of Taqleed in general vis-a-vis those who practice Universal Taqleed or Taqleed-e-Ghayr Shakhsi. Yes, there is a vast misunderstanding among people that Salafis are against the very idea of Taqleed. By reading your posts, it has become clear that they still adhere to concept of Taqleed as it was practiced during the times of Salaf i.e., as long as one asks a scholar, he/she has fulfilled the ayah of Quran that commands us to ask the Ahluz Dhikr, if we don't know. At this point, I would like to express a personal observation I have made when reading about Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi. Among the contemporary scholars from subcontinent, he holds a special place in my heart. I have read his biography and came across his early teachers. I was much surprised to see that among the scholars who left an indelible imprint on him during his initial journey to knowledge were Salafis, namely Shaykh Khalil Arab Yamani and Dr. Taqi-uddin Hilali (may Allah have mercy on both). This observation helped in answering a long-standing question that I had in my mind as to why Shaykh Nadwi has shown so much deference to Hafiz Ibn-e-Taimiyah
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
So you yourself are unsure what the opposite of a true Hanbali is. OK.
I part from this aspect of our discussion by repeating your initial comment:
To me, it seems the opposite of 'true Hanbalis' in your kalam are the 'Salafites'. That is how I - as a reader - would understand it. I'll let other readers judge for themselves.
Akh, you lack knowledge in my estimation in this particular issue. The Hadith you are referring to as Munkar was used by Ibn Qudamah himself as evidence in al-Mughni, 2/141, ed. al-Turki. It is the Hadith of Wa'il bin Hujr reported by Ibn Khuzaymah where he say the Prophet placing his right on his left on his Sadr - chest. Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari, and al-Albani considered it to be Hasan Li-Ghayrihi. Yes, most scholars consider the addition of chest in the Hadith to be Ma'lul and weak, but like I explained before to you, Ibn Qudamah said the issue is a minor issue and is not a big deal. You, however, are making it into a major issue. I honestly fail to understand what you are trying to achieve here.
Akh, no need to get emotional. Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj, explaining Ibn 'l-Humam's words, said:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به
If two statements from two Mujtahids contradict, he must do Taharree. When his heart sets on one, he should implement it.
Scenario: If the farmer finds out that a there is a fatwa that prohibits the consumption of a cow that was consuming Haram, and another fatwa allowed the consumption of that cow, he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to do. He can inquire about the evidences used, and he can ask the Mufti - if he is available - for the Salaf of his fatwa.
And by the way, I am not an typical Ahle Hadees Ghayr Muqallid from Pakistan, so your request of 'only Quran and Sunnah' doesn't work on me. I have provided you with a principle from Hanafi Usool 'l-Fiqh.
See above.
Akh, I told you that it is the Hanaabilah who believe this. So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.
Ma' Salaamah.
Shukran, iqadeer.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
Sorry, but I didn't say that. Another assumption I'm afraid.
I am not making it into a big deal. As you have affirmed, the hadith is considered to be weak by the vast majority. But the point is this. Here you are claiming that people should make tahharee. And as the pseudo salafis claim (and correct me if I am wrong), that they evaluate the evidences and take what is stronger.Akh, you lack knowledge in my estimation in this particular issue. The Hadith you are referring to as Munkar was used by Ibn Qudamah himself as evidence in al-Mughni, 2/141, ed. al-Turki. It is the Hadith of Wa'il bin Hujr reported by Ibn Khuzaymah where he say the Prophet placing his right on his left on his Sadr - chest. Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari, and al-Albani considered it to be Hasan Li-Ghayrihi. Yes, most scholars consider the addition of chest in the Hadith to be Ma'lul and weak, but like I explained before to you, Ibn Qudamah said the issue is a minor issue and is not a big deal. You, however, are making it into a major issue. I honestly fail to understand what you are trying to achieve here.
A clear-cut case of pseudo salafis doing the opposite. Showing their bigotry. Where is the so-called 'tahharee' being employed here? Is this what tahharee is to you? To evaluate and take the weaker view? Subhnallah.
Imam Nawawi states that the hadith is weak, and the wording of 'on the chest' to be a fabrication. This is confirmed when you see that the hadith is being narrated from Sufyan al Thawri by a number of narrators. None of whom report the wording of 'on the chest' except Muammal whose narration the pseudo salafis rely upon. So it is clearly a fabrication. This is the same narrator most Muhaditheen did ta'leel of including Imam Bukhari (Mizan al i'itidaal) and Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyah (I'laam al Muwaqqieen).
In fact, Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyah even considered it to be makrooh to place the hands on the chest as he stated in BadailFawaaid.
So I am asking, where is the tahharee gone in this case? You are abandoning authentic narrations in place of weak narrations, and where the actual wording you are practicing upon, is actually an interpolation.
Another assumption I guess.Akh, no need to get emotional.
I think you should quote the whole text. This is far from conclusive.Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj, explaining Ibn 'l-Humam's words, said:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به
If two statements from two Mujtahids contradict, he must do Taharree. When his heart sets on one, he should implement it.
1. That is the statement of one scholar, but judging from the text there is more to this. I mean, this statement goes in a paragraph, which goes under a certain title and subject matter. Many a times, when a statement is taken out of that context, some of the meaning is lost. So I would like to know what was before it, after it and under what subject matter the statement was made.
There are still other possibilities, like it could refer to differing opinions within a madhab. You haven't shown that it refers to opinions between madhaahib. And in the case of it being within a madhab, then this is the practice of all madhaahib anyway. That's by necessity. So the whole paragraph with the subject matter is needed for clarification.
2. It does not mention anything about the layman doing tahharee. The kitab is obviously aimed at people of a certain level of learning and so the only reasonable conclusion would be is that the statement (at best) would be aimed at those very people. People who have the learning, understanding and capacity. When a medical doctor giving a talk to an audience for example, demonstrates a finding and states 'but please verify this for yourself'.
Is he talking to the layman? Is that what you would conclude? Please employ some common sense.
1. You have failed to present a viable and practical model.Scenario: If the farmer finds out that a there is a fatwa that prohibits the consumption of a cow that was consuming Haram, and another fatwa allowed the consumption of that cow, . He can inquire about the evidences used, and he can ask the Mufti - if he is available - for the Salaf of his fatwa.
2. How is he to understand the evidences without the prerequisite knowledge required?
3. Asking a Mufti is still taqleed.
4. I think the following statement of yours sums up the reality of what you are preaching towards:
In other words, follow his passions and desires. Subhallah. Says it all.he should do Taharree between the two fatwas and do what his heart tells him to do
I didn't say you were a typical ahle hadees and nor did I assume that. My request of Quran and Sunnah doesn't work on you? Is that you trying to avoid presenting any legitimate evidences? I mean after all you do preach to do tahharee do you not? So that's what I am doing and asking for valid evidences, which means going back to the Quran and Sunnah. Don't your scholars claim to follow Quran and Sunnah and evaluate evidences based upon them? So that's what I am asking for.And by the way, I am not an typical Ahle Hadees Ghayr Muqallid from Pakistan, so your request of 'only Quran and Sunnah' doesn't work on me.
No you have not. And again, I ask for the basis from the Quran and Sunnah. If you don't have any, then just admit it. Don't be shy. Just admit it to be baseless and we can end it here. Simple.I have provided you with a principle from Hanafi Usool 'l-Fiqh.
So in other words, it's a baseless belief with no evidences? It was just pulled out of thin air? And you actually still believe it?Akh, I told you that it is the Hanaabilah who believe this.
1. Provide quotations of where the Deobandi Ulama considered the doors of Ijtihad closed.So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.
2. Establish that the majority view of the Hanaabila has been to believe that every era there must be a Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam, and don't present the views of pseudo salafis. You have to establish it to have been the belief of at least the majority of the Hanbali Ulama.
3. Demonstrate how the contradiction comes about.
4. Further substantiate your claim by mentioning each and every era, and which of the Ulama were considered to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imams.
5. Present further evidences to show and establish that those Ulama had actually attained the qualifications required to be Mujtahid Mutlaq Imam and which Ulama confirmed this to be the case, of course quoting their words verbatim.
Until then. You have nothing. Just mere conjecture.
wallahu a'lam,
ma'a-ssalaama.
Last edited by imaan4success; 27-12-2009 at 10:25 PM.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
Wassalam, akh iqadeer
Take another step further and ask yourself this question: Have these issues not already been addressed by the scholars of the past?
Let me provide you with the answer: Indeed, the issues raised by me against Mathabistic Taqleed have been dealt with, and the alternative solutions to MT have already been addressed by the scholars of the past. The following points should suffice:
1. Layman has no Madhab, even if he claims to possess a Madhab. This is a well known principle in the books of Usool. I have quoted what IAH said about this on another thread. Only dedicated students of knowledge and scholars can correctly claim affiliation. However, understand that affiliation is not a virtue, nor would one be rewarded for it.
2. The only true way of avoiding desires is by asking the Qalb - heart. See al-Shatibi's quote below for more details. Mathabistic Taqleed has never been suggested as the medicine against desires in classical literature. In fact, from a Hanafi point of view, Imam Abu Hanifah himself is known to leave determination in a few issues to the individual himself when faced with the situation, i.e. one facing that situation should ask his Qalb. An example of asking one's Qalb would be when one thinks there is water nearby, he would have to search for it and is not allowed to do Tayammum until he does so and cannot find water.
3. A person who misses Fajr is also a person who follows desires and goes against the Fiqh of all Madhabs. More interesting examples of this are given by Ibn Taymiyyah reporting from Imam Ahmed as mentioned in Legal Status.
4. Universal Taqleed has Ijmaa' on it as al-Qarafi and others mention. This Ijmaa' cannot be broken or abrogated by any Zayd, Bakr or Amr. To claim that Mathabistic Taqleed is now the obligation is tantamount to saying that UT has been abrogated, and this is totally Batil.
5. The obligation of the layman is to ask. This is fulfilling the obligation of Taqleed. He may ask a trustworthy scholar. When there are multiple scholars, he should choose the best available. He should follow what he is instructed to do. Once he does so, he is not allowed to change his practice unless he is explained that his practice is weak. Ibn Ameer 'l-Haaj mentions this.
6. If one is faced with conflicting fatwas and cannot ask his local/personal scholar, and he had already not implemented either of the two fatwas, then he should perform Taharree. Usoolis like IAH and al-Shatibi (in al-Muwafaqat) mention this. In the Taharree, he should take the relevant factors into consideration, like try to gain access to the evidences and see, or see which scholars said what and follow the more knowledgeable scholar, etc. See what al-Shatibi says:
كل واحد منهما متبع لدليل عنده يقتضي ضد ما يقتضيه دليل صاحبه فهما صاحبا دليلين متضادين فاتباع أحدهما بالهوى اتباع للهوى وقد ما مر فيه فليس إلا الترجيح بالأعلمية وغيرها وأيضا فالمجتهدان بالنسبة إلى العامي كالدليلين بالنسبة إلى المجتهد فكما يجب على المجتهد الترجيح أو التوقف كذلك المقلد ولو جاز تحكيم التشهي والأغراض في مثل هذا لجاز للحاكم وهو باطل بالإجماع وأيضا فإن في مسائل الخلاف ضابطا قرآنيا ينفى اتباع الهوى جملة وهو قوله تعالى فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول وهذا المقلد قد تنازع في مسألته مجتهدان فوجب ردها إلى الله والرسول وهو الرجوع إلى الأدلة الشرعية وهو أبعد من متابعة الهوى والشهوة فإختياره أحد المذهبين بالهوى والشهوة مضاد للرجوع إلى الله والرسول
Every one of the two Muftis is following a Daleel that contradicts the other's Daleel, so they are contradicting one another. [For the layman] to follow one of them out of desire [i.e. without any Tarjeeh] is tantamount to following desire. Therefore, Tarjeeh can only be achieved via following the most knowledgeable etc. Also, the two [contradicting] Muftis in relation to the layman are like two [contradictory] evidences in relation to the Mufti, so just like a Mufti must do Tarjeeh or Tawaqquf, then likewise the Muqallid. If taking predilection and bias into consideration was allowed to ascertain the ruling, it would have been allowed for the Islamic Governor, but we all know that this is Batil by consensus. Also, in issues that have difference, there is a Quranic principle that totally negates [the possibility of] following desires, and that is the verse فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول, so this Muqallid has two Muftis contradicting one another in the issue facing him, so he must [implement the verse by] going back to the Shariah evidences [by asking for them from the Muftis etc.]. This method would save a person from following predilection and desires, but to take a Madhab [or fatwa] based on predilection or desires is against going back to Allah and the Messenger.
This was the prescription prescribed by al-Shatibi for not following desires. Where did he say that one must do MT to save oneself from desires? He didn't. In fact, he didn't even refute MT, which is a sign that obligating MT was a concept that was utterly unheard of and was totally alien in his era. Al-Shatibi was an outstanding Usooli and the Usool he discussed transcend the Madhabs - they are for all Muslims. So basically, the concept of the layman doing Tarjeeh via Taharree is thoroughly vindicated and justified.
The above six points are in relation to the layman. As for the rules for the Mufti, then he has rules too for when and how he should dish out fatwas, and some of these principles are differed upon in classical literature, but this is not the place to discuss them - as of yet (unless someone starts chatting pure rubbish in that topic too, in which case we shall see...).
Point is this: For the layman to go on the attack against other laymen he considers ti be 'Salafi' or 'Ghayr Muqallid' is completely idiotic. All are the same - laymen. To put it bluntly, if you are a layman reading this, then realise you are a Muslim and nothing else. Your 'Muslim' label is all what you should be concerned about and proud of, and not legal labels like 'Hanafi' 'Maliki' etc. as this is reserved for students of knowledge and scholars. Besides, this is just a legal affiliation to the base Madhab one focuses, studies and works off; it doesn't mean anything good or bad in the eyes of Allah. Even students and scholars have only the right to be proud of being a 'Muslim', and not the 'Hanafi' 'Maliki' labels, and this is obvious to the person who possesses common sense.
And a note to those extremist Mathabistic Muqallids who go on the rampage against those who don't subscribe to a Madhab by name, then realise you are just arguing over a 'label'. The reality is that you laymen are yourselves nothing, even if you claim to be a Hanafi or Shafi'i or whatever. IAH said this when explaining what "A layman has no Madhab" means. Sorry to be so blunt by telling you what your status is as laymen in the eyes of Usool 'l-Fiqh, but it is something you need to wake up to and realise that it is not worth the pain arguing over labels. Just stop bickering over this whole Mathabistic Taqleed thing for the sake of Allah. It is just not worth it. Unfortunately, there are certain laymen and students here and elsewhere who think otherwise and continue to brainwash other people, hampering the efforts of unification of methodology and mutual understanding in this issue.
So, akh iqadeer, do you have any problems, concerns or questions with how the classical Usooli scholars of the Four Schools have addressed the Fiqh issues surrounding the layman and his status in Fiqh? To me, it is quite clear...
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
1) A layman should ask a trustworthy scholar. For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here.
2) If the layman hadn't been told of anything in this issue, or had not implemented Salah in the first place, then he was confronted with conflicting opinions, he should ask a trustworthy scholar to clarify. If he learns of two scholars contradicting one another, he should do Tarjeeh via Taharree in the manner al-Shatibi mentioned (quoted in the previous post).
Provide us the text and reference where al-Nawawi declared the addition to be a fabrication. Remember, this addition is in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah. I read al-Nawawi's al-Majmu' and Sharh Saheeh Muslim - I couldn't find where he classed this as a fabrication. In fact, he used it in al-Majmu' as evidence. Also, Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath 'l-Bari without saying anything, which basically means that the Ibn Khuzaymah narration is at least Hasan according to him. Ibn Qudamah also used it as evidence.
He quoted a Sanad-less Hadith in that regard, so pay no attention to that insha'allah. What matters is that Ibn Qudamah said that it isn't a big deal.
Here is the whole text, which I had already posted previously recently:
إذا تعارض قولا مجتهدين يجب التحري فيهما فإذا وقع في قلبه أن الصواب أحدهما يجب العمل به ، وإذا عمل به ليس له أن يعمل بالآخر إلا إذا ظهر خطأ الأول ؛ لأن تعارض أقوال المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى المقلد كتعارض الأقيسة بالنسبة إلى المجتهد
It's in IAH's Sharh on Ibn 'l-Humam's book, when discussing Taqleed - for the layman.
Here is another reference - al-Subki the Shafi'i in al-Ibhaj, Sharh of al-Mihaj by al-Baydawi:
المسألة في حكم تعارض قولين لمجتهد واحد وهو بالنسبة إلى المقلدين كتعارض الأمارتين عند المجتهدين
The topic of the legal ruling of two [contradictory] statements issued by one Mujtahid. This is - for the Muqallid (performing universal Taqleed obviously) - is just like two evidences contradicting in front of the Mujtahids (i.e. the layman must do Tarjeeh between the two contradictory statements of that one Mujtahid ina ccordance to the guidelines set out for him)
Another reference - al-Shatibi the Maliki in al-Muwafaqat:
المسألة التاسعة
فتاوي المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى العوام كالأدلة الشرعية بالنسبة إلى المجتهدين
The 9th Issue - The fatwas of Mujtahids for the laymen are like legal evidences for the Mujtahids (so just like Mujathids do Tarjeeh in the evidences, the layman should do Tarjeeh in the fatwas in accordance with the guidlines al-Shatibi gave as I quoted above)
Exactly the same as IAH and al-Subki.
The Hanbalis obviously are the same in this issue, as the Hanabli Madhab by its very nature is a thorn in the throat of Mathabistic Taqleed.
I ask you, i4s: These scholars are telling the layman to do Tarjeeh. Why couldn't they just tell the layman to follow the Madhab dominant in his area, or the mainstream of the Madhab which is dominant in his area? Or are these scholars just stupid? Open your eyes akh. Taharree can only be performed by that person who is unaware of the evidences. Mujtahids don't perform Tarjeeh via Taharree.
Oh yes they do. Read the above quotes again.
SF is not a hospital.
Of course they are, albeit indirectly. So scholars should acquaint the layman that this is their obligation - to ask and implement, and when confronted with conflicting fatwas, then they have a protocol to stick by.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
And you think obligating Mathabistic Taqleed is a viable pratical model? Following one Madhab's rulings, or one scholar, is permissible at most. It is not an obligation, or else the majority of Usoolis would have spotted this and would have obligated MT. But they didn't. They maintained UT and proposed guidelines by which laymen should stick by. Their model is absolutely perfect.
Actually, it is the MT model that has flaws in it and in some cases not a viable model. This is because, MT claims to absolve the layman from Tarjeeh via Taharree. However, in some cases, a layman would be forced to do Tarjeeh via Taharree anyway, just as is the case in UT. Example of this are many: like the latest "Qasr in Mina" issue - there is no classical mainstream Hanafi solution for when Mina's buildings join up with Makkah's buildings, and we see that Hanafis are split up over this issue - Qasr or Itmaam.
Well while performing Taharree and he is able to comprehend what have a brief understanding of evidences, he should analyse and then ask his heart. Look at Islamic Finance by Mufti Taqi - the book can be read by laymen, and it deals in evidences and various conflicting classical opinions.
I know.
There is a difference between asking one's heart and following desires. Following desires is a sin, and that is what feels wrong in one own heart and you would dislike that people find out about what you are doing or what your intentions are. There is a Saheeh Hadith on this definition of sin. IAH mentions this:
أما عدم اعتقاد كونه متلاعبا بالدين متساهلا فيه فلا بد منه
As for him not having any intention of playing around with the Deen out of laxity [when taking a legal opinion], then this is necessary.
Imam al-Shatibi gave the detailed evidences for all of this, as well as IAH and others.
Let me ask you: What is the Quranic and prophetic tradition evidence you can provide the readers at SF that obligate MT upon the layman? Make sure you don't use evidences that merely obligate UT...
Mabaadiyaate Fiqh. Written by a Mufti in the UK. Endorsed by a Mufti in India. A book that also endorses an infamous fabrication against Imam Abu Hanifah.
Besides, to think that many Deos don't advocate this belief is making a fool out of yourself.
You are so funny dude. You have provided zero evidence for the obligation of MT from the Shariah; you have failed to explain why the Ijmaa' on the obligation UT has been abrogated. Yet you have the audacity to scrutinise everything I say.
Pick up any Hanbali book on Usool. Check out the chapter on Ijmaa'. You'll find it there. To make life easier for you:
http://waqfeya.net/category.php?cid=16
Check out the Hanbali Usool books.
Maybe you didn't read the first or second time, so here is the third time why the belief of 'the door of Ijtihad is shut forever' is annihilated by Hanbali Usool 'l-Fiqh:
Like I said before, the Hanbali Madhab is a thorn in the throats of pro-MTs.So if those pro-MT Deobandis who claim that the door of Ijtihad has shut, and then they obligate Hanbalis to follow what is in their Usool, then they should also obligate upon the Hanbalis to believe that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. Obviously, this would contradict their position on the door of Ijtihad becoming closed. It is a self-contradiction that is so blatant.
Hanaabilah say that no era can be void of a Mujtahid. They didn't say that it is necessary to know who exactly the Mujtahids are.
Besides, it is all irrelevant because the Hanaabilah opine that scholars who are aware of evidences must do Tarjeeh and cannot do Taqleed. So there you go - Hanaabilah doing Ijtihad.
Like I said, knowing the names of the Mujtahids is not necessary.
Whatever.
Wassalam
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
Jazakumullah for presenting your side of the argument. I must say that it was indeed very enlightening. After reading this, I have no intention to ever engage in such debates. Although, I have always respected the so-called Ahle Hadith and Salafi brothers, this has given me a new perspective about their approach.
Re: Fiqh of Sheikh Saud Al-Shuraim Imam of Kabah
Assalamu Allaikum brother Harris,
I have a question regarding Taqleed vis-a-vis Taharree. In point 1 above, you stated that "For many, al-Albani and his book Sifat 'l-Salah is trustworthy enough. So they did Taqleed. So no Taharree was employed here." So when exactly is Taharree employed? Let's take the example of salah. Should everyone (all laymen) be employing Taharree to evaluate the evidences offered by 4 madahib to reach a conclusion regarding which method is closest to the sunnah? Or, did I misunderstand Taharree completely? In other words, is there a defined domain where Taharree is to be employed or have the fuqaha left it open for all and sundry to use it wherever they observe a difference of opinion? Again, these are genuine questions as I would like to benefit from your presence on this forum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks