Ibn Taymiyya calling Taqlid Shakhsi a Deviation?

[Ansari]

Assalaamu Alaykum,

I came across this statement by Hafidh ibn Taymiyya in a book where questions are answered by the Salafi scholar Shaykh Fawzan. When I checked the original Arabic the translation seemed to be correct:

Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy on him said: "So whoever clings fanatically onto an individual apart from the Prophet, such as those who fanatically cling onto (the opinions of) Maalik, or Ash-Shaafi'ee or Ahmad or Abu Haneefah, and believes that the opinion of this specific individual is the correct thing that must be followed, apart from the opinion of the Imaam that contradicts him - whoever does this is a misguided ignoramus. Rather, he may even be a disbeliever, for when he firmly believes that the people are obligated to follow one specific individual among these Imaams, apart from the rest, he must be made to repent. So if he repents (then he is absolved), but if not, then he should be executed."

[Majmoo'-ul-Fataawaa: 22:248-249]

Quoted from the book: Beneficial Answers to Questions on Innovated Methodologies, by Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, Pg 75 - 76]

This is the original Fatwa:

وإذا كان الرجل متبعًا لأبي حنيفة أو مالك أو الشافعي أو أحمد، ورأي في بعض المسائل أن مذهب غيره أقوي فاتبعه، كان قد أحسن في ذلك، ولم يقدح ذلك في دينه، ولا عدالته بلا نزاع، بل هذا أولي بالحق، وأحب إلى الله ورسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم ممن يتعصب لواحد معين، غير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، كمن يتعصب لمالك أو الشافعي أو أحمد أو أبي حنيفة، ويري أن قول هذا المعين هو الصواب الذي ينبغي اتباعه، دون قول الإمام الذي خالفه‏.‏

/فمن فعل هذا، كان جاهلًا ضالًا، بل قد يكون كافرًا‏.‏ فإنه متي اعتقد أنه يجب على الناس اتباع واحد بعينه من هؤلاء الأئمة دون الإمام الآخر، فإنه يجب أن يستتاب‏.‏ فإن تاب، وإلا قتل‏.‏ بل غاية ما يقال‏:‏ إنه يسوغ أو ينبغي أو يجب على العامي أن يقلد واحدًا لا بعينه، من غير تعيين زيد ولا عمرو‏.‏

وأما أن يقول قائل‏:‏ إنه يجب على العامة تقليد فلان أو فلان، فهذا لا يقوله مسلم‏

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view...ID=252&CID=439

This is the original question posed to Ibn Taymiyya:

وَسئل ـ رَحمه اللّه ـ عن رجل حنفي صلى في جماعة، وأسر نيته، ثم رفع يديه في كل تكبيرة، فأنكر عليه فقيه الجماعة، وقال له‏:‏ هذا لا يجـوز في مذهبك وأنت مبتدع فيه، وأنت مذبذب، لا بإمامك اقتديت، ولا بمذهبك اهتديت‏.‏ فهل ما فعله نقص في صلاته ومخالفة للسنة ولإمامه أم لا

As one can see in the question posed to Ibn Taymiyya, it talks about a Hanafi person, who recites his intention quietly, and raises his hands [raf' al-yadayn] after every takbir, whereupon it was said to him that this is not permissible in your madhhab, and that you are an innovator. Thus in the end it is asked whether this deed (of the Hanafi person) invalidated his prayer ot not:

He first mentions the fiqhi issue about reciting the intention and the discussion whether one should raise his hands or not. Obviously he kind of refutes the Hanafi position and states that Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Mas'ud forgot the sunnah while other Sahaba remembered it. And thus states in the end of the discussion that this is not from the nawaaqid of salat and one can pray without raising the hands, but raising the hands is better according to Ibn Taymiyya.

Thereafter he calls the person who sticks to 1 Imam a deviant and states the above translated passage.

Then he states quite clearly that

وإذا كان الرجل متبعًا لأبي حنيفة أو مالك أو الشافعي أو أحمد، ورأي في بعض المسائل أن مذهب غيره أقوي فاتبعه، كان قد أحسن في ذلك،

'If a person is a follower of Abu Hanifa or Malik or Shafi'i or Ahmad and he sees in some issues in another madhab something more stronger, let him follow that, that is better'

Even worse, he comparises those who stick to 1 Imam to the Shia Rawaafid, because they single out Sayyiduna Ali and do not accept other Sahaba:

ومن تعصب لواحد بعينه من الأئمة دون الباقين، فهو بمنزلة من تعصب لواحد بعينه من الصحابة دون الباقين، كالرافضي الذي يتعصب لعلي دون الخلفاء الثلاثة وجمهور الصحابة‏

Perhaps I missed something or understood it incorrectly and other statements by Ibn Taymiyya should be brought too because I remember Mufti Taqi Usmani also used Ibn Taymiyya as his proof for taqlid in his book.

But can anyone comment on these statements and how we should view them?

[Ansari]

By the way, the same Shaykh Fawzan states in his commentary of Kitab al-Tawhid that following 1 of the 4 schools is acceptable:

ليس التمذهب بأحد المذاهب الأربعة ضلالاً حتى يعاب به صاحبه، ولا نقصاً في العلم. بل إن الذي يخرج عن أقوال الفقهاء المعتبرين وهو غير مؤهل للاجتهاد المطلق هو الذي يعتبر ضالاً وشاذاً
"Following one of the 4 schools is not deviation, nor does it mean he is poor in knowledge. Rather, the one who leaves the statements of the reliable jurists, who cannot perform absolut ijtihad, can be seen as a deviant."

Moreover when defending Ibn Abd al-Wahhab for being a Hanbali, he mentions other examples of scholars who followed a madhhab. He calls Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim Hanbali. Nawawi and Ibn Hajr Shafi'i. And Ibn Abd al-Barr Maliki. Tahawi a Hanafi.

See his own website: http://www.alfawzan.ws/AlFawzan/Libr...no=1&bookid=32

[Talib84]

Assalamu Alaikum

In one part of Mufti Taqi's db book on following a Madhab he mentions what ibn Taymiya RA said about picking and choosing between different opinions based on desires. After this Mufti Taqi db mentions that Ibn Taymiya RA himself believed that following a particular Imam was not permissible.

I also read a passage by ibn Taymiya RA in Rafu Al Malaan as mentioned by Maulana Mohamad Zakariya RA in Shariah And Tariqat. After narrating ten reasons why the Imams do not accept a hadith, ibn Taymiya mentions some other points, one of which is: "Many Authentic and clear hadith reached the Imams, but because of strong proofs they did not take them. They are many authentic narrations on rafa yadain, but neither the four Imams nor the majority of muhaditheen took them.

Is this referring to the regular rafa yadain before or after ruku, or rafa yadain at other places in salah?

[maneatinglizard]

It sounds like, though I could be wrong, that he's talking about a person who believes that one has to follow one specific person, i.e. that Imam Abu Hanifa has to be followed by everyone, bar none.

[Ansari]

Yes, I think you are right. There is also a clear statement of his in Minhaj as-Sunnah refuting the Rafidi who comes with the accusation that you Sunnis do not follow the Prophet but the 4 schools of thougt, as also cited by Ml. Sarfraz in Kalam al-Mufid. I see if I can find it.

[al_Zayn]

Assalamu Alaikum



I also read a passage by ibn Taymiya RA in Rafu Al Malaan as mentioned by Maulana Mohamad Zakariya RA in Shariah And Tariqat. After narrating ten reasons why the Imams do not accept a hadith, ibn Taymiya mentions some other points, one of which is: "Many Authentic and clear hadith reached the Imams, but because of strong proofs they did not take them.They are many authentic narrations on rafa yadain, but neither the four Imams nor the majority of muhaditheen took them.

Is this referring to the regular rafa yadain before or after ruku, or rafa yadain at other places in salah?

Can you or any of the Brothers find me this quote from Raf' al-Malaam? can't seem to find it.

رفع الملام عن الأئمة الأعلام

http://feqh.al-islam.com/Loader.aspx...ID=114&TOCID=1

However; i have found the quote of Ibn Taymiyyah in Raf' al-Malaam utilised by Shaykh Muhammad Awammah in his Aathaar al-Hadeeth al-Shareef (which quoted often for Taqleed of al-Madhaahib al-Arba'ah):

http://feqh.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?p...okID=114&PID=3

ثم لو فرض انحصار حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " - ص 18 -" فيها ، فليس كل ما في الكتب يعلمه العالم . ولا يكاد ذلك يحصل لأحد ، بل قد يكون عند الرجل الدواوين الكثيرة . وهو لا يحيط بما فيها .
بل الذين كانوا قبل جَمع هذه الدواوين كانوا أعلِم بالسنة من المتأخرين بكثير ، لأن كثيرا مما بلغهم ، وصَحَّ
عندهم ، قد لا يبلغنا إلا عن مجهول ، أو بإسناد منقطع ، أو لا يبلغنا بالكليَّة
فقد كانت دواوينهم ، صدورهم التي تحوي أضعاف ما في الدواوين ، وهذا أمر لا يشك في من علم القضية


Also quoted on Askimam:

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...a6164ff092bde4

as for the discussion, i think Br. Maneatinglizard is correct - i think it is referrting to the die hard fanatics who think their Madh-habs is the correct one. (there were fanatics like this previously)

Not to digress - Br Ansari, i dont recall whether it was you or another brother, who bought a quote in from the Hanbali books regarding a Hanbali Shaykh who said one has to be a Hanbali and nothing else, basically; live hanbali die hanbali or something along those lines - cant seem to remember though this was a while back.

Wallahu A'lam.

[ImamGhazzaali]

Also quoted on Askimam:

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...a6164ff092bde4

Wallahu A'lam.

The Fatwa, look at the 2nd sentence in the answer. How is it Waajib for us to follow a Madhhab without asking for it's proofs and evidences? I don't get this. Seems dodgy unless one explain to me.

[amr123]

It sounds like, though I could be wrong, that he's talking about a person who believes that one has to follow one specific person, i.e. that Imam Abu Hanifa has to be followed by everyone, bar none.

I too think that what Ibn Taymmiya meant.
Some people insist only one Imam is correct. I ve read somewhere that in the past even changing madhab was a taboo. He must ve made this statement refuting such people.

Basically its all the sunna of our Beloved Rasoolullah(saw). And the four Imams have strong evidence, so what He meant is its ok for a person who follows mainly Hanafi madhab to follow a few sunnahs of Shafi'i madhab.etc.

Besides there are examples when Sahaba did the same thing in different ways and the Prophet(saw) approving both ways.

While following an Imam, people forget that this ball of knowledge did not begin with them. They acquired it through the Sahaba, who got it through The Prophet (saw), who got it through Jibreel(as) which is All from Allah The Almighty.

Allah knows best.

[TripolySunni]

It sounds like, though I could be wrong, that he's talking about a person who believes that one has to follow one specific person, i.e. that Imam Abu Hanifa has to be followed by everyone, bar none.

Salam Aleykum,

Exactly that's what he means, he even uses the word "Ta'assub" "تعصب" the OP totally misunderstood the text.
In the beginning he says it is ok to follow Abu Hanifa or Shafi'i or the others without "Ta'assub" meaning without extremism, as in thinking that "Abu Hanifa is the only one who should be followed and he is the only one with the truth and those after him are all wrong."

[TripolySunni]

I too think that what Ibn Taymmiya meant.
Some people insist only one Imam is correct. I ve read somewhere that in the past even changing madhab was a taboo. He must ve made this statement refuting such people.

Basically its all the sunna of our Beloved Rasoolullah(saw). And the four Imams have strong evidence, .

السلام عليكم

You said "In the past", you hit the spot that is the exact same time period which Ibn Tayymiyah (rah) was living in, there was supreme "ta'asub" to the Madhabs back then and you wouldn't be surprised if Shafi'i's weren't allowed to marry Hanafis back in those days.