a rolling stone gathers some mossy – on taqlid, talfiq, switching madhhabs, etc.

[ibn ajiba]

bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem

dear brothers/sisters,

assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah.

having read the thread about which madhhab would people choose if they could switch from their existing one, i wished to contribute some remarks. i didn’t envisage though, when i started this, that it would become so long. as a first time poster i’m not sure if i have violated one of the rules of participation, which stated, ‘do not flood the forum with random long postings that are impossible to read.’ if i have, i apologise, and will not again post something so long. but nevertheless, due to the extraordinarily long nature of this piece, it will be posted in four parts, consecutively below.

the thread i alluded to just now, should anyone want to refer to it, may be located at, http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275

brother mossy, most of my comments will be directed at some of what you’ve said. which i mention so early, because this is one seriously long post, which might have disinclined you from reading it. mentioning that reference is made to some of your views may entice you to persist, though i’m sure you’ll contend with a number of the points i make.

more recently, i noticed another thread on ijtihad and madhhabs, in which a sister dhakiyya was contending some points, may Allah ta’ala reward her sincerity. though what i’ve written here was written before that thread began, many of the issues treated below are directly relevant to that thread too. which can be found at, http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=524

i ask Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala to guide my words, and prevent them from being a source of misguidance, error, corruption and antagonism.

so, in reference to the former thread (the first url cited above), regarding the matter of *being able to* switch madhhabs, and this not necessarily being a matter of the nafs, for a muqallid could feasibly switch based upon a preference for some of the usul [methodological bases] of one madhhab over another:

i would contend with some of what has been written, not because it seems in essence wrong, but because of some of the reasoning cited underpinning the justification. one of the fundamental factors in contemplating this question must be the issue of the arabic language.

a muqallid who is not sufficiently proficient in arabic - to the extent that s/he cannot access arabic sources, and/or understand what s/he finds in them - has a considerable handicap. now, it is not being denied that a decent degree of understanding of what taqlid is, how madhhabs function, what ijtihad is, how ta’arud al-adillah [conflicting evidences, or as shaykh adbal hakim murad translates it: mutual contradiction of proof-texts] operates, what constitutes talfiq and what are the parameters of talfiq, can be acquired through non-arabic sources. in part this can be thanked to the tremendous contributions of those mashayikh who today provide a bridge between arabic and english – an ideal example of which is the phenomenal fatwa of Shaykh Murabit al-Haj, hafiDHahullah - which Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, may Allah ta'ala preserve him, translated into english - and address some of these issues.

notwithstanding this, it *must* be recognized that not having the ability to access the original source material in arabic, compromises the sensitivity of the understanding a muqallid is capable of achieving. if anyone doubts this point then they need to seek clarification on it soon. else they could continue to make *some* false assumptions, and *some* erroneous conclusions about how they justify switching madhhabs, and the matter of talfiq.

for the one who knows not arabic to the degree that s/he does not require translation (nb: sharh [commentary] upon specialized and technical texts is something else entirely, which i’m not discounting the need for even of one who knows arabic) then their *entire* understanding of these concepts is based upon a trust that precludes the kind of independence of thought necessary to permit forming opinions about notions of talfiq and switching madhhabs that could be done without scholarly sanction. yes, through translations, and transmissions of such concepts in english by qualified and authorized teachers, one can obtain a sound grasp of what these concepts are, and that understanding may approach the understanding of one who is able to go straight to the original arabic. but it will never match it. for instance, the linguistic dimension of comprehension of dalil naqli [textual proof] will elude such a one. however, the crucial difference is that the one who has that handle on arabic is capable of verification, and has the capacity of refining their fahm [understanding] to a point that the non-arabic-understanding student is precluded from. simply because so much detail is missed when the understanding sits squarely in a language other than the language of revelation. this, i believe, is partly an experiential phenomenon, not necessarily one that can be easily articulated by one who has experienced it, though examples of what is meant clearly help. still, the finesse, the refinement, the sensitivity, of comprehension, lacks. if you have two students, matched in their intellectual acuity, diligence, ability to learn, etc., then the opportunity to excel will *always* - bi idhnillah ta’ala - be greater if one has arabic and one doesn’t. because scholarship - in the domain of fiqh, ijtihad, istinbat, tarjih, ta’arud, etc. - exists *only* in the language of revelation, not urdu, not english, not farsi, no other language. and i am talking here about the *process* of scholarship, not things like overviews of why the quality of scholarship declined, or why the qualitativeness of ijtihad diminished, why ta’assub [excessive and undue partisanship to a madhhab] was borne, etc. so, please understand, that on this point, where navigating the deep waters of fiqh is concerned, scholarly activity needs to be done in arabic. (the outcome of that activity may then be translated.)

which means that all those complex questions, sophisticated issues, complicated cases, related to talfiq, switching madhhabs, etc., cannot be accessed by the non-arabic-understanding muqallid until and unless someone translates those essential works where such points are treated. and to my limited insight, still many of these issues that are necessary to know haven’t yet been treated at all, or adequately in english. such being the case, how then can such a brother/sister who is at the mercy of such translations even be aware of all that is related to the matter, if it has not been transmitted in their language of comprehension? they depend upon being educated and rely upon translation to achieve this. yet ironically, probably much of this discussion would have been stopped at the door had they been able to refer to the arabic source-material. and Allah ta’ala knows best.

note that the point being made is not that the muqallid cannot know the theory behind when it is allowed to switch madhhabs, adopt variant rulings within one’s own madhhab, and/or adopt rulings from outside of one’s madhhab. rather, it is being asserted that merely knowing the theory does not equate to being able to do it in pratice *without the sanction of an ‘alim at the necessary level of being able to sanction such a practice*. because to do so requires having the certified and recognized authority to be able to do so, so if one doesn’t possess this, then one is precluded from deciding for oneself that they can indeed engage in such practices as and when they see fit.

at university when one attends a lecture on a particular subject, they are later presented with a reading list of additional material, that’d help broaden one’s knowledge-base as well as add depth to it. that reading list is in arabic primarily when it comes to ‘ulum al-deen [sciences of the deen] relevant to fiqh. so one who cannot access it is curtailed from broadening and deepening their understanding.

another corollary of this then, is that brothers/sisters who are non-arabic-understanding muqallids have *no choice* but to rely on the integrity of those ‘ulema/tulaab [students] who translate. note, the matter is not about placing a question-mark over their trustworthiness, for alhamdulillah - unlike in some quarters where they engage in selective editing of classical works, and interpolating those texts with their own comments, justifying sometimes an understanding completely at odds with what the original author intended! - we can make shukr [thanks] to Allah ta’ala for providing us with extremely upstanding, and reliable intermediaries to the texts/works of the classical ‘ulema. no names need to be mentioned as most of us know the names of these ‘ulema and tulaab that have, and are, providing us with brilliant translations of masterworks from the classical era. their web articles are frequently sourced on this site by contributors.

nevertheless, the fact that some of us are forced to trust the translated efforts of others, compromises our ability to construct any kind of an understanding *from first-principles*. because arabic is a key to building (upon) first-principles, without which we have an eroded ability to proceed and progress, wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

moreover, *because* we cannot verify the source-material, ultimately then, our understanding resides partly on our trust, not on our *direct* understanding. there is a world of difference between one whose understanding comes from a direct study of Imam al-Sha’rani’s - rahim’Allah - Mizan al-Kubra, in the original arabic, and one whose understanding is based on reading, or even studying, a translated version of the book (by the way, to my knowledge, before anyone gets excited, the book has not been translated into english. shame.). because you just cannot know, or even determine, how exact the translation is, nor how much – no matter how minute – has been lost in translation, and where the translator has been forced to make a judgement call, or just a decision, about the intended meaning of the author. nb: this is not the same as willfully distorting texts to fit with one’s own paradigm.

a translation of the meaning can never be identical to the original. and the loss thus entailed will be reflected in the coarseness of comprehension by the one so forced to rely on other than the original. why is it that even though there exists a stunning translation of Umdat as-Salik [Reliance of the Traveller], formal students are *still* required to cover the text in the original arabic? (i know that is not the only reason.)

with all the above said and done, what is *not* being said, is that arabic is a sufficient condition. rather, that it is a necessary condition.

i was recently reading John Stuart Mill’s essay on Utilitarianism. now, i don’t consider myself to be thick (i may not be be able to get a handle on quantum physics, but still, that doesn’t mean i’m stupid), but i struggled with parts of it. and i started reflecting on why? i realized it had nothing to do with my intelligence and everything to do with the archaic language used back in his time. we simply don’t use english like they did back then. it has evolved. similarly, a modern grasp of arabic is not enough to understand books written in the fusha [classical] arabic. that should be borne in mind too.

so now, coming onto the connection between arabic and talfiq and/or switching madhhabs…

if one lacks the arabic, then by extension, one is unable to engage in the very necessary process of *due diligence*. due diligence is the comprehensive and exhaustive investigation of *everything* related to the matter one is concerned with. an obvious example is ijtihad. due diligence is a _sine qua non_ of ijtihad. but due diligence is also required on a lower level, say that of the muqallid who is wondering about when it is justified to switch madhhabs. or the muqallid who is trying to ascertain if it is alright to seek out various dispensations, to facilitate some particular hardship. or the muqallid who is deciding whether s/he needs to commit to a single madhhab as opposed to kind of choosing bits from across the spectra of madhhahib.

how does that muqallid know if his/her justification to the self about the answer to the above questions is indeed sound, or not? if one is not capable of undertaking a process of due diligence, then it is questionable how responsibly this individual has acted in coming to their conclusions. which then raises the question of their taklif [legal responsibility] in the akhira, concerning their accountability on this matter. for while the matter was beyond them (to determine independently), they chose not to stay within the limits of their confinement, but to venture beyond and extrapolate a view. thus they increased their taklif beyond what it needed to have been. is this other than foolhardiness? not being able to engage in due diligence should be a warning-sign that you need to be asking those who know. for if you don’t (ask them), and choose to formulate your own opinion - *even* if that opinion is your amalgamation of the opinions of those you’ve sourced, or your distillation of what you’ve researched, based on orthodox and authoritative sources/references - then you don’t know if this opinion you’re reached yourself is sanctioned by those who are qualified to sanction a legitimate islamic view. and by relying on oneself rather than the Ahl al-‘Ilm, you bring upon yourself the burden of responsibility in terms of being accountable to Allah ta’ala. which, ironically, is what taqlid helps one avoid, because by making taqlid, you *shift* the burden of that responsibility onto the one tasked with knowing. and so if any error occurs, then it is on their part, not yours, so you are safe in the akhira (i will return to this point later, when addressing a point someone made). and whilst they may still receive a reward for an erroneous yet valid ijtihad, had it been you who had undertaken it - without the required qualification - then no such reward would exist, only the possibility of punishment, save the rahma of Allah ta’ala. because yours is not considered an ijtihad, but mere supposition, speculation and conjecture, wal iyadhubillah.

reflect on the gravity of this ikhwan wa ikhawat. it is no light matter. the onerous possibility that i might one day have to answer for my folly helps keep this unworthy ‘abd in check, in terms of giving free reign to his unlearned views.

one thing that becomes apparent very quickly to someone who has studied formally, in an orthodox manner, from living teachers possessed not only of asanaaid [chains of transmission] and the requisite ijazas [authorizations], but also that sublime approximation to the Prophetic character, is: who hasn’t, and/or who disregards the essentiality of doing so, and/or those whose thinking has stamped upon it much influence from the study of books/tapes alone, yet no guiding hand of a reliable teacher. and one of the ways this can be noticed is though the brazen employment of ‘i think’s,’ ‘in my (humble) opinion’s,’ and ‘if you ask me’s.’ especially when the reader can see the contradiction between such views and the relied-upon position(s) that have been cemented through the ages. after all, it is our ignorance that leads us to think these are matters that remain up in the air, when in reality they were settled eons ago. these are simple issues, not complex.. it is but the doubt of the time (we find ourselves in) which perpetuates the illusion that they are open to question.

by the way, nothing i’ve written above has come from other than our teachers, or through the realization of their teaching. meaning something they didn’t explicitly express but is undoubtedly contained within the meaning. i didn’t just read some books and come to some conclusions. i didn’t just reflect on some issues and form an opinion. i didn’t merely contemplate on the matters i was wondering about and then start to opine my own unlearned views. and it would matter not one iota had i done that in conjunction with what orthodoxy teaches, for the sheer likelihood of arriving at a view not sanctioned by those representative of legitimate opinion. that act itself is what is blameworthy. so doing it with one hand holding the mashayikh still doesn’t exonerate one. when you hold the hand of the mashayikh of guidance, you do so with both hands. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf related, one of the signs of the end of time is every person’s amazement with their own views. [aw qama qal]

lest someone allege that i’ve done the latter too if i’ve drawn inferences from what we have been taught, when it wasn’t explicitly stated, then let me elaborate to dispel (the possibility of) that doubt. if a person says, “i hate you,” then it necessarily means they dislike you too, even though they did not explicitly say that. why? because the act of hating *necessarily* incorporates the act of disliking. meaning it is *a fortiori* true that if you hate then by extension you must also dislike. this is a rule in logic incidentally, which is self-evident to most upon reflection.

similarly to infer the centrality of arabic as a corollary to the sensitivity and completeness of one’s understanding of a particular issue, is not only a fact that can be established in this way, but something that is *a posteriori* [by experience] true as well as *a priori* [by reasoning/inference]. on top of which it has undoubtedly been explained directly in the source texts.

as an example, some have expressed the feasibility of following different madhahib in such a way that every particular mas’ala one follows is valid according to at least one of the madhahib. brother mossy, i refer to your post (#24 in the thread, located on page 3),

“Not necessarily - we've discussed mixin n matchin and the permissable/impermissable forms of this elsewhere I believe. Therefore it is completely possible to follow an implementation of Islam which means that you do not follow the majority of opinions from any one madhab, while ensuring that your resultant actions are acceptable under the rulings of at least one, right? The question arises as to what juristic technique you follow as a default - unless of course you check out what each madhab says about an action as you come across it and don't have a default.. For example, I personally default to Hanafi fiqh and the majority of my actions are in accordance to that. Occasionally I do believe that the rulings of another school in complete actions make more sense and follow those.”

in principle yes, according to what we have learned on the authority of our teachers, one *can* do one act as a hanafi, another (unrelated) act as a shafi’i, another (unrelated act) as a maliki, and yet another (unrelated act) as a hanbali, as long as the pre-conditions for validity are met, and the reasons for doing so are sound and praiseworthy, free from the censure and rebuke associated with wrong reasons for doing so.

that’s the theory. the practicality is something else. compound that practicality with the consideration that it is a muqallid wanting to do this and it’s a whole other ballgame my friend. the immense difficulty of doing this should not be understated, not underestimated. in order to be able to know this, a person would need to be proficient in all four madhhabs for every single mas’ala they engaged in, or have access to one who is! do you know how hard that is? studying just the basics of one madhhab properly, formally, takes time. to become proficient therefore takes even longer. Sidi Ridhwan Saleem, a student of hanafi fiqh, writes, “If you really are interested in the "evidences" please step forward to study the sacred knowledge. You are most welcome! Just to get to a basic level will take at least 5-8 years of serious study. That's just a basic graduate; you haven’t even begun to specialize yet!”

http://www.lightstudy.org/askevidence.htm

to then become possessed of a degree of knowledge in that madhhab where one can know and differentiate the relied-upon rulings, the strongly- preferred, the preferred, the well-known, the rare, the strange, the aberrant, etc., is not an easy task at all. which begs the question that for a muqallid to try and follow all four madhhab selectively, how exactly does such a one, incapable of due-diligence, ensure they are acting in a way that is concordant with one of the madhahib on each issue?

if you multiply this task, and the time required, by four – which is way too simplistic a way of demonstrating the difficulty involved - it’s no walk in the park.

far easier, and arguably far more sensible, would be to adhere to one madhhab. the danger of contravening all four by selective-following - when one is not that learned - should be sufficient to dissuade most who are possessed of intelligence and a concern for their akhira. which, by the way, does not imply that those who aren’t so dissuaded don’t care for their akhira. meaning, i don’t say this as a way of ridiculing those who choose the path you seem to be advocating, but merely to draw attention to the very real likelihood of such a one not being able to stay safely between the four walls of the madhahib. seriously, ask someone like sidi musa furber - who used to moderate the hanbali fiqh yahoogroup - how easy it is to gain proficiency in two madhhabs, let alone four. and he is someone who is capable of following two separately, not four intertwinedly. fiqh is about being able to worship Allah ta’ala validly and properly. the question of that validity existing through the adherence to one of the four acceptable madhahib, need not take so long to establish, such that it might detract from the actual engagement in that ’ibadaat. why burden yourself with having to validate each action according to four possibly different sets of criteria, when it has already been validated according to at least one? would the time required not be better put to some other use, like drawing close to the One whom we seek to worship, jalla jalalu?

why would someone want to bring such a degree of hardship and burden upon themself? upon the precedent of which acceptable-by-consensus scholar? who engages in such a practice that has formed the example for one of us to want to do that too? if the answer is no one, then that should also be the reason for not wanting to do it.

note, what we are here discussing is *not* the same as primarily adhering to one madhhab and then stepping outside of it occasionally - as you alluded to of your own practice brother mossy - for a need or necessity sanctioned by the shar’a. (i know you didn’t refer to such a need/necessity as a basis for stepping outside of your own madhhab.)

in relation to your assertion about following the rulings in another madhhab that make more sense, then this requires some closer scrutiny too, for “more sense,” is a relative measurement that seems to suggest that some sort of value-judgement is being made.

if by “more sense” we are referring to a methodological basis which seems to agree with our predilections, then fine *in origin*. namely, before one starts adhering to one madhhab. the problem here is when one (who is a muqallid) is already following a madhhab - i.e. a methodological basis - and now one prefers a different one in a particular issue. this floating criteria raises eyebrows. does that which makes “more sense” to a muqallid, matter? that that muqallid seems to think it does, is it of any bearing? is one ruling making more sense than another a valid criterion for a muqallid to use to distinguish a preference? *can* something like this make more sense to a muqallid? what does it mean to make more sense? is this based on how much that muqallid knows or how little? because to prefer one ruling over another, one would need to know all that relates to both rulings, and that which both are free of (e.g. conflicting evidence). how does making more sense square with this? surely, for one ruling to make more sense than another - in the framework of a muqallid - would require much less than what is actually required to make a distinction of such magnitude, from a scholarly frame of reference. simply because a muqallid has less to go by, and so in comparing different rulings will necessarily reduce the issue to the extent of his/her knowledge. and whether that knowledge is sufficient is questionable.

a muqallid saying that one ruling makes more sense than another, as a *personal* statement of understanding, with full acknowledgement of one’s present limitations, such that that statement doesn’t become a basis for acting upon it is different. as a muqallid i might say that one ruling makes more sense to me, whilst still realizing that my thinking so is no basis for me to make a decision about that ruling that affects my acting upon it, or preferring to act upon another. because there are probably other considerations i am unaware of which impact the argument underpinning that ruling, which would strengthen it had i but known. and if i am to act upon a basis of choosing rulings that make more sense to me, then i need to be certain that my understanding is free from error. how would i propose that, other than sticking to the ‘ulema, few if any of which would be likely to endorse such a policy of choosing rulings, if they knew about it. wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

furthermore, that muqallid needs to be aware that this is a relative preference, and not an absolute judgement about one madhab being more right than another. meaning, it is entirely a subjective perception, and subjective in a way that is not complimentary to his understanding. whereas when it is subjective according to the comprehension of the mujtahid, then this is commendable. but we need to be attuned to the criteria we are using to make this value-judgement of “more sense”. because if we are at the level of muqallid, then in essence such a judgement is redundant anyway, as it counts for nothing in terms of a substantiated juristic opinion, right?

brother mossy, you went on to write (post #27, page 3), in response to brother salman (post #26):

“This is an interesting point. If it is only "from piety" to stick to one school, but not a legal/juristic compulsion, then on what grounds can one "choose" to follow a ruling from another school?”

the above phrasing requires some amendment, with respect. the choice is not made by “one,” when the pronoun ‘one’ is referring to the muqallid who does not satisfy the conditions for making that choice. normally that choice is made by the one who does satisfy such conditions. insha’Allah we’ll examine this particular point in more detail later, when addressing another excerpt of yours that touches upon the issue of *choice*.

as far as it being from piety to stick to only one madhhab, then if this is one reason it is not the only one, though it has already been acknowledged above (and by brother salman) that one can follow more than one madhhab if that following meets the relevant conditions (that are) stipulated. another reason why it may be better to follow one madhhab primarily, is to ensure consistency in the validity of all your acts, particularly when acts are concomitant and interdependent (e.g. tahara and salat). else you risk invalidating your actions. you yourself have made this point, so no need to dwell on it further. but the chances of it (i.e. invalidation) occurring are considerable for one who wants to be able to selectively follow the madhahib, if s/he is a muqallid. it seems upon reading this thread that such consequences are downplayed in the minds of those muqallideen who want to choose when to follow one madhhab and when to follow another.

yet another reason for sticking to one madhhab, is ease of learning, for remember that some of your acts are fard ‘ayn, and there exists an immediacy about learning them (e.g. salat), so learning them quickly (though properly) is paramount. it is then surely unwise to decide to follow no one madhhab by default (not something you, brother mossy, seem to be doing, from your words), because that forces the muqallid to know all four in order to know that s/he is following at least one madhhab validly in each act that s/he does. unless of course one is la madhhabi, in which case it won’t matter to them anyway.

the following few sentences contain some propositions that i will use unquestioningly. and i will be drawing inferences from them. so if you take issue with any of the propositions, then it will undermine the points i’m making, and i’ll have to substantiate the relevant proposition. i mention this in the interests of honesty and integrity, simply because i am going to be citing them without justifying them, because my assumption is that readers here will take them for granted. if i am wrong, then the issue is wider than what i thought. here we go then: fiqh was transmitted separately to hadith, as you know. and it is an enclosed science, so therefore one cannot – as some of the la madhhabiyya do – just study ‘ilm al-hadith and related ‘uloom, and expect to become proficient in fiqh, in a way that measures up according to the broad standards of the established and accepted sunni madhhahib. nor can one study fiqh outside of the framework of a madhhab, for reasons which i hope on a forum such as this one would not need to go into.


cont'd

[ibn ajiba]

in that same post (#27), brother mossy, you go on to state,

“I will take issue with your first inference. The mujtahid will fully understand the details of the proof, the one not at that level will still have some level of understanding, but not a perfect one. Fiqh isn't limited in understanding to only mujtahids - the key differential of the mujtahid is that they have the knowledge/skills to be able to maintain internal consistency in their analysis of the nusus etc when determining a non-immediately reconcilable problem. Therefore it is not impossible to understand the reasoning behind their decision/judgement for one not on their level, the main difference between following a result of the ijtihad of a mujtahid and doing your own ijtihad is that the mujtahid eliminates a large part of false reasoning due to their extra knowledge. Therefore it is not necessary to be a mujtahid to understand their reasoning as it simply follows from whatever axiomatic system of fiqh they happen to follow.”

a fascinating paragraph, incorporating a number of issues i’ve thought about myself, often.

we’re agreed on the fact that the non-mujtahid can still be possessed with some degree of comprehension, albeit flawed and/or imperfect.

however, we disagree on the key differential of the mujtahid in relation to the muqallid. for a few reasons, in no special order. your analysis here excludes the spiritual aspect. the tawfiq granted to one who is a mujtahid forms part of the normative sunan of Allah ta’ala. in that they take the requisite means, and He, azza wa jal, grants them success in their efforts of ijtihad. and whilst this is not a guarantor of being right, it is a guarantor of the *probability* of being more right than a non-mujtahid. now, if someone wants to cite cases of erroneous ijtihad, then this is not a proof against the above point, but an instance where the fallibility of a mujtahid is manifested. this too forms part of other normative sunan. given that the relationship between a mujtahid and Allah ta’ala is one of the ‘abd and his Lord, subhanahu wa ta’ala, then the tawfiq or absence of tawfiq is not something the reasons for which are always readily discernible, because an inward dimension plays a part, which others may not be able to know.

being a mujtahid is not a purely academic skill (i know you did not say it was). it is not a rank achieved only due to study and the acquisition of knowledge. if one reads the biographies of the eponyms for example (see Shaykh Gibril Haddad’s excellent series of biographies on the classical mujtahideen over at Sunnah.org or the Living Islam website) one will see that associated with their mastery of the various ‘uloom, was a practice and intensity of ibadaat and general conduct which in this day and age defies belief. the long nights they devoted day in day out to the worship of their Rabb, jalla thana’u, the regularity with which they devoted time to the Book of Allah, the constancy of their dhikr of their Lord, subhanahu wa ta’ala, their proximity to our Blessed Nabi, salallahu alayhi wassalam, and more, all were *essential*, not *incidental* factors to the tawfiq that Allah, azza wa jal, granted to their ijtihadaat. for anyone to disagree would render the scholarly endeavours of such luminaries to mere academic exercises, in which case i should be free to make wael hallaq – who writes better than many muslim authors of english works on usul al-fiqh – a reference point for fiqh and usul.

it is related that Imam al-Bukhari, radhi’Allahu ’anh, used to pray 2 rakats before including any hadith in his al-Jami al-Sahih. subhan’Allah. Imam ash-Shafi’i, radhi’Allahu ’anh, studied arabic formally for many years, despite being an arab by birth. that is a sign of humility and of deference to the Sacred Knowledge, as well as his concern for upholding the standard of excellence. and more, it is a sign that Allah ta’ala wanted good for this illustrious Imam of ours, radhi’Allahu ’anh.

my point? that we as muqallid’s need to also consider not just the extensiveness of our reading and understanding of fiqh, ijtihad, methodology, etc., but the associated practice we engage in our day to day lives, that would be an aid to the possibility of our success [tawfiq] in arriving at the soundest fahm of our deen. some muslims - not on this forum i hasten to add! - proceed *as if* they have more confidence in their own abilities of arriving at the truth, than they do in Allah ta’ala guiding them to that right understanding. they seem to be so self-satisfied and smug concerning their own intellectual abilities. wallahu a’lam. i write as one who fell into such a disingenuous trap of shaytan, a’uzubillah.

the second reason i would cite as a key differentiator between a mujtahid and muqallid, and perhaps one that i would place above your cited differential, is that of due diligence. the mujtahid - by virtue of his/her attainment of *mastery*, as opposed to mere proficiency (an important fact to remember) - is able to engage in due diligence. the muqallid isn’t, can’t, won’t. and there is no hiding from it or getting round it. as a muqallid, you are *precluded* from the level of due diligence that a mujtahid has. which means that while you may be able to follow the hermeneutic principles and methodology of the mujtahid and his/her ijtihad, and understand his/her juristic reasoning/argument, you are only at liberty to do so if s/he reveals this to you, which is not an obligation upon him/her in the first instance, for the taklif of the muqallid is to follow, not to necessarily comprehend what/why they are following that fiqh. it is not incumbent upon me to understand the reasoning and proofs of the Ahnaf to begin/continue following their madhhab. all that is required is a general conviction in the validity and perpetuation of their madhhab. and such a conviction has no bearing on the validity and perpetuation of the madhhab, rather it is just a reassurance for myself. in the same way that one considering embracing islam needs a conviction in the Qur’an being the word of Allah ta’ala if one is to accept all that it contains. yet not being possessed of such a conviction subtracts nothing from the truth of the Qur’an, for it is more a reflection of oneself than any kind of a reflection on the Qur’an.

after all, if one is at a stage where they have to pick a madhhab (i.e. for the purposes of learning their basic fiqh), then it follows that they are equally not yet at a stage where they can discount the validity of any madhhab, or ascertain the preponderance of which fiqh rulings in which madhhabs are the strongest. if you don’t yet know enough fiqh to make wudu, then you definitely can’t know enough usul al-fiqh to be weighing up the various madhhahib against themselves! as an aside, because this was my own foolishness, if you find yourself knowing more usul al-fiqh than basic fiqh when you don’t yet know your basic fiqh properly, something is very remiss, lol!

coming back to the issue of due diligence, from another perspective. when the muqallid is unable to engage in due diligence, then s/he is unable to call upon the requisite independence of thought that a mujtahid possesses. which again, precludes the muqallid from being able to assess the de/merits of that mujtahid’s ijtihad, tarjih, or whatever it is. the *most* that the muqallid could do is follow the mujtahid’s reasoning and proofs, his/her methodology and principles, and notice any defects in all that. for the mujtahid is not infallible, and thus remains susceptible to logical fallacies and errors in reasoning, and if a layman has a level of proficiency with such things, then yes, they may be able to pick up on some flaws in that ijtihad *in this regard*. an example of one mujtahid noticing the flaws in the reasoning of another, can be seen here, by the formidable Imam al-Nawawi, radhi’Allahu ’anh:

“7 Ibn Hazm said in "al-Ihkam fi usul al-ahkam" (5:64): "The saying "Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy" is the most perverse saying possible, because if difference were mercy, agreement would be anger, and it is impossible for a Muslim to say this, because there can only be either agreement, or difference, and there can only be either mercy, or anger." However, Imam Nawawi said in his Commentary on "Sahih Muslim": "If something (i.e. agreement) is a mercy it is not necessary for its opposite to be the opposite of mercy. No-one makes this binding, and no-one even says this except an ignoramus or one who affects ignorance. Allah the Exalted said: "And of His mercy He has made night for you so that you would rest in it," and He has named night a mercy: it does not necessarily ensue from this that the day is a punishment." ”

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/ikhtilaf.htm

i know the above example is not of a muqallid addressing a point of reasoning by a mujtahid, given that Imam al-Nawawi, radhi’Allahu ’anh, was at the rank of mujtahid. suffice to say that acquiring the kind of ability to be able to discern - as Imam al-Nawawi, radhi’Allahu ’anh did above - unsound reasoning from sound, is not confined to the domain of the mujtahid, yet is required for a mutjahid to be able to do, as brother mossy mentioned, so “that the mujtahid eliminates a large part of false reasoning due to their extra knowledge.” we need to be careful not to overstep the bounds here, and extend what i’ve said to other areas of the muqallid’s capability vis a vis the mujtahid’s ijtihad.

may Allah ta’ala reward all of our Mujtahid Imams for being lanterns of guidance for us, bi’idhnillah ta’ala.

it is also important to note that there would a difference between a muqallid noticing flaws in a mujtahid’s reasoning and declaring that ijtihad to be strong/weak. or declaring that another opinion is sounder, for these are relative judgements/analyses, which require a degree of knowledge not likely to be within the current remit of that muqallid. rather, it would take someone of a level approaching that of the mujtahid to be able to do that. for instance, a mujtahid from another madhhab defending a charge against his/her madhhab about a particular fiqh position known to be attributed to his/her madhhab, which has been contended by a mujtahid of a different school. for a muqallid to wade into such a debate would entail knowing the arguments of both mujtahid’s, as opposed to just constructing some low-level independent reasoning that prefers one view over another. such reasoning wouldn’t take into account the juristic argument completely. i say completely because it is conceivable that the muqallid might be able to touch upon some of the points the jurist made, merely by reflecting on the issue. but some is not all. because to do that, that muqallid would need to be possessed of much substantive knowledge - for example, additional evidences, principles, not used by the two mujtahids in question (who are debating the ijtihad) - and this is highly unlikely. for if it is possible that a muqallid might know some adilla [evidences/proofs]/qawa’id [principles] then again, *a fortiori* that possibility becomes a probability in the case of the mujtahid. in other words it is almost inconceivable that a muqallid could point to some dalil/qai’da that could have a bearing on the ijtihad/tarjih, which was overlooked by the mujtahid. wallahu a’lam.

given that a judgement about the strength/weakness of a particular ijtihad/tarjih, or the preferring of one ijtihad over another would require additional considerations, and that these additional considerations could only become known the the muqallid if s/he were to be made aware of them - as opposed to say, coming up with them alone - then again the muqallid finds himself relying upon another to provide some new, thus far unconsidered insight. which again points to the lack of independence of thought on the part of the muqallid.

another point about due diligence is that the muqallid may not be able to access all the sources which that ijtihad has been built upon - such as, say, various shuruh [commentaries] of the ahadith referred to - which means that the muqallid’s examination of that ijtihad will again not be able to be detached from the lens of the mujtahid. only if the muqallid could independently verify and measure the qualitative aspect of that ijtihad, could s/he be in a position to judge it. but s/he is precluded, because she lacks the juristic and hermeneutic tools, the access to the entire *corpus juri* of necessary consideration. all of which would be impossible if the door to the arabic language remained unopened. in which case you wouldn’t even be able to get off the ground.

so, to reiterate, yes, there is of course a difference in the level one must be at to *make* ijtihad, and the level required to *understand* an ijtihad. clearly the former requires a *far* superior level of acuity and (legal, i.e. juristic) acumen. nonetheless i would question the qualitative nature of the understanding that a muqallid has of a specific ijtihad, versus the qualitative understanding mujtahid Y has of mujtahid X’s ijtihad. it is not unreasonable to assume that the muqallid’s understanding would be qualitatively inferior to that of mujthiad Y. a simple example could be that when reading the ijtihad of mujtahid X, the muqallid may be learning certain things for the first time, and is therefore confined to the understanding and explanation of mujthaid X. whereas mujtahid Y is more likely to have already studied that same point-of-learning, and more crucially, done so independently from mujtahid X. but even - for arguments sake - say mujthid X was a teacher of mujtahid Y, and taught the latter that particular thing, then by virtue of now reaching a rank of ijtihad too, mujtahid Y could assess that point independently. The example of Imam Shaybani in relation to some of the fiqh positions of Imam Abu Hanifa, radhi’Allahu ’anhum, comes to mind.

like if i was an apprentice mechanic, and the chief mechanic taught me how to use a certain tool. as my learning developed i might initiate a new way of using that tool, which is independent of the way of my teacher. but that presupposes my mastery. similarly, assessing the ijtihad of a mujtahid presupposes the ability of the muqallid to be at the rank of being an assessor. which, in reality, one would not still be a muqallid - of the level *we* are alluding to - if one could do that.

qualifying with some authority the last 10-or-so paragraphs (about due diligence) i will cite a fantastic answer by Sidi Hamza Karamali, may Allah ta’ala bless him, when he was addressing some points about taqlid and ijtihad over at the Sunnipath website:

“The definition of taqleed—as mentioned by Ibn al-Subki and others—is to act on someone else’s position without knowledge of his evidence … Jalal al-Mahalli said in his commentary on this definition:

‘His saying without knowledge of his evidence excludes acting on his position with knowledge of his evidence, for this would constitute an ijtihad that agrees with the ijtihad of the one he is following, since only a mujtahid can know the evidence because its knowledge is dependent on knowing that it is unblemished by contrary evidences. This is based on the position that it is obligatory on him to investigate [h: the evidence], which is dependent on complete knowledge of all the evidences, and no one is able to do this except a mujtahid.’

Shaykh al-Islam [h: Zakariyya al-Ansari] explained this by saying that only a mujtahid can know the evidence in a manner that establishes the ruling.

Regardless, what is meant by their [h: i.e., the scholars of usul al-fiqh] saying without knowledge of its evidence is: without complete knowledge of its evidence. This [h: complete knowledge] is the knowledge that enables the extraction of a ruling based on ijtihad (istinbat ijtihadi) … whose prerequisite is that the conditions mentioned in the books of usul [h: for a person to be a mujtahid] be met.

So taqleed includes both (1) the taqleed of a non-scholar (‘aammi) when he doesn’t know the evidence of the mujtahid he is following and (2) [h: his taqleed] when he knows the evidence, but not in a complete manner, meaning that he knows how it indicates [h: the ruling] but he does not know it in a manner that establishes the ruling [h: because he is not a mujtahid].

Madh-hab mujtahids and fatwa-mujtahids [h: discussed above] both fall into this category [h: i.e, they are muqallids], for their adopting the position of an absolute mujtahid falls under taqleed and does not fall under the ijtihad described above.” (Bulugh al-Suul, 23)

In other words, the Salafi aspersion is incorrect because as long as someone is unable to make ijtihad, they cannot really know the evidence used by the mujtahid they are following. All they know is a hadith or ayah quoted in support of the position. They don’t have knowledge of all the other evidences or the rules of deducing Shari‘ah laws from their primary texts, which is the only way in which they would truly understand the evidence. This is why muqallids are not permitted to deduce detailed fiqh rulings directly from hadiths, and this is why they must follow their madh-hab even if they see a hadith that seems contrary to the position of the madh-hab.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...A00001779.aspx

moving on…

based on your statement (#24, page 3), “Occasionally I do believe that the rulings of another school in complete actions make more sense and follow those.” brother salman asked (#26, page 3), “Is this based on what you deduce from looking at their proofs or from what you yourself perceive?”

To which you responded (#27, page 3), “perception does play some role in fiqh as I'm sure you know - istihsan for example.” And then you continued, “Is it obligatory to follow the results of the istihsan of a scholar or indeed qiyas? Is choosing not to follow the result of ray of a certain scholar and instead following that of another in a certain issue blameworthy in itself? Or is it dependent on the reasons for which one chooses one over the other?”

forgive me brother salman, for i am about to try and interpret what you meant without asking you, so i may be completely wrong. but this is based on what i thought you meant when you wrote what you did:

another consideration we need to dwell on is that of the scope of a mujtahid when dealing with the topics related to his/her ijtihad. insha’Allah i’ll explain this via an analogy of a PhD student, which treats an obviously narrower scope than what a mutjtahid does. when undertaking their doctorate research, the student will ideally consult all the relevant sources. else how will s/he know which ones are ultimately relevant and which are not, to their research/investigation? so, even from the perspective of eliminating those sources which are not required, s/he will first have to check them, right? but in the final thesis, those unused sources will not be quoted, for they proved to be irrelevant (though they might be cited as background sources i suppose). only those that were referred to will be cited, and maybe some that could be additional useful reading. plus some references may provide secondary material and consideration, though protocol will dicate they *will* be listed in the sources.

so then, a layman with an interest in that same field of research, might acquire this PhD’s thesis, with an eye to assess it, see how good it is. but if that layman does not bear in mind that the sources cited are only the ones used, and merely relies upon those same sources when verifying the study, then s/he has not done a proper independent investigation. rather, that layman must also source *all* the relevant references - including the ones the PhD may have accessed but ending up not using, and maybe more that were unknown to the PhD (e.g. new sources that were unpublished at the time the PhD was doing his/her research) - in case something was overlooked by the PhD, or not studied meticulously enough to be found relevant. maybe one of those sources was not investigated thoroughly enough, and contained something of use. so this would be necessary too by the layman.

furthermore, the breadth and depth of knowledge acquired through those secondary sources - even if they ended up not being used - would still have been invaluable. if only so the PhD student could claim to have accessed them to discount their use. but by confining himself only to what is presented in the thesis, the layman restricts his ability to fully assess the thesis, and do so with an independence of thought.

i could give as an example my citation of the quote from Imam al-Nawawi - radhi’Allahu ’anh - above. when writing that section, it occurred to me to give an example, and i remembered the above example of the Imam, radhi’Allahu ’anh. but i couldn’t remember where i’d seen the article. so i searched online, and had to scour through a few different articles before i located the correct one. each article i checked, i had to skim through it to see if the quote was there before it was possible for me to conclude that this was the wrong article. until finally i read something that triggered my memory, reminding me which was the right article. i then found that correct one, checked it, and yes the quote was there. but had i not just mentioned all this, then you, the reader, would not know the extent of my reading just for that one small quote.

likewise, if the mujtahid doesn’t inform you of all the extraneous work done, related to his ijtihad, you’d remain oblivious. another point connected to this, is the fact that when you read the ijtihad, you’re only aware of the limited scope of what it contains, not all the surrounding work done. it is this surrounding work that accounts for why a mujtahid is a mujtahid too. and this aspect is the same in any discipline. the knowledge possessed by the bearer and disseminator will always be broader and deeper than what is revealed to the beneficiary. because not all of the extra material will be necessary to be transmitted to the student/reader. hence, it is absurd to think that merely reading the ijtihad is enough to place one on a par with the one making the ijtihad, or if not on a par, then (even) close enough to be able to assess that ijtihad.

and we must not forget also, that ijtihad is not just interpretation, so one shouldn’t confuse the act of interpretation with ijtihad. ijtihad entails much, much more.

further on in the same post (#27, page 3), you wrote,

“Is choosing not to follow the result of ray of a certain scholar and instead following that of another in a certain issue blameworthy in itself? Or is it dependent on the reasons for which one chooses one over the other?

“If it is blameworthy in itself for a layman, then it would seem that there is no place for personal opinion in choosing the way one implements Islam into one's life.”

to the first part, one would have to ask what the reasons were, and their validity, given the level of the one making the choice. since the question is asking whether it is blameworthy, the answer will question whether it is sensible. ra’y [personal opinion] can be a misleading word, for it can wrongly imply personal reasoning of a rational kind that is without a binding authority. the “opinions” of these scholars are our means for understanding the Book and Sunna. divorced from their opinions we are left with our own opinions, which have what kind of basis that we should emplace our trust in, and reliance upon, them?

Sidi Faraz Rabbani, of Sunnipath, makes the following interesting point too,

“Many great scholars, who were at the level of ijtihad in the school, used to ask others (even their students!) for answers to their own problems, in order to submit to the command of Allah, "Ask the people of remembrance if you know not.”

aside from this though, it is questionable whether such a choice even exists for the muqallid in the first place. whilst your questions doesn’t specify if you are talking within the scope of the same madhhab, or across madhahib, if we assume the former as being one sub-question of that overall question, then Sidi Faraz Rabbani writes on this point,

“The lay person and even scholars, do not "have a choice". Rather, they have to follow the positions relied upon by the scholars of verification of their school.”

“Also, a lay person is not allowed to give themselves a fatwa based on a hunch or some floating set of understandings they have developed. This would be sinful, even if they are right.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...A00000869.aspx

with reference to the second part of the above excerpt from your post, ultimately it stems from an issue of trust, and Allah azza wa jal knows best. when Imam Ibn al-Qayyim - radhi’Allahu ’anh - placed the opinion of Imam ash-Shafi’i - radhi’Allahu ’anh - over his own, declaring about those who preceded his generation that, “their opinions for us are better than our opinions are for ourselves,” (aw qama qal; see Shaykh Hamza’s article in the Zaytuna booklet on taqlid), and our teachers follow that same protocol, what makes us want to depart from that? when Shaykh Hamza, hafiDHahullah, related about his teacher in Mecca, who was maliki, being corrected by a man for the way he prayed (i.e. sadl [hands by the side]), and his teacher replied that he would feel safer with Malik’s (radhi’Allahu ’anh) mistakes than the brother’s corrections, then this too sums it up, for me at least. those who are blind will interpret that incident as an example of ta’assub. those with sight will realize it for what it was, the lesson therein, and the hikma it contained. wallahu ta’ala a’lam. again, from the same article, the story related by Imam Asad ibn Furat - rahim’Allah - when he found a man teaching, who would cast aside the opinion of Imam Malik, radhi’Allahu ’anh, and prefer his own. Imam Asad, rahim’Allah, explained how it seemed like this man was like one who stood at the shore of a great ocean, urinated, and proclaimed to others, “look, another ocean!” {these three examples are all paraphrased, so please verify them from the booklet.}

aside from the pivotal point of my lacking the requisite knowledge and authority, my nafs is not purified that i might trust myself to decide how best to implement fiqh rulings, by choosing which ones i prefer over others.

continuing that post #27 on page three, brother mossy, you wondered,

“If it is permissable to choose on any basis the results of scholarly opinion (as opposed to ijtihad), then it would seem there is a place for lay personal opinion in this. These considerations can then be extended to ijtihad on areas where there is ikhtilaf - is it actively blameworthy to choose one view in preference to another?”

i don’t know that “it is permissable to choose on any basis the results of scholarly opinion”. such a premise is questionable if it is a muqallid (especially muqallid ‘ammi) doing the choosing. and “on any basis” is way too general. we have been taught that the correct basis is conviction in the 'alim/madhhab. and that conviction for many of us rests upon trust. that trust in turn, is based upon: testimony concerning that ‘alim, reputation, observance of ostensible righteousness and taqwa, knowledge - which we can broadly determine as being within the fold of the orthodoxy or not - and more.

when the issue being addressed is contentious, and surrounded by khilaf, then we - as muqallideen – would have to resort to turning to those we trust the most. what other choice do we have? so on this level, trust is our criteria, not our (non-)ability to outweigh opinions. wallahu a’lam.

cont'd

[ibn ajiba]

you then said (#27, page 3),

“is it actively blameworthy to choose one view in preference to another? Should only majority views be followed? Under what circumstances is it not blameworthy to follow a non-majority view/the view of another madhab?”

to the first point, it depends on how the choice is made, and by whom. most times, for the muqallid, it’ll be based on trust. even when we delude ourselves that we’re choosing based on evidence and proof. because even then our considerations and preference is led by that of those whom we trust and turn to; our comprehension will be shaded according to the colour of their argument. unless we turn to no one and go it alone, which is false too because muqallideen all turn somewhere, be it a direct source (e.g. teachers, friends, family, etc.), or indirect (e.g. books, tapes, websites, etc.). sometimes the trust that comes from referring to indirect sources can be open to question too. because it can lead to the principle of petitio principii [begging the question]. as in the case, say, when someone stumbles across an online fatwa site, knowing nothing about the mufti, but starts liking the *way* the answers are written. and mistaking this etiquette with how the answers are written for authentic knowledge (one does not necessarily mean the other). over time this site becomes a trusted reference point. then one day someone questions your trust of it, and you justify your trust by saying, ‘because the answers are authoritative,’ when in fact they are authoritative to you because you trust them, but you tell yourself you trust them *because* they are trustworthy. this is a delusion that plagues and affects many unfortunately, the justification of which is based upon a classic logical fallacy.

as far as whether majority views should be followed, then which majority? the majority in the ummah, or in a madhhab, or in all the madhahib? and is it always the case that the majority view - regardless of how one defines that majority - is the strongest view? the measurement of which again brings us back to our catch-22: the muqallid who acts as if s/he is a mujtahid. for a learner, it is advised to stick to the relied-upon position of their madhhab, wallahu a’lam. this is particularly true in well-established issues. but today - and perhaps this is where the brother is directing this point towards – we are faced with opinions that address new realities (e.g. fiqh of minorities), where there may not be a relied-upon position, because it is a novel case. so how then to decide? the only feasible basis for a muqallid would be trust. and if - if we take this example - the shaykh who is pro fiqh al-aqliyyat [fiqh of minorities] is one you trust, and the shaykh who opposes it is likewise one you trust, then you must decide who you trust more, and if you still have doubt, then take the means to remove that doubt, by, say, asking those who have examined the issue on a more advanced level. either way, your decision we still be based upon trust, rather than some independent exercise of assessment. because if you end up familiarizing yourself with the argument, then your view will be coloured by whomsoever you trust the most. yes, you may *tell* yourself you’re following the proof, but in point of fact what you’ll be following is someone’s exercise of tarjih/assessment.

the circumstances when it is not blameworthy to follow a non-majority view, or the view of another madhhab, are delineated well in the Shari’ah. possible examples include being due to an excruciating need, sometimes a necessity, sometimes a greater benefit/interest. none of which are decided by the muqallid, ever, unless some exceptional situation arises where one has no choice. such as traveling to some foreign land and finding oneself faced with some unforeseen situation, which demands to be dealt with immediately.

then, in post #33 on page 4 of the thread, brother mossy wrote,

“Does that mean one should only switch madhabs once one has learnt the fiqh of the madhab in depth from a teacher? My view is that each madhab has it's own distinct basis - this is the key differentiator. For example, Maliki fiqh based on amal al madina etc. If one basis makes more sense than another to you, I would think that it would be perfectly acceptable to choose that basis for your own particular implementation of Islam”

when one learns fiqh initially, generally proofs are not cited. occasionally they are, to buttress the lesson, or address some matter of importance (e.g. some common misconception regarding the particular point of fiqh being covered - say, the mas’ala of wiping over khuffs as opposed to regular socks). but one would not learn about the proofs/evidences till a more advanced stage, when studying a more advanced text in the madhhab. certainly the usul of the madhhab, and its relation to the fiqh derived therefrom would not be taught so early. we are talking maybe years. and during that time, your affinity for your madhhab is likely to become ingrained. there is nothing wrong with this, given that we uphold all four.

as an aside, the phenomenon today whereby some heterodox institutions have started teached comparative fiqh is a new one, and dangerous at that. often students are not at the requisite level of proficiency in one madhhab, yet they are introduced to differences of opinion across all madhahib. the fact of the matter is that at such a stage in their learning, they are still like corks on the sea. they will be inclined towards the view of whoever presents them with the most convincing argument, even if that argument is not per se the strongest. until the next person with a stronger argument comes along and does the same, at which point they’ll incline towards their view. and so on, possibly ad infinitum! speak to a strong shafi’i faqih and he’ll convince you of the relative weakness of amal ahl al-medina as an asl. speak to a maliki thereafter and he might convince you back. i have experienced such phenomena firsthand. if when you are still a neophyte, you take this approach of adopting that which makes more sense, then you will forever be hopping from one view to the other, and back. and this is a distraction from the real business of fiqh, which is to provide you with the means to outwardly seek the pleasure of Allah ta’ala through your in/actions.

i remember once reading a book which outlines the usul of all four madhhabs, which then proceeds to undermine some of the unique bases in each, summarily. a pseudo-refutation, which to my untrained mind, was quite convincing. now though, having studied briefly the lives of these giants who founded these madhahib, i find it inconceivable that their unique bases could so easily be demolished, *even if i can’t rebut the refutations* that are found in books like that. because my trust in those A’immah to have constructed something hard to demolish far outweighs my trust in those trying to demolish. someone might retort that that is an appeal to authority, and thus fallacious. to which i’d contend by saying that even logicians accept that there are valid appeals to authority when the issue revolves around a matter where a high degree of expertise is required such that so few could possibly attain that degree. which in the case of the rank of mujtahid mutlaq is definitely so.

as far as assessing the fiqh positions of the mujtahid imams / madhhabs by judging “their rulings in accordance to the provided evidence (from the Quraan and Sunnah)”, (see sister FatimaM’s post on page 4, #39) then it is my guess that this forms a singular view on this forum, shared by no one else. the reason being that it seems, from the vast majority of posts in this thread, most of us understand the need to make taqlid, and the discussion up till now has mainly been about the parameters of that. however, for the sole benefit of the sister making the above assertion - may Allah ta’ala bless you, and enable us all to arrive at the best understandings - it is a given that the rulings you profess to judge, are *based* on the kitab and sunna, or a basis derived therefrom, so it would be redundant to judge them according to those yardsticks. the rulings are derived from “the provided evidence.” yes, some harp on about rulings made in the early times of fiqh when maybe some evidences were unknown to some imam who made some ijtihad. that was an argument that may have had some basis then, not an argument that has any kind of a basis now. and even those usul that are other than the Kitab and Sunna, and derived originally therefrom, which have been accepted by all madhahib as being *subjectively* valid, are considered as shubuhat al-dalil [doubtful evidence/proof] by the madhhabs that don’t adopt them, wallahu a’lam. shubuhat al-dalil is not the same as no dalil, or baseless dalil. meaning, although not all mujtahideen / madhahib accept every ‘asl in another madhhab, all of them accept their validity according to the methodological bases of the madhhab which adopts them. yes, there are exceptions to that general statement i have made, but if we dwell on every exception to a generality, we will become people who hang on exceptions, not norms. when we have yet to become able in the situations governing the norms, should we really we using exceptions to make a point?

Imam Zaid Shakir gives a nice analogy in the recently uploaded talk Introduction to Following a Madhhab. he likens the Kitab and Sunna to a mountain, and says that the madhhabs are like binoculars, without which the untrained eye, although it can see the mountain, will not be able to benefit from the immense detail provided by the binoculars of the madhhabs. so one can either look unaided, or with the help of binoculars. and the detail is what makes the difference.

http://209.41.170.97:8080/ramgen/%7E...0A%20Madhab.rm

as a minor additional point to the sister who made the above statement, who exactly is the one judging the rulings? if it is us, then we are precluded from doing so, by virtue of being muqallideen. we simply do not have the necessary tools to do so, nor is it within our jurisdiction to do so. wallahu a’lam.

Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad summed it up nicely when he wrote, “As for those that reject the 4 Madhhabs and pretend to follow the Qur'an and Sunna independently today, they are like one who rejects rocket technology and says he'll go to the moon on his own good feet. Bon voyage.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000851.aspx

returning to our dear brother mossy, we now turn our attention to your post #38 on page 4, from where we quote,

“something which doesn't seem to be picked up on is that the definition of these jurisitic "principles" isn't necessarily agreed upon between the madhabs. For example, the Maliki position on istihsan is that it is essentially the same as istislah as they consider it a type of this. Similarly, we have the Shafi position on qiyas vs ijtihad and the exact meanings of this as compared to, say, the Hanafi meaning of this.”

this may have been an issue when fiqh, usul and the madhahib were evolving at the outset, when the various sciences were yet to be delineated markedly. it no longer is an issue. again, we need to avoid referring to understandings that existed back when these matters were unresolved. now, with so much time having passed, and fiqh, usul and madhahib positions having become rarified, and the many recensions that have occurred over the centuries, the above divergences in understandings are redundant, for the concepts are defined clearly, if one goes to the right sources. for example, yes, maybe there was a time when some ‘ulema used the term qiyas synonymously with ijtihad, and this is understandable when such technical nomenclature was still finding its feet in the early days, and debate surrounded the concepts. but as time passed, and comprehension developed, the concepts became settled, understood and clearly defined, and such definitions became agreed upon, despite the madhhab-specific contentions prevailing regarding the validity of specific usuli bases/principles. notwithstanding this, they came to realize that whether they accepted or rejected such bases/principles, in the eyes of their proponents these concepts were here to stay.

brother mossy continued,

“Also interesting is the fact that madhabs aren't defined by their "originator" imam's per se.. Just because Imam Shafi was against "istihsan", doesn't mean that all Shafi's were completely”

very true, both points (you see, i’m not all about just disagreeing with everything you say, lol!). the former point is also one reason why it is fruitless to contend positions that have existed for so long now in the madhahib (especially relied-upon positions) - on matters that are closed because no new knowledge is discoverable in regards to them - because whilst one may have been able to argue at one time that a particular mujtahid imam was unaware of some, say hadith, or other evidence, that argument no longer holds water, because if so many mujtahideen have come and rechecked the position, measured it in the light of new knowledge, and still the position holds, then there came a point when it became cemented indelibly. an example of such an instance of recension is that of Imam Tahawi, radhi’Allahu ’anh, as Shaykh Gibril mentions,

“The Hanafi Madhhab "matured" very early. The fatwa today revolves around its first two generations, namely: the Imam, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Zufar, all but the third being classed as hadith Masters. Then came Imam Abu Ja`far al-Tahawi (229-321) whose monumental recensions of hadith [1] fully support the positions of the School, [2] precede or are exactly contemporaneous with the canonical Nine Books, and [3] leave nothing to be desired from the Nine Books but rather rival or - according to Imam al-Kawthari - supplant them in many respects.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000879.aspx

separately, albeit related to the point, Sidi Hamza Karamali and Sidi Mostafa Azam both write,

“Those unfamiliar with the concept of a “madhhab” are often under the impression that to follow the school of a particular Imam means to follow all his positions “no matter what”. This is not true. Each of the four schools of fiqh consisted of hundreds of top-notch scholars who were experts in a wide range of Islamic sciences. Over the generations, these scholars checked and refined the positions of the Imam of the school and the positions of the scholars who came before them. The late books of each school represent the collective effort of a whole school, and it is not uncommon to find that the position adopted by the school is contrary to the position of the particular Imam that the school is attributed to. Someone who really understands this will appreciate how absurd it is for someone to come along in the twenty - first century and claim that something recorded in the late books of a school has no proof behind it. To make such a claim is to accuse a millennium of Islamic genius of being sub-par (or even worse) “blind-followers who turn away from the Qur’an and Sunna”.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00001768.aspx

if we still consider that those positions are followed due to blameworthy reasons (such as ta’assub), then we are implying that some of these subsequent fuqaha were either (i) incompetent, (ii) partisan, and more concerned about maintaining an already established position, rather than letting new, previously unconsidered evidences/arguments lead them to another position of fiqh, and/or (iii) insincere. may Allah ta’ala keep afar from us such unbefitting doubts. for sure partisanship existed amongst some, but that is not why an existing fiqh position perpetuated and withstood the test of time. wallahu ta’ala a’lam. and regarding ta’assub, Shaykh Gibril wrote,

“Discord existed because the Fuqaha’ were human beings exerting ijtihad to the best of their abilities but with differing levels of knowledge, competence, and character. Some might have trespassed and shown ta`assub but on the whole they showed admirable restraint and mutual acceptance among the people of Truth, meaning Ahl al-Sunna. A most shining example of this among the Salaf and Khalaf is Imam al-Nawawi, Allah have mercy on him and all of them.”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000851.aspx

brother mossy, in your penultimate post in the thread at the time of my writing this (#46, page 5), you wrote,

“I am not personally convinced that the methodology of any particular madhab is a perfect means of deriving the Shariah as close as possible in this day and age. However, I do believe that together they do a pretty good job.”

however, slightly earlier in that very same post you stated that, “Funnily enough, you don't actually have to know what you're following - save perhaps in aqeedah.”

respectfully, but doesn’t this seem like a contradiction? if one need not know what one is following in fiqh, then this means one need not know that what one is following is perfect, yes? (aside from the question of whether a muqallid *can* determine whether what they are following is perfect, and whether the perfection you talk about can be pluralistic in nature.)

on this same point, Sidi Faraz Rabbani notes,

“We have been commanded to follow qualified scholarship, as represented by the four Sunni schools. We will not be questioned if a particular opinion valid to follow was in fact not true. ”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00002607.aspx

i’ll address the question of the individual madhhabs being an imperfect means for deriving the Shari’ah later on. before that let us treat this notion about not believing that the truth lies with any one madhhab, but rather with aspects of all the madhahib. some of those who argue for the allowance to follow positions in all (such that on any one mas’ala they are in agreement with at least one school), seem to believe that one madhhab will be strong on one position, and another on another (position). reasoning like this they conclude that it would be best to follow positions from each, such that one feels one is following the strongest position in each.

there are a few questionable propositions here too. firstly, it is not the case that every time one compares a position in one madhhab with the associated position in another madhhab, that the difference is based upon the same methodological basis, and juristic reasoning. in which case you’re comparing an apple with an orange. they may be utilizing different usul, adilla shar’iyya, qawa’id, etc. so to judge one position as being stronger than another is flawed because what really differentiates the two is the usul, not the fiqh. the fiqh is the product of the usul. in essence then, when you prefer one fiqh position over another, where the difference is due to usul, you are preferring one usul over another. this may be obvious to you those reading this. but i have not yet made my point. which is that in fiqh, there is a *plurality* of truth, not one, except when the matter is qat’i [conclusive/definitive]. so it is possible for there to be more than one truth, because the phenomenon of truth in fiqh is *subjective*. it is relative to the usul a madhhab operates upon, and given that for so many centuries now the lowest common denominator has been four different usul (within the sunni framework), why are some of us here of the opinion that the strongest truth is that which spans all four madhahib? it is nonsensical to make the claim that on one issue the hanabila are strongest, on another the ahnaf, on another the shafi’iyyah, and on another the malikis. to do so is to innovate an entirely new set of critieria (read: usul) by which one measures the fiqh positions of the existing four. a criteria which purports to be objective, and more superlative than the usul of the four madhahib. think about it, if you apply a criteria in one mas’ala by which you conclude that on this issue the shafi’i position is the strongest of the three, and then on a separate mas’ala you conclude that the hanbali position is the strongest, and so on for all four, then you must have applied the same set of critieria in both cases, and that set of criteria must have stood outside of the existing four usul. because each of the existing madhhab’s believes that the truth (of fiqh) lies with it, with a margin of error that allows for the possibility that one of the other madhhabs *might* be correct on this mas’ala. this can be witnessed in the quote from Sidi Faraz Rabbani,

“When one looks at the legal reasoning and proofs used by Abu Hanifa and his students, we can understand why Imam Abu Bakr al-Karkhi could say, with rightful confidence, "Every evidence that (seemingly) contradicts our school is either superceded or can be explained." (Usul al-Karkhi) ”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00001157.aspx

when you have four madhhab’s that hold such a view, then you have four subjective truths, because each one measures according to the filter of it’s usul. yet here you are (er, not you as in brother mossy, but you as in whoever says this), stating absolutely that one position in each madhhab is correct. so your truth is not subjective, but absolute, because were you to be operating within the usul of one of the existing madhahib then you would have come to the same conclusion as that madhhab (even accounting for the fact that there may be multiple positions within the same madhhab, of differing strength, merit and value). yet if your self-derived conclusion flits from madhab to madhab depending on the mas’ala concerned, then it implies that your usul is shifting in each instance too. if that is the case then the truth-value of the position you consider the strongest is subjective. but then the question would arise, why do you keep changing usul when dealing with different masa’il (implying that your criteria for determining that truth keep changing, and that’s inconsistent, which would make it unacceptable, even rationally)? if your usul is not shifting and yet on unrelated masa’il you still come to conclusions in synch with at least one of the four madhhabs, such that it is a different madhhab your conclusion agrees with each time the mas’ala is different, then your usul must de facto be positioned outside of the four schools. what then is the basis for such a bold assertion, for that would involved ijtihad mutlaq? and so far our entire discussion has been centred around the fact that it is a muqallid asserting that they can engage in such a practice. how so?

no doubt there is a reason for why there are four madhahib, and why they never became one. connected to this has to be the level of those who preceded us, who might have deliberated on this question too. a question which probably occurs to most of us in this age at some point or other.

placing myself in the shoes of those who think that best practice would be not to confine oneself to one madhhab, but to pick and choose what seems strongest to oneself from all four, the following thoughts come to mind:

that this returns to an issue of trust. those who hold the above view have a lack of conviction in the four madhhabs when considered separately, yet possess an incontrovertible sense of trust in all four when taken as a whole, because they believe that the truth lies within these four walls, but not on the side of any one wall alone. and it seems that this is because of a fundamental misconception relating to the issue of pluralism in fiqh.

additionally, we need to realize that our concern as muqallideen - when it comes to our fiqh - should not be establishing the truth of fiqh rulings, for doing so requires a level of mastery that we have yet to reach. in other words, there is no point trying to figure out if a ruling is true, because as muqallids, we can’t (except when the matter is clear, and known to all, such as, say, the number of rakats for the five obligatory salats). and if we want to, then the way to do it is to attain that rank by which we could. for now though our taklif is to follow who we trust, not to be able to determine the truth of what we trust. that is a taklif beyind our current capabilities, so we should beware of assuming a responsibility greater than that which we are tasked for, lest one day we are accounted according to that rank. brother mossy would seem to agree with this point, with the proviso that the ruling followed is the mashur [well-known] in the madhhab, since he wrote (post #53, page 6),

“Funnily enough, you don't need to discern correct or incorrect. By definition all mashur akkham are correct accordant to their usul.”

akh mossy, i think i addressed in part your point about the collectivity of the madhahib equating to a perfect means of deriving the Shari’ah, versus just one madhhab as a means for achieving such an aim. however, other ways to look at this could be:

1. would it not be impossible to measure the kind of perfection that you are alluding to in the quote of yours i excerpted above? because the Shari’ah, where it is derived, as you phrased it, amounts to a fiqh endeavour. and so where is the yardstick by which this endeavour (read: ijtihad) could be assessed as being im/perfect? because without the endeavour we would have no derived-fiqh, and so there would be nothing by which to measure it’s perfection surely? how could one measure a rule that did not exist? which is why, as i understand it, the role of the mujtahid is - when undertaking ijtihad - to expend his maximum effort in deriving that law, by proceeding in a duly diligent way. and from the perspective of ahliyyah [legal capacity] surely one could not be tasked with more than this. you can’t do more than you best, mujtahid (or muqallid, for that matter). so, the mujtahid is not tasked with deriving a perfect rule, but one that fulfils the valid conditions of ijtihad, as truthfully and sincerely as possible. and the product of this may be weighed on scales such as ‘ijma, ittifaq [agreement], response of the jumhur [majority], etc. that wouldn’t make it perfect, but as close to perfection as was humanly possible. wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

would it be fair to say that the only things that are considered perfect in islam - from a Shari’ah perspective - are the texts, such as ayats of the Qur’an, and ahadith? obviously some of these texts are open to interpretation, in which case perfection of meaning as understood by those trying to comprehend (as opposed to the perfection of the intended meaning by Al-Shaari’ [The Lawgiver]) is not possible to declare, but an asymptotic approach to a perfect meaning may be believed to be held. wallahu a’lam.

2. what would it take to convince you? and could your lack of conviction be due to your present level of learnedness and fahm? how much weight do you think your view holds that you should give it some plausible attention?

3. again, this view that collectively the schools embrace almost a perfect means of deriving the Shari’ah, seems to come from an idea that the truth is contained within one of the four walls of these madhahib. but the point here is that it can only be contained in one madhhab on any specific issue (barring the phenomenon where the madhahib agree on a certain ruling in a given mas’ala), so then you cannot follow all of them together practically, because obligations are incumbent upon you now, whereas the knowledge required to learn all of them before deciding on one of them will take so long to acquire that one may be affected by waswasa [satanic whisperings] - making oneself constantly doubt if the position they follow is the truth, the strongest one - for a long long time.

don’t get me wrong, i also hold that the truth is contained within these four walls now. but i *don’t* hold that for me to be upon the truth my best option would be to not restrict myself to one, and rather, adopt positions in all, according to some criteria i set up. as an example, if you were to take Al-Fiqh Al-Islami by Shaykh Wahbah al-Zuhayli, hafiDHahullah - a recognized and relied-upon contemporary manual of fiqh across the four schools - and pick and choose from *his* explanations the positions in each school that best fit your own understanding, then the question would arise, why isn’t anyone, or everyone, else, doing the same? and we’d just have one big supra-madhhab! do you not think that if it could have happened it would have by now? or is knowledge of the ‘uloom not that advanced yet?

ultimately such an exercise boils down to one thing: pitting one usul against another. and we have four (within the sunni fiqh diaspora). each one, when arguing that another ijtihad is weak, is arguing *at the base level* from its own usul. so if you are wanting to assess all four madhhabs on every separate mas’ala, then you need a new usul to do so, because you are not then standing within one of them, but above all four of them, scratching your fiqh chin. lol.

cont'd

[ibn ajiba]

how far from this is the way of the la-madhhabis akh? is there not a faint echo of measuring the fiqh (of the four madhhabs) against the Book and Sunna? which in effect means the usul of the four fiqh schools is other than the Book and Sunna; a reprehensible misunderstanding surely. because one cannot derive a rule based upon the Kitab and Sunna in/directly and then conclude that the rule derived is from other than the Kitab and Sunna, such that one will now use the Kitab and Sunna to measure the in/correctness of that rule. how much sense would it make if a novice apprentice said to an expert mechanic, ‘here, make a bike using these tools, and then i will judge how good your bike is using these tools according to my present grasp of how these tools should be used’? what that novice would actually be doing in testing the quality of construction of that bike, and questioning it, is inferring that the tools were not used as best as they could have been. yet to be able to do this one would need to have that degree of mastery of those tools. in which field of human endeavour do the experts give credence to what the non-experts think?

the fiqh is derived from the Book and Sunna, so how then can it be measured against them? the redundancy of this notion can surely not be unapparent, thought seemingly it is to some. ponder: if the ruling was already revealed there would have been no reason to derive it via ijtihad!

i am not saying your method is akin to the la-madhhabis akhi, but that you must *have* some methodology if the methodology of the existing four madhahib doesn’t quite appeal to you. because there is simply no way to amalgamate the four and form a fifth, which is in essence what you’ll end up doing. that would be the byproduct of liking bits from all four, but not liking just a single one enough to follow it in totality. and please bear in mind that following one madhhab in totality is not contradicted by following another in certain specific instances for reasons upheld in the Shar’a. that is different to *generally* picking and choosing from all four schools based on one’s own reasoning.

like those who follow the late Shaykh Albani’s Sifat Salat An-Nabi [The Prophet’s - salallahu alayhi wassalam - Prayer Described]. if you take the prayer as described in his book, and break down every component part, then let us say - hypothetically - that there are 60 separate parts (i.e. actions we do, what we read, how we do it, etc.) to the prayer (from the initial niyya to the closing salaams). so in composing one’s prayer according to the 60 parts that he (hypothetically) says one should, which of the four madhahib has a method of salat that mirrors this identically? none. so in effect, the one who adheres to the method of this book is following one man, and his ‘ijtihad,’ as opposed to many many men - in one madhhab, times four - and theirs, and including their repeated exercises of revision, re-evaluation, reverification, recension, clarification, elucidation, etc. so which of the two possibilities would seem to be upon a firmer foothold, even to the layman?

the same could then be applied to whosoever wishes to proceed upon a similar method to this. that inclination would lead such a one to be an isolated pseudo-faqih fighting guerilla warfare style, as opposed to a massive fully-equipped and properly trained army, fighting with the best tactics and stratagems, with immense backup, support and an unmatched division of labour. sure, you might have gotten hold of some of their books, and learned some of their techniques, and even agreed with some of them, but finally, you’ll still be on your own.

traditionally a mufti would not provide a justification for a fatwa to the mustafti [the one asking the mufti for a fatwa], in the form of adilla shar’iyyah. rather, only the answer would be provided. today, we have a new generation of muslims who feel obliged to ask for the dalil, because they think by not doing so they are following man, rather than the Creator of man (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Final Messenger sent forth to mankind, salallahu alayhi wassalam. this putative view needs to be redressed and that redress reiterated until the message sinks in.

part of the reason why we have so many fiqh dilettantes within the muslims, is because of what i term the ‘massification’ of islamic spe******t and technical texts, i.e. their becoming available on a massive and widespread scale thanks to the advent of the printing press, and more recently, electronic media. over time this resulted in a false sense of security to those budding pseudo-faqih’s who want to be able to check the fiqh for themselves. the existence of such works being within an arms reach of everyone made that curiosity and temptation to find out too irresistible. their intentions are understandable, but that doesn’t vindicate their approach.

an example of the danger of the massification of legal texts, whereby access to them is had not only by ‘ulema, but by the awam too, can be seen in the example of the translation into english, and mass publication of Al-Jami al-Sahih of Imam al-Bukhari, radhi’Allahu ’anh. Shaykh Yusuf Talal Delorenzo, in the introduction to his translation of the Imam’s Adab al-Mufrad, talks about how traditionally and historically, Sahih al-Bukhari was one of the final texts a student would study. it held such an exalted status within the circles of Sacred Knowledge, that to even attempt to study it without a deep proficiency and a very far degree of advancement in one’s learning, could be disastrous. it was simply too sophisticated a text not to lead to the confusion and misunderstanding of a layman attempting to venture through it without the aid of such knowledges of the necessary sciences required for such a work. just being able to decipher it employing a working familiarity with arabic, and no other tools, is like trying to swim the english channel when one still needs armbands. foolish and likely to lead to drowning.

yet today it is as if many - non-arabic reading - brothers/sisters who start developing an interest in their deen, find it necessary to possess a copy of the english translation of Bukhari. and many of them remain unaware that this magnificent text has around 13 riwayahs [i.e. different chains of narration], of which (obviously) only one was used as the template for the english translation. yet, were one to consult shuruh [commentaries] like Fath Al-Bari, of a master like Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, radhi’Allahu ’anh, one would find him referring to *all* the different riwayahs in trying to comprehensively understand that hadith. not doing so would paint an entirely different picture of that hadith, which is part of the problem of those who continue to rely on the english translation only. such people are in fact not actually reading Sahih al-Bukhari, because the Sahih comprises more than just the riwayah they possess.

this was but one example of (i) how lack of access to arabic render one incapable of deriving a reliable comprehension of the primary texts that are used as proofs/evidences, and (ii) how not knowing what one should know, yet proceeding to try and act in the manner of those that do know, is naïve and foolhardy.

akhi, mossy (again, sorry!), on Sidi Mas’ud’s discussion forum on a thread entitled Ijtihad, you wrote:

“As far as I can see, we look to the ulema to make judgements/rulings on the basis of past ijtihad, but our taqleed upon them does not absolve us of the responsibility of understanding these rulings and the process by which they are derived.”

http://www.masud.co.uk/masud_forum/v...r=asc&start=20

lol, i’m not stalking you, honestly. i just happened to visit Sidi Mas’ud’s site recently, after he informed that the forum was back up. whilst nosing around in there i noticed a thread on ijtihad, and couldn’t resist peeking. and voila, there you were, lol. so sorry if it seems like i’m on your case, i don’t mean to be. it is just that in some of what you express i see a me that used to be. i wrestled with many of the thoughts you articulate and with much of what you have shown that you wonder about. i had meant to write down my thoughts about all this kind of stuff a while back, and i suppose reading your posts was a catalyst. but just so you know, i actually respect (i) your intelligence, (ii) the edge which the points you make have, and (ii) the dispassionate manner in which you proceed. your thinking reflects reading that is broader than the typical brother/sister who argues along the same lines, so your points are not run-of-the-mill, which makes this more interesting. (that was a compliment by the way, just in case you feel my writing this massive missive was a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut...)

anyway, ahem, returning to my point, about your above statement. one consequence of taqlid in fiqh is *exactly* that, that you *are* absolved of taklif [legal responsibility] of both the ahkam and the methodology used to yield them. imagine if you weren’t. it would be like being accountable for something outside of your grasp. i don’t have the equipment a mechanic does, and even if i did, i wouldn’t know how to use it. some of that stuff is kinda advanced, and so even if i opened up an instruction manual i may not understand it, since it would probably assume some familiarity with first-principles, which i don’t *really* have a firm grip on. but assuming i did, then i still don’t have access to *everything* that i’d need to, to do the job properly. so, i go to my mechanic. he does the work and guarantees it. why then would i wish to assume the responsibility for faulty workmanship?

taqlid shifts the burden of responsibility from the muqallid. why then would that muqallid wish to be charged according to that responsibility by insisting to justify every ruling s/he adopts? because that is the unavoidable consequence of trying to know the basis behind every hukm. there is a difference between wanting to know for edification, and making that knowledge a condition of your fiqh praxis such that you’re reluctant to implement a ruling for which you don’t know the evidence and proof. the latter is when the muqallid begins to act ultra vires, and from what we have been taught, this is impermissible. wallahu a’lam.

note: being a muqallid is not a comment on your intelligence and ability to grasp points, so one shouldn’t feel patronized when it is said that you’re not at a level to understand. i refer you to a quote from that same thread on ijtihad, over at sidi mas’ud’s forum, as excerpted from Sidi Faraz Rabbani,

“Ibn Abidin points out something important in his Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti:

“Understanding evidences (dalil) is only (truly) possible for someone at the level of ijtihad (mujtahid), for it depends on knowing that the evidence is free of that which opposes it, which depends on having complete awareness of the primary sources, which is not possible for other than a mujtahid. As for merely knowing that a given mujtahid took a given ruling from a given set of evidences, it is of little [legal] consequence...” ( Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti, in Rasa’il Ibn Abidin, 1: 30)”

the point here is not that ‘you’re too thick to get it,’ but that you *currently* lack all the necessary tools required to comprehend the primary texts *directly* and unaided. and yes i know that ultimately we will always have to refer to aids, like commentaries on the ahadith, in which sense we’ll never have true independence. but what i mean when i say unaided is the ability to go directly to all the requisite sources. with the passage of time this exercise necessarily became bigger, because those sources grew. for example, there was a time when there was no Radd al-Muhtar of Imam ibn ’Abidin, rahim’Allah. but which hanafi faqih worth his salt would be heedless of consulting it now? then again, such an independence was - and will be, always the province of the mujtahid mutlaq, beneath which everyone else, no matter what their level, will work interdependently. wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

know also that it is praiseworthy to want to understand the evidences and bases behind rulings. Shaykh Amjad Rasheed comments thusly,

“As for a Muslim who enjoys looking at the proofs of rulings, it is not wrong, it is even sunna to learn, for knowing the proofs is from the sciences of the shari`ah. So whoever occupies himself with learning the proofs, memorizing them and recording them, will be rewarded, he will get the blessings of seeking knowledge that is unmatched. But one should be aware of an important matter, that most people are heedless of, who like to look at the proofs and haven’t reached the level of scholars and that is: that many Islamically uneducated people who have merely memorized some proofs, think themselves as scholars of their age and give themselves the positions of a ruler and judge on the fiqh of imams of the religion who have beautified this world with their knowledge and have given glory to the afterlife by their rewards. So this person then starts to reject what they say and the rulings that they have deduced from texts of the law and its regulations. They reject them so much that they retain no more adab, as many that we know by experience. So when this occurs, it makes the learning of what is sunna, a path to what is actually haram, for it is not permissible for an uneducated person to condemn scholars in what is derived from ijtihad and study. Even the scholars cannot condemn scholars in matters where there is genuine difference of opinion ”

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00003755.aspx

Sidi Ridhwan Saleem illustrates this point in the same article i cited much earlier, of how a muqallid who decries taqlid can misjudge a position of fiqh when they elevate themselves as being capable of assessing positions of fiqh, yet lack even the basic ability to verify the information before them. see that piece for the example of this:

http://www.lightstudy.org/askevidence.htm

as an aside, i would agree that finally, traditional islam has begun to utilize these forms of media effectively, in two ways. firstly, not as an alternative, but as a complement to proper learning. Sidi Faraz, mentions about the Sunnipath project, that, “The services offered by Sunni Path are meant to complement the learning one obtains from living scholars one interacts with; and to give those far from scholars an access to the teaching and guidance of living scholars.”

http://www.deenport.com/subsections/...interviewid=18

secondly, to combat the heterodox islamic knowledge that passes for authentic ‘ilm on the web and elsewhere these days. despite it being far from ideal to learn from indirect sources. if one finds oneself in the middle of a road, with a truck hurtling towards one, then simply turning one’s back to will not stop the truck. rather, something needs to be done.

wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

i ask the tolerance and forgiveness of anyone who read this and took it personally, if my words transgressed any limits, and if anyone took offence. it was not my intention, but maybe my shortcoming.

please remember this wretch in your du’a ikhwan wa ikhawat,

ibn ajiba

[Mossy]

Quantum physics is easier than fiqh - it's all a matter of perception y'know Hmm should we start a study area where people can ask questions about stuff like that? Secular edumacation?

Thank you for taking the time to compose the post. I'm glad my previous posts acted as a catalyst for some of what you wrote - I am afraid I have a major failing which is not always writing what I believe or even agree with to foster discussion of areas often overlooked - of course, I do slip in the occasional personal opinion just to keep it spicy.. This was evident in the concurrent thread presented by sr dhakiyya in which I believe I may have slightly insulted br salman (although looking at it now, he seems smiley mash'Allah).

Sitting on the fence can be painful sometimes..

Reading through your post quickly, on first glance there are quite a few areas where I concur and some areas in which I would differ from the reasoning you have presented.

Insh'Allah I'll put aside some time on Saturday afternoon (I work 7-7 weekdays, then come home and work some more!) to insh'Allah make some feeble effort at addressing some of these if you like.

I'm moving the day after, so please excuse me if I don't manage to get through the entire thing

Or would you prefer to structure it as a formalised discussion where one side posts, waits for the other to complete his response and then replies?

Hmm.. Then again, what is it we are discussing? All of the issues that I have raised in those posts across the forum? Should we create a list and analyse them one by one?

Ah, the possibilities


ps I've already read all of the links you've provided in case you're wondering where I'm coming from Well, except for the biographies.. Eh, never could get into those..

[eTeacher]

Jazakumullah Br. Ibn Ajiba for taking the time out to share your knowledge with us. May Allah increase you in knowledge and wisdom.

[salman]

Sallam

Amazing, well worth the read. Jazakallah : )

[AbuZayd]

Assalamu alaykum,

I am sorry, I have been unable to read the entire thread - though I tried but I would just like to make one comment on one of the articles linked to the lightstudy website.

Yes, we are ignorant. But, we do not wish to remain that way. Alhamdolillah I do my best to follow the Hanafi Madhab in most of my fiqh. The one thing that I think has helped people such as myself whose grasp of Arabic is basic (and always seems to be just "slowly improving" is books such as that by Shaykh AbdurRahman ibn Yusuf, Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq and others where some of the thought behind the rulings of our Madhab and the evidences they are based on are detailed. In this current day such works are extremely important and I think that this is a good by product of the Salafi onslaught on the lay person for daleel. Sure, reading such books do not make me a Mujtahid but neither am I so thick that I cannot at least get a basic grasp of what the Mujtahid may have been thinking. Maybe this is not necessary but being a Medic myself I don't mind my patients asking for information on a procedure they are about to endure at my hands - I don't expect them to "fully" understand but at least they are no longer in the dark.

May Allah swt help our Shuyukh in producing more works such as fiqh al imam and others like these for the Muslims living in the West....and may he increase us all in knowledge.

Wasalam.

[Mossy]

Ok, tis Saturday and alas, my internet has been playing silly buggers - the price of living in a small village just outside of Oxford. Back to the city tmrw though insh'Allah

Having had a better read through this however, I'm not feeling too happy. Thus, rather than speaking and taking you out of context or, say for instance, overly critiquing something which is just a general musing or suchlike, I'd like to clarify some things before I formulate any proper response (if one is required at all):

1) What was main the intention behind this post? (eg advice to mossy, clarification for others, getting your thoughts on this topic down in solid form for once etc)
2) What result did you envisage coming from it?
3) Would you actually like a discussion?

If number 3), we'll move ahead once some feedback is provided on my first post on this thread insh'Allah.

Toodle pip,

Mossy

[Strive4Allah]

Assalamu alaykum,

I am sorry, I have been unable to read the entire thread - though I tried but I would just like to make one comment on one of the articles linked to the lightstudy website.

Yes, we are ignorant. But, we do not wish to remain that way. Alhamdolillah I do my best to follow the Hanafi Madhab in most of my fiqh. The one thing that I think has helped people such as myself whose grasp of Arabic is basic (and always seems to be just "slowly improving" is books such as that by Shaykh AbdurRahman ibn Yusuf, Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq and others where some of the thought behind the rulings of our Madhab and the evidences they are based on are detailed. In this current day such works are extremely important and I think that this is a good by product of the Salafi onslaught on the lay person for daleel. Sure, reading such books do not make me a Mujtahid but neither am I so thick that I cannot at least get a basic grasp of what the Mujtahid may have been thinking. Maybe this is not necessary but being a Medic myself I don't mind my patients asking for information on a procedure they are about to endure at my hands - I don't expect them to "fully" understand but at least they are no longer in the dark.

May Allah swt help our Shuyukh in producing more works such as fiqh al imam and others like these for the Muslims living in the West....and may he increase us all in knowledge.

Wasalam.

thats good mashallah
btw i tried to read this post so many times the top one but i coulndt just read it seeing how long it was...