Allamah Zafar Ahmad al-Uthmani’s Comprehensive Reply to the Objectors of Taqlid

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Maulana Habib al-Kiranwi:

"...why is the opinion of a mujtahid not a proof despite his being well-versed in the rules of Allah and His Messenger, skilful therein? Moreover, the narrator who says, “I heard so-and-so say such” or “I saw so-and-so do such” is not merely giving information from sense perception. Rather, ijtihad mixing with the report is more common, and [this is] more obvious than being hidden, because he does not transmit a narration like the transmission of the words of the Qur‟an, rather he transmits the outcome of what he heard or saw according to what he understood from the statement or action.

Therefore, since the report of the narrator, despite being mixed with opinion and ijtihad, is a proof that is obligatory to follow, how is the opinion of the knowledgeable mujtahid not a proof that is obligatory to follow, while most narrators are not mujtahids and the possibility of error in understanding is greater for them than the possibility of error for a mujtihad in [his] ijtihad?

Furthermore, it is possible the narrator lied but this is overcome by the apparent integrity which is premised on mere opinion and ijtihad. Since it is obligatory to accept the narration of a narrator due to his integrity that is suspected by an opinion that is possibly in error, then why is the statement of the mujtahid not accepted despite his expertise that is suspected by an opinion that is possible of error? In sum, that which he illustrated as the difference [between the two types of taqlid] is false and the proof adduced is sound."

[bint_azam]

Here's an interesting read

http://attahawi.files.wordpress.com/...-al-qayyim.pdf

Translation of Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi’s Al-Din al-Qayyim, Part of the Introduction to I’la’ al-Sunan

at-Tahawi.com is pleased to announce the online release of Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi’s al-Din al-Qayyim, a treatise on taqlid and ijtihad and a detailed refutation of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim’s views on taqlid. The treatise is included in the introduction to Imam Zafar Ahmad al-’Uthmani’s monumental and renowned work, I’la’ al-Sunan, a collection of over six thousand hadith proofs in support of the Hanafi legal arguments.

The translator of the work, our dear brother Zameelur Rahman, may Allah increase him in barakah, was gracious enough to share the pdf of the book with us and offer it for free download. Please do include him in your du’as, especially during these special days. We have included a portion of his preface to the work below:



Translator’s Preface

In Allah’s Name, the Infinitely Merciful, the Beneficent. All praise to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. May blessings and peace shower on His final Messenger, Muhammad, his family and his companions.

This book is a translation of the treatise al-Din al-Qayyim by the late Indian scholar, Mawlana Habib Ahmad al-Kiranawi, published with a number of his other writings under the title Fawa’id fi ‘Ulum al- Fiqh. Al-Din al-Qayyim was written as a detailed refutation of Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s (691 H/1292 CE – 751 H/1349 CE) arguments against taqlid from his I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in which offers the most thorough denunciation of taqlid and its proofs to date. The refutation was written in Arabic by Mawlana Habib Ahmad under the supervision of Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (d. 1362 H/ 1943 AD) as part of the general introduction to the 20-volume compendium of hadith- proofs for the Hanafi madhhab, I’la al-Sunan.*

Mawlana Habib Ahmad in a rigorous and precise manner shows not only that taqlid, which is the non- mujtahid’s deference to a mujtahid Imam in rulings of the Shari’ah without asking for detailed proofs, is established from the Qur‟an, Sunnah and the practice of the Salaf, but that it is so fundamental and necessary for Islamic scholarship and practice to function at any level that its detractors have no option but to resort to taqlid, while repackaging it as “adherence to proof.” It is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the structure of Islamic scholarship and the weakness of the arguments presented by those who wish to deny the legitimacy and necessity of taqlid.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

I am not getting time to translate will do inshallah.. the gist of their writings was that Both Mujatahid alfe thani (rah) & Shah waliuallah muhaditth delhvi (rah) says,i got kashf (manifestation in dream) that Prophet said to me that this 4 madhab are correct & haq in ilmo kalam are more towards Imaam abu hanifa (rah) & matter of jurisprudence was also more towards Imaam abu hanifa (rah),,& there are very few masail (jurisprudence) in which in which its is difficult to say haq (truth) is towards whom..

Please note,there should be no objection that if one is haq the other would be batil..(its same like deducing the direction of qibla by a traveler in out places.If four prayed towards four direction through "tahiyya" (hukm on traveler to ponder to decide qibla)..Its obvious only one of four is towards qibla,but the salat of other 3 cannot be termed as batil (as they too are on haq)..

BUt, will translate the entire stuff, if you know urdu it is written in book "hadith aur ahle hadith" in the initial pages.

Sorry I can't read Urdu. It'll be beneficial for everyone here if you are able to translate it.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Once `Urwah bin Zubair (rah) addressed `Abdullah bin `Abbas (ra) thus:

“You have led the people astray, O Ibn `Abbas!”

When `Abdullah bin `Abbas (radhiyallahu `anhuma) inquired about the reason, `Urwa (rahmatullahi `alayhi) mentioned a ruling pertaining to the laws of Hajj which `Abdullah bin `Abbas (radhiyallahu `anhuma) had issued contrary to the ruling of Abu Bakr and `Umar (radhiyallahu `anhuma). `Abdullah bin `Abbaas (radhiyallahu `anhuma) replied:

“This is the exact reason why you have been led astray. I am narrating from Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and you are opposing it with the view of Abu Bakr and `Umar (radhiyallahu `anhuma).”

`Urwah (rahmatullahi `alayh) said to Ibn `Abbaas (radhiyallahu `anhuma):

“Indeed Abu Bakr and `Umar (radhiyallahu `anhuma) were more knowledgeable about the Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam than you."

(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 4, pg. 132, No. 2277, Sharh Ma`aani al Aathar, vol. 1, pg. 423).

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi in the book Ashraf al-Jawab:

“Where a difference is found on some ruling, it is because there are (several) opposing hadith. The hadith you mention to us, yes we do not act upon it, but then we act upon another hadith, that we accept, but you do not act upon it. Why do you accuse us then? You also can be accused of doing the same! You will argue that: “But our hadith is more preferable, and yours is rejected (marjuh).” Our response is that the method of deciding what is preferable is suspended upon perception and comprehension (dhawq). According to your perception a particular hadith becomes preferable and according to the perception of Imam Abu Ḥanīfa another hadith is more preferable to be acted upon. And according to us the perception of Imam Abu Ḥanīfa, in comparison to your perception, is safer and better (as his depth of knowledge of the Book of Allah u and Hadith of the Messenger a, his expertise in grasping their subtleties, his trustworthiness, his penetrating insight, honesty, fear of Allah were testified to by thousands of Imams and scholars of the Umma). In the light of this, to declare yourselves as those who act upon hadith and those who follow the four Imams as not acting upon hadith is pure bias.”

[Abu_Tamim]

With reference to the hadith of 'Urwa and Ibn 'Abbas:

In a narration of Tabarani the same incident has been recorded with a slight difference. According to this version, when `Urwah (rahmatullahi `alayh) objected, Ibn `Abbaas (radiyallahu `anhuma) said to him: “Woe unto you! Do you give preference to Abu Bakr and `Umar (radhiyallahu `anhuma) over the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.” Upon this `Urwah (rahmatullahi `alayh) replied: “They were more knowledgeable about the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam than you and I.” Ibn Abi Mulayka, the narrator of this incident comments: “Ibn `Abbaas (radhiyallahu `anhuma) did not have any answer for this.” (Al-Mu`jamul Awsat, vol. 1, pg. 42, No. 21).

[SeekerOfGuidance]

http://www.friendsofdeoband.com/?p=1472

Question

What opinion do the scholars and the jurists of Islam hold regarding taqlid shakhsi? Is it wajib (incumbent) or is it as the ghayr muqallidin (rejecters of taqlid) say, that it is polytheism and an innovation?

Answer

Taqlid mutlaq is fardh (compulsory). Allah mentions in the Qur’an:

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
“Ask those who have knowledge (of the previous scriptures) if you do not possess any knowledge (of the subject).” (Al-Anbiya’, 7)

In this verse Allah  has decreed taqlid mutlaq (general taqlid) as fardh. There are two types of taqlid. One of them is taqlid shakhsi, in which you seek assistance in abiding by a law from a particular scholar. The other type is taqlid ghayr shakhsi, in which you are not particular with referring to one scholar. Through the generality of the verses text, both types of taqlid are included. Both types of taqlid are substantiated from the side of Shari’ah (Islam). Whichever type of taqlid one abides by, he will be fulfilling an order of Allah. Whoever declares taqlid shakhsi (which is ordered by Allah) as an innovation or polytheism is ignorant and astray. This is because, he is saying, that an order of Allah  is polytheism in the opposition of Allah. He doesn’t realize that Allah  has given a “restricted” person a choice, whatever type he wishes, he can practice upon. When there is generality of something then the subcategories of it are not outside the bounds of its originality, instead, it is a part of it. By way of an example, in the generality of the existence of humans, its subcategories cannot be separated from it. In the same manner the two types of taqlid (shakhsi and ghayr shakhsi) can never be separated from taqlid. Wherever you find anyone of these two types it will considered being under taqlid.

Therefore in both types, a “restricted” person has a choice. Whichever he wishes he can practice upon, and by this he will be fulfilling an order of Allah. To call an order of Allah an innovation or polytheism is a sin in itself. Rather, both types are equal in their permissibility. However, in this time and era the general masses, even the learned ones, are in fear of falling prey to their carnal desires and are in self conceit with regards to their own opinions. Taqlid ghayr shakhsi is a wonderful means for them to follow their base desires and to excite their self conceit. As a result, this makes them careless in regards to the matters of din (Islam). It becomes a means for them to let their tongue loose on the status of the mujtahidin (expert jurists). It becomes an avenue for evil and discord to spread amongst the Muslim Ummah. In our time, this is all manifest. Due to these reasons taqlid ghayr shakhsi will not be correct. Through the above mentioned verse taqlid shakhsi has become stipulated by Shari’ah (Islam).

Unity plays a great part in Islam. Hence protecting unity will be a monumental fardh law as well. Allah  mentions in the Qur’an:

وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا
“Hold fast to the rope of Allah (Islam and particularily the Qur’an as understood by the sayings of Rasulullah  and the pious predecessors), all of you together, and do not separate (because Allah’s mercy lies in valid unity).” (Al-’Imran,103)

وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَسَادَ
“And Allah dislikes corruption” (Al-Baqarah, 205)

There are many other narrations regarding this topic. Due to the necessity of the protection of maintaining unity and in removing these great evils, one has to leave taqlid ghayr shakhsi and adopt a side which is stronger and more helpful in the protection of this great fardh law, which is the actual order of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them). For example, the Qur’an was revealed in seven different dialects, and one has the option to choose anyone of the seven dialects. Despite this, ‘Uthman
(Allah be pleased with him) abandoned this with the ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) and adopted a specific dialect for universal usage. The only reason for doing this was to repel evils and to save the Muslim ummah from disunity. Sahih Bukhari testifies to this. Another example is that of Zhul Khuwaysarah [see Fath al-Bari, 12:369], upon whom, death was incumbent due to his words of disbelief and insolence towards the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Yet, Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) still said: “Leave him, as people will begin to say that Muhammad kills his companions.” This was only for the reason of removing evil and nothing else.

The conclusion is that, in such a time where evil is predominant in the society, taqlid shakhsi will be declared wajib (incumbent) and taqlid ghayr shakhsi will be prohibited due to these evils which will surface from it. Never the less, if it is such that these evils are not found in taqlid ghayr shakhsi then one would have a choice to adopt that as well, just like he has a choice to adopt taqlid shakhsi. It has now become manifest that taqlid shakhsi must be declared wajib and to call it an innovation or polytheism is clear ignorance.

And Allah  knows best.
Kutube Ahqar Rashid Ahmad Gangohi,
6 Zhul Hijjah 1311 A.H.

[Fatawa Rashidiyyah,1:206]

[SeekerOfGuidance]

The great scholar of Islam, Qadi Iyad (d. 544/1149 Rahimahullah), explains how the Madhhabs arose, and why one should make Taqleed of them:

"This Ijtihad and the handing down of rules and Shari'ah, on the basis of it-there are very few, very few who have the capacity. Indeed they are fewer than the few after the first generation (of Muslims), the upright Salihun, and the first three praiseworthy generations. Now since this is the nature of the matter, any human being burdened with the moral responsibility to obey Allah, but not having attained the status of being able to know the Shari'ah, on his own, is necessarily required to get that knowledge from someone else.

He must take the knowledge of every act of worship he has been commanded to do-every application of the Shari'ah that has been made responsible for him to perform directly, from that man who can give it to him straight from the source and who will make him know exactly what to do. That man must be the staff by which he stands in his own transmission to others, in the knowledge he acquires, and in the Shari'ah parameters by which he lives. This is Taqleed. And this is precisely the position of the ordinary people, indeed the vast majority of all people. Since this is the case, what is required of you is that in all such matters, you do Taqleed of the 'alim in whom you have complete trust. If such Ulama are many, then follow that one who is most knowledgeable. This is the portion of Ijtihad which falls to the lot of the Muqallid with regard to his deen. And it is not fitting that the Muqallid should abandon the most knowledgeable (Mujtahidun) in favour of someone else, even though that other person is also busy with knowledge. The Muqallid must therefore ask at that time about those things which he does not know until he has knowledge of them, just as Allah, Glory be to Him, has said, 'Then ask the people of Remembrance if you do not know.' (Holy Qur'an 16:43 and 21:7)

And the one upon whom we ask Allah's blessings and peace commanded the Khalifs after him and his Companions be emulated. The one upon whom we ask blessings and peace also sent his Companions out among the people to give them understanding in the deen, to teach them what had been made incumbent on them, and Allah urged on the entirety of them to go out, 'From every group among you let there be a group who will develop understanding of the deen and who will give warning to their people when they return to them.'

Now since this matter is something necessary, and there is no way around it, and since they who most deserve to be followed by the uniformed ordinary man, the beginner, who has taken it on himself to worship, or the student seeking right guidance and knowledge of Fiqh in the deen of Allah, and those who have the greatest right to be followed are the Fuqaha of the Sahaba of Rasulullah (Peace be upon him), they are those who took their knowledge directly from him, who knew the circumstances of the Revelation, of the commands and prohibitions, the various prophecies, of the different aspects of the Shari'ah, the exact pronunciation of the Prophet's words, may Allah bless him and give him peace, who themselves witnessed the accompanying circumstances of these ayats, who spoke to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, directly, about most of it, who asked him about it despite the extensive knowledge from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) which they themselves already had, and their knowledge of the meanings of Arabic speech, the illumination of their hearts, and the openness and receptivity of their hearts, such that they were, without the least contention, the most knowledgeable of Imams, and they were those of the Imams most worthy of being followed by Taqleed.

Nevertheless, they only spoke about a few of the problematic events that happened among them, and large numbers of answers to Shari'ah questions did not branch out from them in detail. They did not speak about the Shari'ah, except with regard to the basic teachings, and certain things that actually happened. Most of their pre-occupation was with the putting into practise of what they knew and the active defence of the entire deen, the laying down of the firm foundation of the Shari'ah of the Muslims. There was among them a degree of difference of opinion in some of the things which they discussed which could keep the Muqallid in a perpetual state of confusion, and require of him the kind of reflection and review for which he is not yet prepared. And indeed the full elaboration of questions, resolving of problems, and setting out the discussions, only came about in response to those matters, the appearance of which had been anticipated after the Sahaba were gone. Consequently, the Tabi'in, the Followers (like Imam's Abu Hanifah, an-Nakhai, Hammad, al-Zuhri, Hasan al-Basri, Sha'bi...), came and reflected on the differences of opinions of the Companions, and built on the foundations which they had laid down. Then after them came the Ulama from among the Followers of the Followers (like Imam's Malik, Shafi'i, Ibn Hanbal, Dawood al-Zahiri...). By that time, the occurrences which had happened already became many and the problematic events had already occurred, while Fatwas regarding all of this had branched out into many details. Therefore they gathered together the opinion of them all, and they committed their Fiqh to memory.

They sought out differences of opinion of the earlier generations as well as their areas of agreement, but they were cautious about the matter of this disagreement spreading and of its getting out of control. Therefore they did Ijtihad regarding all these parts of the Sunnah, and of the precise articulation of fundamental principles. They asked questions and they got answers. They built up the foundations of the basic precepts and they made accessible the basic principles. Upon them were delineated the solutions to problems and events and they were put down in writing for the people, and organised. Each of them worked on the basis of the inspiration he was given and the accomplishment to which Allah had guided them. So they became the ultimate in the science of Usool and of the specific details of the Shari'ah in the matters of agreement and disagreement. And on the basis of this knowledge which had come to them, they made Qiyas, analogy, according to the indications, and the similarities that they had got. May Allah be pleased with all of them and may He give them the full extent of the reward of their Ijtihad.

Therefore it is an individual obligation that falls on the ordinary Muqallid and the student of knowledge in his beginning stages, to take recourse in his Taqleed to these great men, or the explicit texts regarding the problems and events that befall him. Recourse must be had to them regarding all of these matters which are problematic because of the fact that they were immersed in knowledge of the Shari'ah and it literally revolved around them. They alone have precise understanding of the schools, of who had gone before, and the earlier generations, and that knowledge is enough for all who have come after them in later generations. Nevertheless, it is simply not possible that all of these earlier Fuqaha can be simultaneous objects of Taqleed regarding the most difficult problems and the majority of questions, because of their differences among themselves caused by conflicting opinions about the fundamental principles upon which they built. Moreover, it is not valid for the Muqallid to do Taqleed of any among them merely on the basis of personal whim, or chance that he has come upon a decision on the basis of what he happened to find the people of his region doing, or his family doing

Again therefore, the portion of Ijtihad that falls to his lot in this case, is that he seek to discover by reflection which of them was the most knowledgeable, and come to know which of them is most worthy of being an object of Taqleed from among all of them, so that in his practise and his Fatwas, the ordinary man can trust him and rely on him and trust that in his acts of worship, he had taken on himself only what the Mujtahid had and discerned as correct. The ordinary man therefore must give to the most knowledgeable (scholars) among the adherents to the schools of these earlier Fuqaha, the status which by right, he deserves. It is not permissible for him that he go beyond them in his seeking of Fatwas to one who does not follow the opinion of his school. For as some of the Shaykhs have said, 'The Imam is with regard to one who adheres to his school, to his way, like the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, is with regard to his Ummah.' It is not permissible for him to go against his Imam (unless one has become a Mujtahid within the school or in specific issues). This has been expressed quite correctly, and the correct way will become clear to those who have insight, and eyes with which to see, on the basis of what we have elaborated and the stipulations we have laid down."

(Tartib al madarik wa tartib al masalik)

[SeekerOfGuidance]

A Letter on Taqleed

The following is part of a letter the Mujlisul Ulama wrote to a brother who queried the Islamic concept of Taqleed:

(1) It should be remembered that the two senior Imaams, namely, Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imam Maalik were in touch with Sahaabah. They had acquired their Islamic knowledge from Sahaabah as well as from numerous such senior Scholars who had studied under the Sahaabah. Thus, they were in close proximity to the age of Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam).

Secondly, the protection of the Qur’aan and Islam were undertaken by Allah Ta’ala Himself. He declares in the Qur’aan:

"Verily, We revealed the Thikr (Qur’aan) and We are it Protectors."

Thus the preservation of Islam is a Divine Responsibility. At no stage in the history of Islam was there a time that the full Shariah was not available. Islam was perfected during the time of Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan is emphatic and explicit in making this claim. It is, therefore, Islamically unimaginable that the full and perfect Shariah did not exist with the illustrious Scholars until a couple centuries later when Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) appeared o*n the scene. Imaam Bukhaari appeared about 120 years after Imaam Abu Hanifah and about 200 years after Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). During this period, i.e. during the absence of Imaam Bukhaari, the Deen was flourishing. Every aspect of Islam was known to the Scholars. Nothing was hidden and unknown.

It is a ludicrous and a kufr supposition to assume that part of the Shariah was concealed from or unknown to the Salf-e-Saliheen of the first epoch of Quroon-e-Thalathah (The first three noble ages of Islam), and that the supposed ‘unknown’ portion became known o*nly after Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) appeared o*n the scene 2 centuries later. This supposition is kufr because it militates against the Qur’aanic declaration of:

(1) The perfection of the Deen.

(2) The Divine Protection of the Deen undertaken by Allah Azza Wa Jal, Himself.

Thirdly, Imaam Bukhaari and the other Muhadditheen who compiled the Ahadith in book form did not do so for the benefit of the existing Scholars or for the Scholars before his time. The Scholars before his era were illustrious Fuqaha and Muhadditheen who were the direct students of the Sahaabah or of the Students of the Sahaabah. The Scholars of his time were his (Imaam Bukhaari’s) Ustaadhs and these Scholars were the Students of the Taabieen who in turn were the Students of the Sahaabah. Thus, it was Imaam Bukhaari who benefited from these illustrious Ustaadhs, not the other way around. The compilations of the Muhadditheen were for the benefit of posterity)for the Muslims of later generations. The Scholars before Imaam Bukhaari and those during his time were not at all reliant o*n his compilations. They were completely independent of the Hadith compilations of the later Muhadditheen. The authorities o*n which the Scholars (Fuqaha and Muhadditheen) before Imaam Bukhaari’s time relied were Taabieen and Sahaabah. Their knowledge of Islam was firsthand and did not depend o*n compilations and books. Their Ilm was from the Taabieen whose base of knowledge was the Sahaabah who were Rasulullah’s (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) Students. The nonsense gorged out by the modernist and deviant Salafis of this age who blindly follow the half-baked so-called scholar, Al-Albaani is thus self-evident.

Fourthly, it is a well-known fact that the teaching of Imaam Abu Hanifah as well as of the other Imaams (Fuqaha) was that if an authentic Hadith is acquired with which his ruling conflicts, then such a ruling should be discarded and the ruling stated in the Hadith be accepted. It was made clear that the Math-hab of the Hadith was his (i.e. Abu Hanifah’s) Math-hab. Thus, if and whenever any of the Scholars who followed Imaam Abu Hanifah acquired a Hadith which in their opinion their Ustaad did not know of, immediately the ruling of the Ustaad o*n the specific issue would be adjusted to conform to the Hadith. But, this process of adjusting such rulings which could have been in conflict with the Hadith o*n account of all the Ahadith not having reached a particular Imaam, ended long before Imaam Bukhaari presented his compilation. We, therefore, find the Mutakh-khireen (i.e. the Hanafi Fuqaha of the third and fourth centuries) adhering to the rulings which the Hanafi Fuqaha of former times had issued despite them having the knowledge of all Compilations of Hadith prepared by the Muhadditheen. This in itself, is explicit evidence for the fact that the Fuqaha before Imaam Bukhaari were already fully apprized of the various Ahadith which the later Muhadditheen compiled in their Books.

Undoubtedly, the Sahaabah had scattered throughout the Islamic empire. But, long before the Hadith compilations of Imaam Bukhaari, the Scholars had already become aware of the Ahadith narrated by the different Sahaabah. The age adjacent to the age of the Sahaabah was an age of intense Islamic learning. The entire Shariah with its jurisprudence (Fiqh) was systematized and codified long before the age of the Muhadditheen. Such systematization and codification are impossible without a total knowledge of Hadith because Hadith is the Tafseer of the Qur’aan. Without Hadith, there can be no Shariah. Thus, the Shariah which the Fuqaha had systematized was the Shariah which the Sahaabah had acquired from Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). Just as the Sahaabah were not reliant o*n written books for the knowledge and recital of the Qur’aan, so too the next group of Scholars (the Taabieen) was not reliant o*n any book of Hadith for the systematization of the Shariah. Just as the Sahaabah had the Qur’aan in their memories, so too did the Taabieen have the Ahadith in their memories. Islamic history bears ample testimony to this incontrovertible fact.

The aim of the Muhadditheen was to sift out the narrations and to prepare books of authentic compilations for the benefit of posterity just as was the aim of the Sahaabah when they had compiled the Qur’aan in book form. The aim was not to benefit the Sahaabah because they were not in need of a book or a written compilation of the Qur’aan. They had the Qur’aan in their memories. The Sahaabah had compiled the Qur’aan in book form for the benefit of posterity.

From this it should be realised that Imaam Bukhaari’s compilation was not for the benefit of the existing Scholars as they were in fact the instructors of Imaam Bukhaari. It is quite possible that the Fuqaha and Muhadditheen prior to Imaam Bukhaari had greater knowledge of Hadith and had a greater advantage in regard to the knowledge of authentic Hadith. The chain of narrators between Imaam Bukhaari and the Sahaabah is very long. In view of numerous narrators in a chain o*n account of the large time gap, it is possible that a Hadith which was authentic according to Imaam Abu Hanifah or Imaam Maalik became ‘weak’ in terms of the standard employed by Imaam Bukhaari. Imaam Maalik heard a Hadith directly from the lips of a Sahaabi. The authenticity was most perfect. However, the same Hadith could have reached Imaan Bukhaari two centuries later in a slightly different form or in the same form but with a long chain of narrators. Some of the narrators may not have passed Imaam Bukhaari’s strict test, hence he would be compelled to classify the Hadith as ‘weak’ whilst in actual fact it is an authentic Hadith. Thus, if Imaam Abu Hanifah, for example, bases a ruling o*n the strength of a Hadith which according to Imaam Bukhaari is a ‘weak’ narration, the ruling of Imaam Abu Hanifah cannot be rejected o*n the basis of the designation given to the Hadith by Imaam Bukhaari because Imaam Abu Hanifah and all the early Scholars would not formulate rulings o*n suspect narrations nor were they reliant of the type of categorization of Hadith formulated by the later Muhadditheen.

(2) It is baseless to claim that the Math-habs came into existence in the middle of the 8<SUP>th</SUP> century of the Christian era. People who lack understanding in the Deen make such preposterous allegations. Since the Scholars taught nothing other than the SUNNAH of Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam), it is incorrect to claim that the Mathaahib were later accretions. It is inconceivable that the Fuqaha taught anything which was not taught by the Sahaabah. Yes, new rulings o*n new developments had to be formulated. But, such rulings were based o*n the principles enshrined in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. The Fuqaha simply arranged everything in systematic order. The differences in the various acts of Ibaadat, for example, had all existed during the very time of Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). The Scholars did not introduce the different ways we find in the acts of worship of the followers of the Mathaahib. Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah had adopted these ways and forms which were passed o*n to the succeeding generation, viz., the Taabieen who in turn passed it o*n to the next generation.

The problem the Fuqaha had was to establish which way and which manner of the Holy Nabi (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah were the final acts abrogating former acts. In such issues differences arose.

Qur’aanic and Hadith interpretations had to be resorted to for finding solutions or the clear-cut rulings of the Sahaabah who had happened to be the Ustaadhs of a particular line of Scholars, were adopted.

Whatever had happened and whichever way was adopted, it is absurd to claim that ‘numerous of the Hadith which reached Imaam Bukhaari did not reach the Fuqaha and that the Mathaahib had been formulated o*n the basis of insufficient Hadith narrations’. Such a claim is utterly baseless. In fact, it militates against the explicit Qur’aanic declaration:

"This day have I perfected for you your Deen..."

When a Scholar acquires the knowledge of an authentic Hadith, he does not dismiss that Hadith simply because the Hadith conflicts with the ruling of the Math-hab he happens to be following. He first examines the standard of the Hadith. If it is established that the Hadith is Saheeh (Authentic), he fully accepts it as being authentic. A man who rejects an authentic Hadith commits kufr. He is not a Muslim. If there are no Qur’aanic and Hadith proofs to conflict with the authentic Hadith which he has acquired, he immediately adopts the ruling of the Hadith and sets aside the ruling of the Math-hab which was earlier formulated o*n the basis of insufficient proof and facts. But, if there is strong and overwhelming Qur’aanic and Hadith evidence conflicting with the authentic Hadith which he had just acquired, he is forced to assign suitable interpretation to the Hadith and while accepting its authenticity, he cannot issue a ruling o*n its basis. But, this process had applied during the age of the Fuqaha)in the age of the Taabieen when the Sahaabah were involved in spreading the Deen. It did not apply to the age after Imaam Bukhaari. It must be categorically stated that the Fuqaha had the knowledge of all the Ahadith which are today found in the various Hadith compilations. In fact, they had greater knowledge in the field of Hadith authenticity and in view of there being hardly any links between them and the Sahaabah.

(3) All the Usool of the Mathaahib were formulated o*n the basis of the Qur’aan and Hadith. Those Scholars who followed the Usool of a particular Math-hab were obliged to adhere to the Usool. They could differ in the Furoo’ (details). But, the Furoo’ which they formulated were based o*n the same Usool. Such differences largely pertain to new developments, not to clear teachings which were acquired from the Sahaabah.

The Usool were established by the ‘Founding’ Imaams. Their students adopted these principles and formulated rulings for new developments o*n the basis of the principles established by their senior Ustaadhs.

(4) While Ijtihaad in the principles is no longer permissible, Ijtihaad in new developments will remain valid until the Last Day. There will always be new developments. The Usool established by the early Fuqaha o*n the basis of the Qur’aan and Sunnah are all-encompassing. It is not possible to create any further Usool because such an attempt will be in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Any new attempt will be beyond the confines of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Hence no o*ne has ever ventured to establish new Usool. If today anyone attempts, his kufr will be transparent as the conflict between his conjectured ‘usool’ and the Qur’aan will be conspicuous. Nowadays people simply resort to baseless interpretation (Ta’weel Baatil) to gain acceptance for their Baatil views.

(5) New issues and new developments do not require any new Usool. The very same Usool which the early Fuqaha had extracted from the Qur’aan and Sunnah are the o*nly basis o*n which rulings for new issues have to be formulated. Discardence of the USOOL of the Fuqaha is tantamount to discardence of Islam.

(6) Yes, Scholars who were students did differ with their illustrious Ustaadhs in matters of Furoo’. While both the Ustaad and the student would argue a certain issue (fara’) o*n the basis of the same principle which the Ustaad had established, they would sometimes come to different conclusions. This is essentially the result of difference in understanding, difference in taqwa, difference in their respective bonds with Allah Ta’ala. And, it could be the result of differences in their respective experience pertaining to the issue. Also sometimes, the Student will differ with the ruling which was issued by the Imaam because circumstances had changed)new facts had come to light which had not existed at the time the Imaam had issued his ruling. In short, there were a variety of factors which determined differences in rulings inspite of the rulings being based o*n the same Usool. Take for example the issue of shrimps. This is a mas’ala pertaining to the Furoo’. All the Hanafi Fuqaha are agreed o*n the principle that of the sea animals o*nly fish is halaal. There is no difference in this principle. However, some Hanafi Ulama have ruled that shrimps are permissible while the overwhelming majority states that shrimps are haraam. Those who say that shrimps are permissible, do not reject the principle. But, in terms of their knowledge they claim that shrimps are fish, hence, halaal. They do not claim the permissibility of shrimps o*n the basis of the principle of another Math-hab. Simply o*n account of their knowledge of shrimps, which they believe to be fish, they state that shrimps are halaal. They thus do not differ in the principles.

(7) The Scholars never reasoned that all possible issues were already addressed and that there would be no longer need for formulating rulings o*n later developments. The unanimity is in the closing of the doors of Ijtihaad in respect to the Usool, not to new developments which obviously will come into being from time to time. But, the principles are established already for the formulation of the rulings necessary to categorize new issues and developments.

(8) The Shar’i meaning of Taqleed, means to follow a particular Imaam in all matters pertaining to the Shariah. Ittiba’ means to follow in obedience. o*ne may accept the Taqleed of a particular Imaam without applying ittiba’ in practical life. Example: A man making Taqleed of Imaam Abu Hanifah, accepts and believes shrimps to be haraam. But, when he goes to a friend’s home (who may not be a Hanafi), he eats shrimps. He says that he follows (makes Taqleed) of Imaam Abu Hanifah and that he knows the view of Imaam Abu Hanifah is correct and that he accepts this, but simply to appease his friend he eats shrimps. Thus, while making Taqleed, he is not making ittiba’.

(9) In all ages there were people of baatil who attempted to subvert the Deen. This process of conflict between Haqq and Baatil will endure as long as the world endures. The conspiracies of baatil are more rife and rampant in our day. Almost every Tom, **** and harry who has studied some Hadith translations of has a couple of kuffaar university degrees behind his name thinks himself capable of making Ijtihaad in even the Usool. May Allah Ta’ala save us from such deviation.

(10) The Fuqaha of the early times did not close the Door of Ijtihaad in respect to the Usool because unqualified persons attempted to make inroad into this domain. The Doors were closed because they were 100% certain that no new Usool can any longer be established since the Usool which they had established were all-encompassing. For such certitude a very high degree of Taqwa and spiritual elevation are imperative. These men were not o*nly men of book knowledge. Their knowledge was true knowledge which is a Noor (Celestial Light). The Islamic definition of Knowledge given by the illustrious Ulama is:

"ILM (KNOWLEDGE) is a Noor in the heart of the Mu’min. The Noor is acquired from the lanterns in the Niches of Nubuwwat."

True knowledge initiated from the heart of the Nabi and it passed o*n from breast to breast. From the breast of the Sahaabah to the breasts of the Taabieen, and so o*n until it has reached us. Such Noor enters the heart o*nly after the Bond with Allah Ta’ala has been rectified, developed and solidified.

(11) A Muqallid who claims to follow the Sunnah while differing with the ruling of his Math-hab deceives himself by believing that he is following the Sunnah. Following the Sunnah is not possible beyond the confines of the Math-hab. The authorities of the Math-hab were fully aware of the Ahadith which allegedly conflict with the rulings of the Math-hab. They had the necessary knowledge pertaining to such affairs. It is, therefore, a shaitaani deception for the Muqallid, especially weak Muqallideen such as us in this belated age, to believe that we are following the Sunnah while we reject the rulings of the Aimmah.

(12) The opinions of the Aimmah do not contradict the Hadith. It is our limited knowledge and total inability which make us believe that the opinions of the Aimmah conflict with certain Ahadith. There are valid and Shar’i explanations and interpretations for any apparent conflict. We in this day are not in position to fully understand all the different facets which had produced the opinions of the Aimmah. The reliable Ahadith are not rejected. They are accepted, but the relevant facts pertaining to the reliable Hadith in question are stated.

(13) Any difference which the Students of Imam Abu Hanifah had with him o*n issues of detail, e.g. raising the hands, etc., was not in conflict with the Usool. While they were of such standing that they could resort to such differences in view of the o*n-going process of Hadith transmission in their time, we in this time cannot act in the same way o*n the basis of our defective knowledge of Islamic sciences. We simply have to follow the rulings of the Jamhoor of the Math-hab.

(14) The incumbent duty of the Muqallid is not o*nly Taqleed, but Ittiba’. We have to make Ittiba’ of the Jamhoor of the Math-hab. If we don’t, we are bound to fall into deviation. The first step into the path of deviation is to abandon Ittiba’. o*nce shaitaan has made us accustomed to abandon Ittiba’, the ground will become fertile to reject Taqleed. The modernist Salafis have fallen into this Satanic trap.

(15) It is dangerous for the masses to seek answers from the Books of Fiqh in which appear Ikhtilaafaat (difference of opinion) and Dalaa-il. The masses o*n account of lacking totally in higher Islamic knowledge will become confused. They should adhere to books which teach the masaail for practical purposes.

(16) Without following a particular Math-hab, a person is bound to stray into deviation. He will follow his desires. It is, therefore, incumbent to follow a Specific math-hab.

(17) Picking and choosing rulings from the different Math-habs, is the product of desire. The nafs constrains a person to adopt such an exercise. No Math-hab permits this. However, when there is a real need for adopting a ruling of another Math-hab, the Ulama will study the circumstances and incorporate such a ruing into the Math-hab o*n the basis of the Usool of the Math-hab. Picking and choosing at random and desire is to trifle with the Deen. Such trifling can lead to the destruction of Imaan.

(18) An exercise to unify the Math-habs will imply the initiation of a fifth Math-hab. Since the rulings of the Math-habs are based o*n Dalaa-il and certain Dalaa-il are the product of interpretation, unification is not possible. There are and will always be differences among the Scholars who are Muqallids of the same Math-hab. Furthermore, such an attempt is uncalled for. Differences in the Math-hab never lead to disunity and conflict. Ignorance leads to disunity and conflict. We are taught to respect all the four Math-habs. Although we are followers of the Hanafi Math-habs, we always insist that followers of the other Math-habs adhere strictly to the ruling and teachings of their respective Math-habs. The belief of the followers of all Math-habs is that the Four Math-habs are o*n the Haqq because their basis is the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. While conceding that errors are possible and that errors in opinion have been committed, no Math-hab can be branded as baatil or in deviation. Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) said:

"The differences of my Ummah are a blessing."

Such differences existed among the Sahaabah also. These differences of the Sahaabah were inherited by the Students of the different Sahaabah, hence the differences in the Math-habs.

The Math-habs do not advocate sectarianism or antagonism among the followers of the different Math-habs as the deviant, anti-Math-hab Salafis of this age claim. We see such antagonism o*nly in the ranks of the ignorant o*nes. If the Shaafi performs Witr in his way and the Hanafi in his way, what is the need for antagonism? Some of our friends are Shaafi Ulama for whom we have great respect and love. There is absolutely no ill-feeling. No sectarianism. No antagonism. But, jahl (ignorance) is an evil disease.

This letter is a very brief answer to your queries.