Questions regarding revisionist versions of the Madhabs today

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Throughout the ages, a divergence tends to develop between the original rulings of the Madhab, and the views of the ulama of a particular era. The role of the Mujaddid and the Muhaqqiq is to revive the original teachings. There is compelling evidence that such a revival in scholarship and tahqeeq took place last century at the the school of Deoband. A group of ulama emerged who produced innumerable scholarly works which resembled, as attested to by scholars globally, the works of the early classical scholars. Since their focus was the Hanafi Madhab, a revival of the original teachings of the Hanafi Madhab took place.

These Muhaqqiqs did not accept the rulings of the latter day fuqaha, without first deriving and verifying the actual ruling from the Usuls of the madhab, and according to usool ul-Fiqh of the Hanafi madhab. If the ruling differed, they adopted and revived the original ruling. Any view attributed to the Hanafi Madhab had to be based on reliable quotes from the founders of the madhab and verified by the early Fuqaha.

For a glimpse of the extent to which this divergence has developed between the ruling of the contemporary ulama and the Madhab, one only needs to observe how the following erroneous rulings, which are completely contrary to the ruling of the Madhab, are propagated widely by Hanafi scholars both in the sub-continent and the Arabian peninsula:

1) Building over the graves is permissible, and even recommended.

2) Trimming the beard below a fist-length is permissible. Some Hanafi ulama go as far as claiming that shaving is permissible.

3) Letting the trousers hang below the ankle is permissible if done without pride.

4) Attributing exclusive qualities of Allah to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). For example, many ulama today attribute Ilmul ghayb (such as knowledge of the last hour) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) despite the fact that the classical fuqaha have condemned such a belief very harshly. It is stated in the authoritative Hanafi texts, that anybody that attributes the ghayb to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has committed Kufr!

There is nothing to indicate that the state of the other three Madhabs would not have deteriorated in the same manner.

Due to the clear disparity between the categorical commands of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as understood by the Salaf, and the rulings of ulama who claim to be faithful representatives of the Madhabs, many sincere Muslims develop an inevitable distrust for the ulama, and fall for Salafism. One only needs to look at the following thread to see how certain groups of ulama have been pulling the wool over the eyes for so many years:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ing-on-graves)

In this thread I wish to discuss certain rulings attributed to a Madhab, which appear (at least on the surface) quite clearly contrary to the rulings issued by the early fuqaha.

[kakarot_999]

Throughout the ages, a divergence tends to develop between the original rulings of the Madhab, and the views of the ulama of a particular era. The role of the Mujaddid and the Muhaqqiq is to revive the original teachings. There is compelling evidence that such a revival in scholarship and tahqeeq took place last century at the the school of Deoband. A group of ulama emerged who produced innumerable scholarly works which resembled, as attested to by scholars globally, the works of the early classical scholars. Since their focus was the Hanafi Madhab, a revival of the original teachings of the Hanafi Madhab took place.

These Muhaqqiqs did not accept the rulings of the latter day fuqaha, without first deriving and verifying the actual ruling from the Usuls of the madhab, and according to usul al-Fiqh of the Hanafi madhab. If the ruling differed, they adopted and revived the original ruling. Any view attributed to the Hanafi Madhab had to be based on reliable quotes from the founders of the madhab and verified by the early Fuqaha.

For a glimpse of the extent to which this divergence has developed between the ruling of the contemporary ulama and the Madhab, one only needs to observe how widespread the following erroneous rulings, which are completely contrary to the ruling of the Madhab, are propagated by Hanafi scholars both in the sub-continent and the Arabian peninsula:

1) Building over the graves is permissible, and even recommended.

2) Trimming the beard below a fist-length is permissible. Some Hanafi ulama go as far as claiming that shaving is permissible.

3) Letting the trousers hang below the ankle is permissible if done without pride.

4) Attributing exclusive qualities of Allah to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). For example, many ulama today attribute Ilm al-ghayb (such as knowledge of the last hour) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) despite the fact that the classical fuqaha have condemned very harshly. It is stated in the authoritative Hanafi texts, that anybody that attributes the ghayb to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) has committed Kufr!

There is nothing to assume that the state of the other three Madhabs have not deteriorated in the same manner.

Due to the clear disparity between the categorical commands of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as understood by the Salaf, and the rulings of ulama who claim to be faithful representatives of the Madhabs, many sincere Muslims develop an inevitable distrust for the ulama, and fall for Salafism. One only needs to look at the following thread to see how certain groups of ulama have been pulling the wool over the eyes for so many years:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ing-on-graves)

In this thread I wish to discuss certain rulings attributed to a Madhab, which appear (at least on the surface) quite clearly contrary to the rulings issued by the early fuqaha.

And what is your qualification by the way? I mean we need to know whether you are a man of credibility before we consume everything you give us like blind sheep? I'm sure you agree akhi, because I know you're sincere and you would want us to research more about this issue but the truth is that some of us (although a minority) are not really as sincere and we will actually accept everything you give us without a thought.
Hope that didn't offend you beloved akhi.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

And what is your qualification by the way? I mean we need to know whether you are a man of credibility before we consume everything you give us like blind sheep? I'm sure you agree akhi, because I know you're sincere and you would want us to research more about this issue but the truth is that some of us (although a minority) are not really as sincere and we will actually accept everything you give us without a thought.
Hope that didn't offend you beloved akhi.

I only wish to discuss some of the rulings that are usually discussed on this forum anyway - for example the issue of trimming the beard which you asked regarding as well.

I wish to ask questions of knowledgable brothers on this forum regarding certain rulings being propagated by scholars today, which appear to contradict the rulings of the early fuqaha of the Madhab. I have contacted certain prominent scholars myself regarding some of the issues, and the answers were shockingly deficient to say the least.

[kakarot_999]

I only wish to discuss some of the rulings that are usually discussed on this forum anyway - for example the issue of trimming the beard which you asked regarding as well.

I wish to ask questions of knowledgable brothers on this forum regarding certain rulings being propagated by scholars today, which appear to contradict the rulings of the early fuqaha of the Madhab. I have contacted certain prominent scholars myself regarding some of the issues, and the answers were shockingly deficient to say the least.

You are going to ask knowledgable brothers to teach you about whether the teaching of scholars is true or not? LOL. It's like asking a student whether what his teacher is teaching him is wrong or right.

[UntoldTruth]

You are going to ask knowledgable brothers to teach you about whether the teaching of scholars is true or not? LOL. It's like asking a student whether what his teacher is teaching him is wrong or right.

it has been my experience that scholars can be silent.... Even when they know....

I found students to be more forthcoming with proofs and evidences..... and are willing to discuss, while scholars may not be willing to....

[kakarot_999]

it has been my experience that scholars can be silent.... Even when they know....

I found students to be more forthcoming with proofs and evidences..... and are willing to discuss, while scholars may not be willing to....

It what sense do you mean they were silent? You mean you sent them an old email and they haven't responded? Maybe they never got to reach it due to the large amount of emails they get. Or did you question them in public? Maybe them saying that thing will be harmful towards them and so they didn't say it. BUT if you went to them in private and you told them and they remained silent and they didn't give you a reason, then okay, you have an excuse, but that doesn't discredit their nobility.

[Ibrahimhanifa]

And what is your qualification by the way? I mean we need to know whether you are a man of credibility before we consume everything you give us like blind sheep? I'm sure you agree akhi, because I know you're sincere and you would want us to research more about this issue but the truth is that some of us (although a minority) are not really as sincere and we will actually accept everything you give us without a thought.
Hope that didn't offend you beloved akhi.

salam

you beat me to it! Anyways, well said!!!

the SF user seekersguidance has this thing about scholars reaading his posts/threads.

read this thread - he supposed to of consulted some shakyhs to refute another shakyh, blantant lies!

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...F-Haddad/page6

[Mullah]

hmm so basically the deobandis are educated salafis. in fact i should say they are most educated of all the salafis.

it is not a degrading observation: the aim of revising and reforming Islam is common in both deobandis and salafis as well as the notion of "going back to the basics". many salafis go back to the first three generations, many dont confine themselves to just one school (and consider opinions of all schools) but still go back to pious scholars. this manifests itself into a similar dislike for bidah. though i feel the deobandi approach towards bidah is more educated. it is incorrect to say all salafis prefer a do-it-yourself-islam. this stems from lack of knowledge about salafis.

the deobandi approach towards reform i feel is more correct as compared to the most educated of the salafis. (i read maulana manzoor ahmad noumani's ibn abdul wahhab aur ulema e haq and it is evident that deobandi ulema do not suffer from the rabid hate the extreme sufis, biddatis and traditionalists have for them. it is rather a very balanced approach.) and it is connected to how the two groups look at bidah.

of course among the extreme sufis and the traditionalists the issue of reform and 'going back to the basics' is looked down upon. unless the 'reform' is for providing a watered down version of Islam. that is why many have almost equal hate for deobandis and salafis. they sometimes use the word in synonymous fashion.

of course the deobandis are not the same as salafis. this is manifest in the difference of acceptance of sufi tareeqahs. even though deobandis have refined those tareeqahs aswell. sometimes some people take the ashari athari debate too far. deobandis prefer taqleed mutlaq but some salafis prefer taqleed shakhsi. it isnt a big deal. but the main thing that joins them is reform. and still it is heartening that the two most proactive groups of Muslims in the world who have the most out reach in terms of dawah and the only two groups who have stood up and looked the kuffar in the eye have much in common. sectarian people might disagree but I feel it is better to unite the ummah on what is common given that we dont let go of our fundamnetals and beliefs.

the salafis i feel need to be given more dawah so that their energy and zeal can be channeled via a more educated platform. some of them are utter juhla and say a lot of wicked stuff but i feel many deobandi evidences i feel would easily satisfy them. provided someone gives it to them. it is easier to connect with them than with barelvis and traditionalists. Allahualam.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

hmm so basically the deobandis are educated salafis. in fact i should say they are most educated of all the salafis.

it is not a degrading observation: the aim of revising and reforming Islam is common in both deobandis and salafis as well as the notion of "going back to the basics". many salafis go back to the first three generations, many dont confine themselves to just one school (and consider opinions of all schools) but still go back to pious scholars. this manifests itself into a similar dislike for bidah. though i feel the deobandi approach towards bidah is more educated. it is incorrect to say all salafis prefer a do-it-yourself-islam. this stems from lack of knowledge about salafis.

the deobandi approach towards reform i feel is more correct as compared to the most educated of the salafis. (i read maulana manzoor ahmad noumani's ibn abdul wahhab aur ulema e haq and it is evident that deobandi ulema do not suffer from the rabid hate the extreme sufis, biddatis and traditionalists have for them. it is rather a very balanced approach.) and it is connected to how the two groups look at bidah.

of course among the extreme sufis and the traditionalists the issue of reform and 'going back to the basics' is looked down upon. unless the 'reform' is for providing a watered down version of Islam. that is why many have almost equal hate for deobandis and salafis. they sometimes use the word in synonymous fashion.

of course the deobandis are not the same as salafis. this is manifest in the difference of acceptance of sufi tareeqahs. even though deobandis have refined those tareeqahs aswell. sometimes some people take the ashari athari debate too far. deobandis prefer taqleed mutlaq but some salafis prefer taqleed shakhsi. it isnt a big deal. but the main thing that joins them is reform. and still it is heartening that the two most proactive groups of Muslims in the world who have the most out reach in terms of dawah and the only two groups who have stood up and looked the kuffar in the eye have much in common. sectarian people might disagree but I feel it is better to unite the ummah on what is common given that we dont let go of our fundamnetals and beliefs.

the salafis i feel need to be given more dawah so that their energy and zeal can be channeled via a more educated platform. some of them are utter juhla and say a lot of wicked stuff but i feel many deobandi evidences i feel would easily satisfy them. provided someone gives it to them. it is easier to connect with them than with barelvis and traditionalists. Allahualam.

The pseudo-Salafis and pseudo-traditionalists are quite similar in the way that they tend to revive isolated and dangerous opinions. I've listed some examples here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post758023

[Mullah]

The pseudo-Salafis and pseudo-traditionalists are quite similar in the way that they tend to revive isolated and dangerous opinions. I've listed some examples here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post758023

thats not necessarily true always.
what is your comment on similarity between the 'reformist' mindset of deobandis and salafis? isnt the mujaddid who comes every century (either as a person or as a group) also a salafi in that sense?