Ibn 'Uthaymin on Taqlid.

[Abu_Tamim]

http://shiningblades.blogspot.in/201...u-alaykum.html

[Abu_Tamim]

Assalamu alaykum

Let us watch what happens where the rejection of taqleed takes them.

Trying to learn swimming directly from book, without guidance of an instructor.

Hum to doobenge sanam tumhein bhi le doobenge.

Those who are doing it are either drowning or doggy-paddling.
And they wanna take part in the Olympics.

[Jadeed]

This is a half-quote and it is not indicative of Shaykh Uthaymeen's actual position, which is not in favor of taqlid of a single mad'hab for the layman. Rather, he is in favor of the layman asking any Mufti, regardless of the school of thought of the Mufti.

Types of Taqleed:

Taqleed is of two types: general and specific.
1) The general type: that a person sticks to a particular madhhab (school of thought), accepting it's concessions and non-concessions, in all matters of the deen.

The scholars have differed about such a state. So some amongst the late-comers have reported that this is obligatory upon him, due to his inability to perform ijtihaad. Others report it as being forbidden for him, due to its being a case of necessitating unrestricted following of other than the Prophet (SAW).

Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said,

"The saying that it is obligatory, causes obedience to other than the Prophet (SAW) in every matter of command and pohibition, and this is in opposition to the ijmaa'. And the allowance of it contains what it contains."

He (RH) also said,

"He who sticks to a particular madhhab, and then acts in opposition to it - without making taqleed of another scholar who has given him a ruling, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which necessitates acting in opposition to his madhhab, nor does he have an acceptable Sharee'ah excuse which allows him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his desires, doing what is haraam - without a Sharee'ah excuse - and this is evil and sinful.
However, if there becomes clear to him, something which necessitates preference to one saying to another - either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of two people to be more knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety with regards to what he says - and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one, then this is permissible, rather, it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad about this."

2) The particular type of taqleed is that he accepts a saying about a particular matter. This is permissible if such a person is unable to arrive at knowledge of the by ijtihaad - whether he is unable to in reality, or he is able, but with great difficulty.

[bugmenot]

This is a half-quote and it is not indicative of Shaykh Uthaymeen's actual position, which is not in favor of taqlid of a single mad'hab for the layman. Rather, he is in favor of the layman asking any Mufti, regardless of the school of thought of the Mufti.

You perfectly know that saying to the common people to ask any mufti will result in taking the easiest view each time. It happens everyday you cannot deny it (many western "ikhwani" laymen are the living proof of that).
And even if we do so sincerely, differentiating between any of the mujtahid's view requires huge knowledge that laymen (like us, even though we are not simple farmers) are incapable to do.

So practically you have to follow a specific shaykh's teachings and stick to it, be it Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i or Ibn Baz (rahimahumullah), and even though you may not agree you will in reality be following a "madh'hab", be it the "madh-hab" of of Ibn Baz, or the "Madh-hab" of Al-Shafi'i. We prefer the 4 imams' madhahib for obvious reasons.

Obviously nowhere in the qur'an & sunnah does the names of the madhahib appear, it's not fardh as would be an injunction of the shari'ah, but it's indirectly fardh. It's also simple & plain logic.
If you agree with the above then it's simply a war of words which makes no difference on the ground except deviating the unlearned ones from the right attitude to adopt.

Do we advise people to differentiate between different medical treatments and choose the closest one to the scientific proofs ? Even doctors find it hard to draw conclusions from a medical article although they studied 10+ years. What about asking patients then? they conduct themselves the study maybe?

But our youth is so full of talent.

[Jadeed]

You perfectly know that saying to the common people to ask any mufti will result in taking the easiest view each time. It happens everyday you cannot deny it (many western "ikhwani" laymen are the living proof of that).
And even if we do so sincerely, differentiating between any of the mujtahid's view requires huge knowledge that laymen (like us, even though we are not simple farmers) are incapable to do.

1) Why are you putting words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head)? No, I don't know that. You realize that I can go to different Darul Iftaa sites and find easier fatwas, right? It's quite simple to do that. Mufti Ahmed Sadek Desai is very strict, Mufti Ebrahim Desai is less strict, and Muhammad ibn Adam is much less strict. Following a school doesn't chain anyone's desires and doesn't block any means, realistically speaking.

2) Nowhere did I say that the layman has to differentiate between the fatwa of Mufti X or Mufti Y based on evidence, and neither did Shaykh Uthaymeen. At most, the layman has to choose the Mufti who he thinks is most knowledgeable and pious, and this is as close as a layman should get to ijtihad.

3) What was said is that a layman should ask any Mufti for a fatwa and then act on that fatwa regardless of what school he (the Mufti) is from. There is no proof that the Mufti is required to give evidence to the layman who asks for it, and frankly I don't see what the point is, since the fatwa of the Mufti is evidence for the layman.

4) Shaikh Bin Baaz did not have his own mad'hab, he was a Hanbali who made tarjeeh within the mad'hab and sometimes left it, as attested to by numerous students of his. The Hanbali mad'hab is like that. The popular fiqh books like al-Iqna' are different from early books but they are still mad'hab books.

[Muhammad_786]

1) Why are you putting words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head)? No, I don't know that. You realize that I can go to different Darul Iftaa sites and find easier fatwas, right? It's quite simple to do that. Mufti Ahmed Sadek Desai is very strict, Mufti Ebrahim Desai is less strict, and Muhammad ibn Adam is much less strict. Following a school doesn't chain anyone's desires and doesn't block any means, realistically speaking.

2) Nowhere did I say that the layman has to differentiate between the fatwa of Mufti X or Mufti Y based on evidence, and neither did Shaykh Uthaymeen. At most, the layman has to choose the Mufti who he thinks is most knowledgeable and pious, and this is as close as a layman should get to ijtihad.

3) What was said is that a layman should ask any Mufti for a fatwa and then act on that fatwa regardless of what school he (the Mufti) is from. There is no proof that the Mufti is required to give evidence to the layman who asks for it, and frankly I don't see what the point is, since the fatwa of the Mufti is evidence for the layman.

4) Shaikh Bin Baaz did not have his own mad'hab, he was a Hanbali who made tarjeeh within the mad'hab and sometimes left it, as attested to by numerous students of his. The Hanbali mad'hab is like that. The popular fiqh books like al-Iqna' are different from early books but they are still mad'hab books.

Good point raised this is the madhaab of the Hanabilah.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

4) Shaikh Bin Baaz did not have his own mad'hab, he was a Hanbali who made tarjeeh within the mad'hab and sometimes left it, as attested to by numerous students of his. The Hanbali mad'hab is like that. The popular fiqh books like al-Iqna' are different from early books but they are still mad'hab books.

How dare you apply Hanbali usool to the Hanbali Madhab!

[bugmenot]

4-My quote of Ibn Baz () was just an example, like many people say "we should not stick to one madhhab only" whereas they in fact stick to the "madhhab" of famous salafi scholars. I mean what's the difference then?
3-Ok but what prevents normal people from switching muftis according to their convenience.
2-You didn't say it but that's what most people do reading such fatwas. Examples are abundant on salafi forums you know.
1-I don't see one stricter than the other. Following a school makes things less dangerous for people for the above mentioned reasons realistically speaking.

I simply don't see what's the problem in doing taqleed of a madhhab. People should follow any respectable shaykh, be he "salafi" or of the 4 madhahib but then majority of people should not be encouraged to switch.

Wassalamu 'alaykum.

[Ansari]

4) Shaikh Bin Baaz did not have his own mad'hab, he was a Hanbali who made tarjeeh within the mad'hab and sometimes left it, as attested to by numerous students of his. The Hanbali mad'hab is like that. The popular fiqh books like al-Iqna' are different from early books but they are still mad'hab books.

Rarding Sheikh Ibn Bazz (may Allah be merciful with him), I really do not know. I browsed through a book of his once and I found issues that differ from the madhhab, though this itself is not proof one way or the other. More than one person has said that he is closer to the ways of Al-Shawkani (may Allah be merciful with him) than he is the Hanabila.

http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/h/172.html

[Ansari]

This is a half-quote and it is not indicative of Shaykh Uthaymeen's actual position, which is not in favor of taqlid of a single mad'hab for the layman. Rather, he is in favor of the layman asking any Mufti, regardless of the school of thought of the Mufti.

If you ask Salafi students whether it is in favor of sticking only to the "Salafi" scholars then it's no problem. And this is what we see amongst the Madkhali branch of Salafism, where they oblige the layman not to blindly follow, i.e. end up following their stances.

In his fatawa under the chapter of knowledge, he mentions you are supposed to stick to 1 scholar:

فأقول : ملازمة عالم واحد مهمة جداً ما دام الطالب في أول الطريق لكي لا يتذبذب , ولهذا كان مشائخنا ينهوننا عن مطالعة المغني وشرح المهذب والكتب التي فيها أقوال متعددة عندما كنا في زمن الطلبة , وذكر لنا بعض مشائخنا أن الشيخ عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بابطين ـ رحمه الله ـ وهو من كبار مشائخ نجد ذكروا أنه كان مكبَّاً على الروض المربع لا يطالع إلا إياه ويكرره , كل ما خلص منه كرره لكن يأخذه بالمفهوم والمنطوق والإشارة والعبارة فحصل خير كثير

He states in the above quote that on of the greatest scholar of Najd, ONLY used to read the Hanbali book al-rawd!

He clearly states that the student of knowledge is supposed to study with 1 specific scholar:

أما إن توسعت مدارك الإنسان فهذا ينبغي له أن ينظر أقوال العلماء يستفيد منها فائدة علمية وفائدة تطبيقية , لكن في أول الطلب أنا أنصح الطالب أن يركز على شيخ معين لا يتعداه

In his fatwa he clearly states that problems arise if the students starts comparing fatawa:

جيد كون الإنسان يركز على شيخ من المشائخ يجعله هو الأصل لا سيما المبتدئ الصغير , المبتدئ الصغير إذا طلب العلم على عدة أناس تذبذب , لأن الناس ليسوا على رأي واحد خصوصاً في عصرنا الآن , كان فيما سبق أي قبل مدة كان الناس هنا في المملكة لا يخرجون أبداً عن الإقناع والمنتهى ؛ فتجد فتاواهم واحدة , وشروحهم واحدة , لا يختلف واحد عن آخر إلا في الإلقاء وحسن الأسلوب , لكن الآن لما كان كل واحد حافظاً حديثاً أو حديثين قال : أنا الإمام المقتدى به والإمام أحمد رجل ونحن رجال , فصارت المسألة فوضى , صار الإنسان يفتي , أحياناً تأتي الفتوى تبكي وتضحك وكنت أهمَّ أن أدوَّن مثل هذه الفتاوى لكن كنت أخشى أن أكون ممن تتبع عورات إخوانه فتركته تحاشيناً مني إلا نقلنا أشياء بعيدة عن الصواب بُعد الثريا عن الثرى

So here, we see Uthaymeen highlighting the dangers and problems if you take from different scholars!