Ibn 'Uthaymin on Taqlid.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

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?

Actually your quote was an attempt to say that it's better to follow one of the four Madhabs than the "New" Madhab of one of the Salafi scholars like bin Baaz, however you failed to realize that following bin baaz in turn means you're actually indirectly following one of the four Madhabs (hanbali), just as you or someone like you may follow a specific scholar from Deoband... does that mean he is following that scholars NEW madhab, or indirectly following the Hanafi Madhab?

Their is no difference in that one can follow bin baaz and not the hanbali madhab from other than him (ibn Muflih, Futoohi, ibn qudaama, etc etc) however sometimes it's more about ignorance, and lack of resources in the target language.

But again the major difference between the Salafis who choose not to follow a Madhab is the obligation that you put on them to follow a Madhab, they don't believe it's obligatory rather they believe it's only obligatory to follow knowledgable trustworthy scholars.

3-Ok but what prevents normal people from switching muftis according to their convenience.

1) That can happen inside a Madhab through different tarjeeh, and it also can happen by a mufti telling people that they can go outside of their madhab in certain situations, so this fear of following ones desires is in fact weak, at the end of the day it all depends on a persons fear of Allah and has nothing to do with being restrained in a Madhab. Besides, most Salafis take from only a specific amount of scholars whose opinions usually are some what similar, and never really are some extreme opinions, it's usually the ignorant layman or the person seeking to do something haram while making it halal that run into strange fatawa.

[Ansari]

I've spent a few months with a Salafi sister and alot of what we believe about them is mostly lies and sectarian propoganda.

You first state it is propaganda but then you admit there is a group amongst Salafis like the ahlul hadith movement.

You can't deny that the Albani group clearly negate "tamadhdhhub" and call those who follow a madhhab, blind followers. Albani clearly states that the muqallida are one of the 73 sects, in his footnotes of Aqida Tahawiyya. We have the likes of Muqbil and Madkhali, clearly disagreeing with the likes of Fawzan, Ibn Uthaymeen, condemning taqlid fully and making a distinction between taqlid and ittiba. Why did Albani condemn Ibn Abd al-Wahhab for not following Salafi fiqh then?

Then we have also Salafis such as the preacher Al-Arifi stating you are supposed to 'follow the proof.' So when a proof comes to you, you leave your school which means you actually follow Salafi fiqh. As Arifi himself stated that everyone should leave the madhhab and perform wudu if one has eaten camel meat.

So nothing has been blown out of proportion. Yes there are different kind of Salafis out there, who do accept the schools, but there are plenty of them out there who do not.

[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

[TripolySunni]

السلام عليكم

Scholars like him would say there is nothing wrong with following a Madhab, but if one sees the truth in a narration and his Madhab says otherwise, then he should follow the correct narration.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

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

While the Madhab of the Hanabilah does have raajih opinions, the Madhab itself is built upon the fact that the scholar of the Madhab does tarjeeh for that which he thinks is correct, whether inside the Madhab or by following a daleel that the Madhab didn't follow... THIS IS FOLLOWING THE MADHAB, In general a scholar being part of the Madhab means that he uses the usool of the Madhab to follow the daleel, not necessarily that he follows the opinion of the Madhab in ever instance. This can be seen from any of the scholars of the Madhab of the past, not only recent scholars.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

You first state it is propaganda but then you admit there is a group amongst Salafis like the ahlul hadith movement.

You can't deny that the Albani group clearly negate "tamadhdhhub" and call those who follow a madhhab, blind followers. Albani clearly states that the muqallida are one of the 73 sects, in his footnotes of Aqida Tahawiyya. We have the likes of Muqbil and Madkhali, clearly disagreeing with the likes of Fawzan, Ibn Uthaymeen, condemning taqlid fully and making a distinction between taqlid and ittiba. Why did Albani condemn Ibn Abd al-Wahhab for not following Salafi fiqh then?

http://shaikhalbaani.wordpress.com/2...owing-taqleed/

Please quote Albani directly, because here it says almost the polar opposite of what you said concerning him.

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “I do not know of any proof that states that blind following is haraam, rather blind following is a necessity for the one who has no knowledge. And Allaah, the one free from all defects and the Most High, said, “So ask those who know the Scripture if you know not.” Therefore, this aayah placed the Muslims into two categories as regards knowledge:

He goes on to say:

And maybe what is intended is something other than what was mentioned in the question [directed to me] and that is the forbiddance of actively splitting into sects and groups; i.e., that a person take his religion from one of schools of thought that are followed and then he totally [refuses] to look at what the other schools of thought might say or at what the sayings of other scholars are–so it is this blind following of schools of thought which is then taken as religion that is not permitted because it opposes the proofs from the Book and the Sunnah.

So maybe that is similar to what he said?

[Jadeed]

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

The above is a statement wherein the person who states it himself says that he is making the statement out of general ignorance. If you want to use it as a proof ('more than one person...' great standard of proof! More than one person has said that Rashid Ahmed Gangohi said that Allah lied (naudhubillah) but they failed to produce any proof in this regard, so their statement is washed away like old soap-suds, and the same should be said of this 'more than one person said...' hog-wash!).

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!

1. With regards to his Shaikh, Abdur-Rahman as-Sa'di, he (the shaikh) wrote a book of fiqh called 'Manhaj as-Salikeen' which differs from the positions taken in al-Rawd al-Murbi' in numerous places (usually leaving for the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah) so I think this suffices to point to issues with what you are concluding from the statement.

2.

If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.

2) The particular type of taqleed is that he accepts a saying about a particular matter.

3. Nobody's asking anyone to compare fatwa or not compare fatwa. Simply: ask any Mufti and take his statement after you have asked. Your only 'ijtihad' would be in deciding who is the most qualified. For example, you know Mufti A specialized in Islamic finance so you ask him about a mortgage issue, and Mufti B specialized in contemporary fiqh so you ask him about an issue that has come up recently. But there is no reason to stick solely to people of one mad'hab.

[Abu Jahid]

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.

السلام عليكم

There is no problem with following one madhab, but the problem starts if someone starts saying that it's absolutely obligatory to follow one madhab only.

As a matter of fact the Hanabilah said that lay-muslims have no madhab and that they should ask the truthful scholars, whom they trust, if they have a question (i.e. Taqlid mutlaq). And it's not just the Hanabilah! The majority of the scholars of the 4 Madhahib did not oblige the lay-person to do Taqlid Shakhsi!
(The only ones who obliged it said it because they thought this could save the lay-people from following their desires.)

So why is it that many brothers on this forum are calling anyone who does not regard Taqlid Shakhsi as wajib as "Ghayr Muqallid"??

(Note: I don't agree with those who will attack the 4 Madhahib and who tell the lay-muslim to do their own ijtihad/tarjih!)

What I find also really worrying is when some people say such things like "making Hadhrah (i.e. "Sufi Dance") is haram in the Hanafi madhab, but it's allowed in the Shafi'i madhab".
So committing a very clear act of Bid'ah has become a matter of "difference of opion"!?
So some people are spreading Bid'ah and Dhalal in the name of the madhahib (and the 4 madhahib are innocent from what they do!) and if you tell them that this is wrong they will attack you and say that you're a "Ghayr Muqallid".

And this does not stop at Fiqhi matters!
There are also people (and "scholars") who will tell you that calling upon others than Allah ta'ala is allowed even though it's a clear act of Shirk! So even an act which throws one out of Islam has become a matter of "difference of opinion".

Only because someone calls himself "Hanafi" or anything else, it does not mean he's on the right path! The Barelvis also call themselves "Hanafi", but the truth is that they're mushrikin!

(And also calling yourself "Salafi" does not necessarily mean you're following the Salaf as-salih. Just look at the Madkhalis!)

And therefore I really don't understand why some brothers are talking so much about Taqlid [Shakhsi] and are acting as if Taqlid Shakhsi is the most important thing in our Din!

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

السلام عليكم
[/U]

Off topic Akhi, but were you Hanbali before or a different Madhab? I think I remember you being Hanafi..

[Ansari]

The above is a statement wherein the person who states it himself says that he is making the statement out of general ignorance. If you want to use it as a proof ('more than one person...' great standard of proof! More than one person has said that Rashid Ahmed Gangohi said that Allah lied (naudhubillah) but they failed to produce any proof in this regard, so their statement is washed away like old soap-suds, and the same should be said of this 'more than one person said...' hog-wash!).

Thats what you call humbleness when you say "you don't know," as the saying goes: the one who says he knows, know for sure he is ignorant. I thought you were smart enough to notice that. Read between the lines since he mentions the opposite.

Your comparison with Ml. Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is idiotic to say the least. We have Sh. Bin Baz and his Salafi students stating themselves they are not Hanbali and follow the "proof." So this is not slander.

If you want to prove the opposite: go ahead and cite from his words clearly that he is a Hanbali in its true sense, and cite from the usuli scholars of the madhhab it is perfectly fine to go outside of the madhhab a billion times and cite shadh opinions that do not have any basis in the 4 schools.

1. With regards to his Shaikh, Abdur-Rahman as-Sa'di, he (the shaikh) wrote a book of fiqh called 'Manhaj as-Salikeen' which differs from the positions taken in al-Rawd al-Murbi' in numerous places (usually leaving for the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah) so I think this suffices to point to issues with what you are concluding from the statement.

It is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Ibn Uthaymeen says you are supposed to stick to ONE scholar and mention the dangers and problems of taking different scholars as sources of fatwa. He cites a BIG scholar who read and studied ONLY hanbali books. In short: he recommends not to hip hop around if you are studying the knowledge of fiqh.

Now when the Ahnaaf mention exactly the same and point out the dangers of mixing with madhahib people like you somehow get a short-circuit. While even the Hanafi scholars allow talfeeq under conditions.