Ibn 'Uthaymin on Taqlid.

[Rifai]

Sidi SeekerOfGuidance,


While Mawlana's reasons are understandable, although by no means conclusive to obligate it on the entire Ummah, it does not stop there. For the vocal propogators of Taqlid Shakhsi in our times not only obligate it on the awwam to stick to Muftis of a particular madhhab, but they often criticize the scholars of the school for teaching other than certain specific opinions (mu´tamad, mash'hur etc). While it may be wise for the masses (non-scholars, non-students) to do such a rigid Taqlid for the reasons that you quoted, but surely accusing not only the awwam, but also the ulama of the dhahir and batin of lacking sincerity etc. are very dangerous accusations. So surely those are not reasons for obligating Taqlid Shakhsi on Tullab and Ulama, yet scholars not following the standard textbooks are shot down within seconds.

As for the nafs, I find some "super-shakhsis" bringing that out of themselves too. Their Hanafism or Malikism etc. becomes a matter of the nafs. Surely that is equally detrimental. Also... How does transgressing the limits of the shari´ah, opposing ijma´ etc. come into play if you do Taqlid of the Mujtahid Imams, but not sticking to a specific madhhab? There is a difference between following different Mujtahids and an illiterate farmer doing his own ijtihad and extracting rulings from the sources.


wassalam

[maneatinglizard]

Sidi SeekerOfGuidance,


While Mawlana's reasons are understandable, although by no means conclusive to obligate it on the entire Ummah, it does not stop there. For the vocal propogators of Taqlid Shakhsi in our times not only obligate it on the awwam to stick to Muftis of a particular madhhab, but they often criticize the scholars of the school for teaching other than certain specific opinions (mu´tamad, mash'hur etc). While it may be wise for the masses (non-scholars, non-students) to do such a rigid Taqlid for the reasons that you quoted, but surely accusing not only the awwam, but also the ulama of the dhahir and batin of lacking sincerity etc. are very dangerous accusations. So surely those are not reasons for obligating Taqlid Shakhsi on Tullab and Ulama, yet scholars not following the standard textbooks are shot down within seconds.

As for the nafs, I find some "super-shakhsis" bringing that out of themselves too. Their Hanafism or Malikism etc. becomes a matter of the nafs. Surely that is equally detrimental. Also... How does transgressing the limits of the shari´ah, opposing ijma´ etc. come into play if you do Taqlid of the Mujtahid Imams, but not sticking to a specific madhhab? There is a difference between following different Mujtahids and an illiterate farmer doing his own ijtihad and extracting rulings from the sources.


wassalam

I agree with a lot of the things you have said in this thread, and I truly believe that, if a person is to claim that a layman can follow any scholar that that person should be willing to accept that people will follow scholars who allow hadra, mawlid, and other "Sufi" practices.

However, I think that the scholars who have obligated Taqleed Shakhsi and championed the cause do so in retaliation to the extreme propaganda spewed by the Ahle Hadith, Albanites, and other anti-Madhabists. So the extremism (which I only really see in laymen, not scholars) is a reaction to similar extremism. I see this as being similar to Arab Asharis (like the Habashis) responding to the extreme propaganda of the Arab Salafis against Asharis/Maturidis with their own extremism, in making takfir of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and others. Neither response is absolutely desirable or free of blame, but both are expected reactions to the extremism coming from the other side (which, to be fair, may also have originated in reaction to others) in this day where many of the debates are occurring between the laymen on forums and in masjids rather than between the scholars where they belong.

But going back to your point, I think they issue we ultimately have to deal with is whether or not we are willing to accept the differences that exist in this Ummah, and how we will be consistent in that applying our standards.

[Rifai]

I definitely agree with you sidi.

Shaykh al-Akbar ibn Arabi was very pro-hadith, in the sense that he thought that the Ulama should not set themselves up as barriers between the awwam and block their relationship with Allah Ta'ala and His Rasul, sallallahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. Rather, according to him, they should give the awwam certain room to move within, as such interaction with the sources would lead to increased iman and love for the Sunnah, as it developes a personal relationship. One may think that his approach would lead to a similar attitude to what we see in the Wahhabiyah today. But instead his understanding of drinking directly from the source (Book and the Sunnah), and being against rigid taqlid; did not allow him to criticize others personal practices and views, for that would be the same as obliging them to do taqlid of his views, which is against his very approach to the matter. Surely much wisdom can be derived from that for the one who reflects.

It is also sad that the very people who wave the banners of 4 madhhabs, the broadness of Islam with its acceptance of ikhtilaf, still come out as bigotted as the rest of us.

May Allah guide us all to goodness.
wassalam

[Jadeed]

I agree with a lot of the things you have said in this thread, and I truly believe that, if a person is to claim that a layman can follow any scholar that that person should be willing to accept that people will follow scholars who allow hadra, mawlid, and other "Sufi" practices.

What if such ulema also advise that one call on the dead - as most of them do? Should one allow laymen to follow them then?

Clearly 'any scholar,' is within some limits.

[ImamGhazzaali]

How does transgressing the limits of the shari´ah, opposing ijma´ etc. come into play if you do Taqlid of the Mujtahid Imams, but not sticking to a specific madhhab?

Assalamu 'alaykum sidi,

Some would say that since you are opposing such and such ijma' by these many 'ulama that cite it in their books, you are now going against ijma' and thus sinful. How would you refute this common perception?

Generally speaking, the layman choosing a madhhab, sifting through the books trying to find what opinions to act upon etc, are all new phonemena of "Secular Islam",.....Shah Waliullah has a very good book on taqlid called al-Insaf fi bayan al-asbab al-ikhtilaf.

I have heard of that book, is it a balanced view of taqleed [covering issues about taqleed ash-shakhsi as well?

And, what do you mean by the layman sifting through different views, is this when they make their own little ijtihad and try to do some sort of blameworthy 'following their desires' ?

I recently read something elsewhere that a Shaykh [Maliki] said Niqab are anti-da'wah methods and someone else said it is a barrier and then the Shaykh said it ''It resembles the Wahabite ways of dressing,''. How does the Shafi'i school respond to that?

The Shaykh added that other things but for the sake of brevity I have left it out.

JazakAllahu Khayran,
Wassalam.

[Rifai]

ImamGhazzaali,


Ijma´:

What ijma´ is being opposed? We have to define the word ijma´... and the truth of the matter is that there is no ijma´on the word ijma´. Imam al-Shafi´i's understanding of the concept is pretty strict, and proving a consensus is extremely hard. Most things that are cited as ijma´are not, at least from the point of view of the noble Imam, rahmatu'Allahi ´alayh. As for the book by Shah Waliullah (rahmatu'Allahi ´alayh), then it basically shows that the ´Ulama have not obliged Taqlid Shakhsi on the ´awwam.


Niqab:

The Shaykh (hafidhahu'Allah) is very knowledgable and I have the utmost respect for him. It is one thing that we refrain from blaming the sisters for not covering their face and hands, for not only can it be extremely hard, but there is a scope of difference of opinion, which can be applied here for valid reasons insha'Allah. However, it is something completely different to discourage them from wearing it, for it does not pose a hardship to everyone in the West.

That it resembles "Wahhabi dress" (in the author's mind) only goes to show that the Sunnis have largely left this Sunnah. But the beard too is seen as a "Wahhabi thing" is the eyes of many, should we all trim our beards short, because there too an opinion of leniency exists? If you ask me, it is our responsibility to reclaim the Sunnah from the deviants. This while not being too hard on those who struggle.

The Shafi´i response would be that it is either Wajib in essence as Ramli believed, or due to external causes, which is the opinion of Imam al-Haytami. The second opinion is definitely the more lenient of the two, with Imam al-Haytami obligating it when there is fitna. Fitna has specifically been described as when men do not lower their gazes; not when the sisters are "extremely beautiful" as is the misconception by many in some Shafi´i-lands (such as Malaysia). Therefore in a pious society a sister may not need to cover her face, but surely you will be hard pressed to find such places.

But again, a layman is technically allowed to follow such an opinion, as it is beyond the scope of the majority to investigate and reach a firm conclusion as to whether it is obligatory or not. So we should not pick on our sisters, but we should try to have a dialogue with the ´Ulama and encourage them to take all aspects into consideration, such as there being a big difference between a sister wearing it in some hillbilly society somewhere in Texas, and example Philadelphia. There is a difference between wearing it in Whitechapel and in France.

I do understand where the Shaykh is coming from, and he is trying to be pragmatic. It very well may be a barrier to da´wah in some societies, and it may also cause physical harm to the one wearing it etc. So if he has Usuli principles that he can utilize in order to give such a fatwa, khayr insha'Allah. However, I personally believe that such a fatwa should be more specific, for this (niqab being a hardship etc.) is not always the case. No matter our opinions, it is important that we are not too hard on our sisters.

wa Allahu a´lam.

[ImamGhazzaali]

ImamGhazzaali,


Ijma´:

What ijma´ is being opposed? We have to define the word ijma´... and the truth of the matter is that there is no ijma´on the word ijma´. Imam al-Shafi´i's understanding of the concept is pretty strict, and proving a consensus is extremely hard. Most things that are cited as ijma´are not, at least from the point of view of the noble Imam, rahmatu'Allahi ´alayh. As for the book by Shah Waliullah (rahmatu'Allahi ´alayh), then it basically shows that the ´Ulama have not obliged Taqlid Shakhsi on the ´awwam.


Niqab:

The Shaykh (hafidhahu'Allah) is very knowledgable and I have the utmost respect for him. It is one thing that we refrain from blaming the sisters for not covering their face and hands, for not only can it be extremely hard, but there is a scope of difference of opinion, which can be applied here for valid reasons insha'Allah. However, it is something completely different to discourage them from wearing it, for it does not pose a hardship to everyone in the West.

That it resembles "Wahhabi dress" (in the author's mind) only goes to show that the Sunnis have largely left this Sunnah. But the beard too is seen as a "Wahhabi thing" is the eyes of many, should we all trim our beards short, because there too an opinion of leniency exists? If you ask me, it is our responsibility to reclaim the Sunnah from the deviants. This while not being too hard on those who struggle.

The Shafi´i response would be that it is either Wajib in essence as Ramli believed, or due to external causes, which is the opinion of Imam al-Haytami. The second opinion is definitely the more lenient of the two, with Imam al-Haytami obligating it when there is fitna. Fitna has specifically been described as when men do not lower their gazes; not when the sisters are "extremely beautiful" as is the misconception by many in some Shafi´i-lands (such as Malaysia). Therefore in a pious society a sister may not need to cover her face, but surely you will be hard pressed to find such places.

But again, a layman is technically allowed to follow such an opinion, as it is beyond the scope of the majority to investigate and reach a firm conclusion as to whether it is obligatory or not. So we should not pick on our sisters, but we should try to have a dialogue with the ´Ulama and encourage them to take all aspects into consideration, such as there being a big difference between a sister wearing it in some hillbilly society somewhere in Texas, and example Philadelphia. There is a difference between wearing it in Whitechapel and in France.

I do understand where the Shaykh is coming from, and he is trying to be pragmatic. It very well may be a barrier to da´wah in some societies, and it may also cause physical harm to the one wearing it etc. So if he has Usuli principles that he can utilize in order to give such a fatwa, khayr insha'Allah. However, I personally believe that such a fatwa should be more specific, for this (niqab being a hardship etc.) is not always the case. No matter our opinions, it is important that we are not too hard on our sisters.

wa Allahu a´lam.

I don't really get how it's known to be a 'Wahhabi' form of dressing or resembling them as I've seen numerous non-Wahhabi women in niqaab [not that I know them personally but it's well known and kind of common sense..unless one claims that Deobandis are a type of 'Wahhabis']

So is the Shafi'i school like the Malikiyyah, in which one can follow non-mashhur views and not necessarily need to stick to the mashhur?

For sure, even 'Salah' can be seen as a barrier but since this is fard whereas niqaab might be mustahab or not fard to some, instead of saying that one need not wear it in certain places where it's a barrier to the non-Muslims, one might argue to change that same niqaab into pro-da'wah to the non-Muslims.

[Rifai]

Sidi,

I don't agree with calling it a Wahhabi way of dressing, and I find it offensive. The niqab is highly recommended at least (and I encourage the women of my household to wear it), and it should not be downplayed. And while it may have come across that way, I doubt that the Shaykh intended it that way. He lives in Leicester where he is surrounded by the Indo-Pak "intrigues", with the Deobandis being very pro Niqab as we all know. Maybe in light of that, he wanted to make it clear that there are other valid opinions (within the Maliki school) that can be practised in the west. Again, we should not be too hard on our sisters. Wa'Allahu a´lam.

Whether "da´wah-barrier" is a valid principle to utilize when giving fatwa, Allah knows best. The Shaykh is extremely learned in the Maliki school, and I have heard a Shaykh who is a Mufti of both the Shafi´i and the Maliki school recommend students of the Maliki school to go the Shaykh in question for any Fiqh matters. So he is very much competent.

So is the Shafi'i school like the Malikiyyah, in which one can follow non-mashhur views and not necessarily need to stick to the mashhur?

I think this comes back to our conversation throughout this thread. Generally the books of al-Nawawi, such as the Rawda and Minhaj, the latter with its shuruh al-Mughni and al-Tuhfah, are guidelines and references for giving fatwa. This is generally representative of the Shafi´i school (the mu´tamad) but there is nothing legally binding for the competent mufti who is well versed in the usul to issue a fatwa in accordance with it.

A practice that I find good and balanced is to mention the mu´tamad, and if one (as a mufti) disagrees with it or finds a wisdom in mentioning another ruling, one may add that. But without mentioning the mu´tamad, there is a risk of minority opinions etc. becoming "The Shafi´i school says" in the minds of the ´awwam.

Wa'Allahu a´lam.

[ImamGhazzaali]

Salam,

I am not trying to insult or belittle the esteemed Shaykh, sidi. May Allah continue to allow to seek benefit from him, amin.

I was interested in some clarifications but did not want to ask in the place where he had posted this, for personal reasons.

Sidi,

I don't agree with calling it a Wahhabi way of dressing, and I find it offensive. The niqab is highly recommended at least (and I encourage the women of my household to wear it), and it should not be downplayed. And while it may have come across that way, I doubt that the Shaykh intended it that way. He lives in Leicester where he is surrounded by the Indo-Pak "intrigues", with the Deobandis being very pro Niqab as we all know. Maybe in light of that, he wanted to make it clear that there are other valid opinions (within the Maliki school) that can be practised in the west. Again, we should not be too hard on our sisters. Wa'Allahu a´lam.

Whether "da´wah-barrier" is a valid principle to utilize when giving fatwa, Allah knows best. The Shaykh is extremely learned in the Maliki school, and I have heard a Shaykh who is a Mufti of both the Shafi´i and the Maliki school recommend students of the Maliki school to go the Shaykh in question for any Fiqh matters. So he is very much competent.


I think this comes back to our conversation throughout this thread. Generally the books of al-Nawawi, such as the Rawda and Minhaj, the latter with its shuruh al-Mughni and al-Tuhfah, are guidelines and references for giving fatwa. This is generally representative of the Shafi´i school (the mu´tamad) but there is nothing legally binding for the competent mufti who is well versed in the usul to issue a fatwa in accordance with it.

A practice that I find good and balanced is to mention the mu´tamad, and if one (as a mufti) disagrees with it or finds a wisdom in mentioning another ruling, one may add that. But without mentioning the mu´tamad, there is a risk of minority opinions etc. becoming "The Shafi´i school says" in the minds of the ´awwam.

Wa'Allahu a´lam.

So in the end, the Shafi'iyyah are like the Malikiyyah that there is no compulsion in following the non-mu'tamad?

Thank you for the beneficial knowledge you transmitted sidi. I am still learning.