Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Seeking knowledge from scholars...
timbuktu
05/21/05 at 18:25:58
[slm] [u]jannah[/u] said: [quote] i do wish we could discuss banned topics[/quote] if you truly wish so, jannah, it ain't difficult :) [s]you can create a special category of members who do not lose their cool, and who can be granted this privilege of discussing banned topics. For the hot-headed ones the thread would be "read-only". Your problem would be that moderators and administrators will also have to adhere to cool-headedness.[/s] I have struck these sentences out because I think tis will not serve any useful purpose, while we need to invest our time in more urgent and useful tasks. And why this blanket attack on "Fatwa shopping". Muslims in the early centuries did not adhere to any particular school of thought, or to any particular Shaykh. I also find this statement "fatwas were meant as a tool for the learned" strange. Is there a smiley for scratching the head? I would have thought the opposite was true. Fatwas were made for the ignorant ones like me, who needed to know what to do and who may not have the time to learn everything from which the rulings are derived. [i]only of course even ignorant ones like me can and do ask for daleel, and deserve to be satisfied.[/i] dear akhi [u]AbuKhaled[/u], here are answers to your questions. Q1: Why do I think I have the right to an opinion of my own? Answer: On the Day, every nafs will carry his/her own burden. No one will step forward to share it. Mostly I look for informed opinion and the reasons from the scholars. Then I make a decision on what to follow. It could be called "shopping for Fatwa". But my shopping is within the limits of the Sunni aqidah, and from what I have learnt, the Sahaba (ra), Tabieen and later generations too weren't bound to any one person or school of thought (except the prophet [saw]). I do pray to Allah (swt) and seek guidance from Him. We are to ask from those who know, but for this we must decide whom to get it from. And here lie the differences in opinion the discussion of which has been so neatly avoided. Q2: Why should those with knowledge entertain questions? Answer: It is their duty to explain and satisfy the questioner. This is why they have been given the knowledge. If they hide it, it will be katmaanul Haq, which has been condemned by Allah (swt) in the Book. You didn't ask the following question, but it is a corollary of those you did ask, so I have taken the liberty of asking and answering this question as well. Q3: Whom should we seek the guidance from? The prophet [saw] told us that those who stay on his path and that of his Sahaba (ra), would be in the saved group. Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (Rahimullah) stated this matter very well. He said in whatever you say regarding the deen, bring a daleel from the Quran and Sunnah.
05/22/05 at 08:08:13
timbuktu

Oh!pinion
AbuKhaled
05/22/05 at 16:00:49
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Sidi Timbuktu, Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah. I hope you are keeping well akhi. I think I should win some kind of honorary award, or at least some recognition for the creativeness of my titles for my posts, what do you think Sidi? Darn that Sister Jannah and her team, I bin comin’ up with funktastic subject titles for too long now, and never, not once, have I had so much as a free offer of a flight to the city this Board is named after. What’s up with that? I wrote me some crazy titles in my time, yes sir. All for what? Nothing, that’s what. Tch… You wrote, “I do not try to pigeonhole anyone or to sneak in anything.” The first, was not in reference to your good self, the second was just a bit of light-heartedness between two Brothers. “If you can make an exception about the PM, I will be honored, but I do not want to inconvenience you in any manner.” I prefer email to PM, though you may need to be patient. I wanted to email you akhi, but your email is hidden. Mine isn’t. Regarding your Answer 1, you wrote: “Q1: Why do I think I have the right to an opinion of my own? Answer: On the Day, every nafs will carry his/her own burden. No one will step forward to share it. Mostly I look for informed opinion and the reasons from the scholars. Then I make a decision on what to follow. It could be called "shopping for Fatwa". But my shopping is within the limits of the Sunni aqidah, and from what I have learnt, the Sahaba (ra), Tabieen and later generations too weren't bound to any one person or school of thought (except the prophet  ).   I do pray to Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala) and seek guidance from Him. We are to ask from those who know, but for this we must decide whom to get it from. And here lie the differences in opinion the discussion of which has been so neatly avoided.” Your answer neatly states the process you follow, but does not constitute an *argument* which justifies your thinking you have a right to your own opinion, for what you have done is tantamount to explaining *what* you do, not *why you do it*. If we suppose your assertion is correct - that the Sahaba, radhi’Allahu ‘anh ajma’een, and the Tabi’een, radhi’Alahu ‘anh ajma’een, and later generations weren’t bound to any one person or school of thought – then does not automatically provide grounds for concluding that they therefore felt they had a right to their own opinions, and no such correlation has been made by you. Additionally, if the argument is that because they were not so bound then neither are we, this assumes that the situation then is a direct parallel for the situation today. Is it? Is that a valid assumption to make? With regards to your process, why is there a need to assess a spectrum of scholarly opinion? Is that a responsibility you think the Shari’ah places upon you, or is it just a preference you have for yourself, which makes you feel as if you have done enough of an investigation to feel at ease with the opinion you’ve settled upon? To me that is like my going to a range of doctors to assess my condition, so I can decide which one of their opinions I will follow. I am not a doctor, so knowing the reasons behind their diagnosis, whilst giving some kind of insight into how they arrived at their conclusion, still doesn’t qualify me to assess their opinion. And in reality, how many of us ever go to multiple doctors every time we need a diagnosis? How many of us go to multiple mechanics every time we need to have our cars examined? How many of us go to multiple solicitors when we have a legal matter we need addressed? Etc. It simply isn’t practical, nor does it qualify us to a level whereby we can safely judge the opinions being presented to us. What makes us think it is necessary for us to do this? Of course, if the reason for a second opinion is a lack of trust in the first, then this is something different. Merely knowing a handful of scholarly opinions doesn’t in any way provide us with the training, authority or qualification that is required to undertake the kind of exercise you are alluding to, of outweighing those views. And according to what criterion will you measure them? Their strength? Which of them is most conducive to your circumstance? Which of them appeals the most? Etc.? All of which runs the very real risk of unbefitting motives entering the equation, such as whim, desire, caprice, etc. None of which is a sound basis upon which to proceed. More than this, to choose to familiarise oneself with a range of scholarly opinion is to undertake a taklif [responsibility] greater than one needs to. It is not upon you to do that much. Your responsibility is to follow, not to know that what you follow is the strongest. To start delving into what is the strongest view is to create for oneself an increased burden of accountability in the akhira. Because if you want to follow the strongest opinion, you will be accounted at the level of the rank you accorded yourself. There is no way I want to be accountable for my assessment of scholarly opinion when it is enough that I refer to someone trustworthy, qualified, authorised and reliable. Leave the taklif upon their shoulders, where it should be. There are different reasons which trigger such investigations around the plurality of scholarly opinion. Two them include the doubt which exists concerning ‘Ulema, or the lack of conviction that one can rest easy if all one has done is refer to a single referent and taken that opinion. People feel that at least if they learn about the range of scholarly opinion on the question they are asking, they are better equipped to maker an informed judgement, or they are at least justified in thinking that the opinion they chose is worthy of them choosing it. Wrong. They are only more acquainted with the range of views. In no way whatsoever does knowing that increase their ability to correctly determine which of those views is strongest. And this is not the way to remove such doubt. Just like the way to remove the doubt about whether one has forgotten one element of wudu is not to repeat the entire wudu. I know people who used to take up to 90 minutes due to the misgivings surrounding their wudu, with repetition after repetition. When what they should have done was to learn the proper fiqh of how to deal with that doubt. (It is really quite easy to deal with that waswasa once you know how by the way.) Similarly the way to remove/minimise the doubt one has about scholarly opinion, is not to examine what the range is that exists out there, but to learn about what it is that makes an opinion valid, and why a plurality of opinions is not an indicator about the absolute weakness of some opinions in relation to others. There is a far greater probability of following a wrong opinion when one decides to determine for oneself which opinion, from a range of opinions, to follow. Because if you are relying on your own capacity to determine which view is the best, then that presupposes your capability for doing so. I’ll give you two examples of the dangers of DIY scholarship (which is not something I am attributing to yourself I hasten to add): Yesterday evening I was at a dinner party. I picked a book off the shelf and began to read it. An elder asked me what I was reading and I showed him, and he asked me why I was reading about Islam? Then, for no apparent reason, he made the following comment [paraphrase]: “Where are the Muslims today? That is the problem, not Islam. The issue is there are no Muslims around. In the Qur’an Allah says that “the Muslims will overcome the kuffar as long as they are not hypocrites.” Yet we see that the Muslims are not overcoming the kuffar, which means that they must be hypocrites. That is the logical conclusion we have to draw, no?” Brilliant. Astute and incisive. In one breath you’ve managed to make the entire Ummah munafiqeen. (That is sarcasm by the way…) That is what happens when you use warped logic. And it is so easy to make such elemental errors, whilst being completely oblivious to the implication of the remark you’ve just made. Just because something is not black, doesn’t mean it must be white. I remember that the same elder once drew me aside after one maghrib salat, to ask me how long it took me to read my Fatiha and a sura, in a rakat. He said it’d take at least more than 30 seconds if you are pronouncing it properly, right? I said yes I suppose. So he got me to observe another Brother who was praying his nafila, and drew my attention to the fact that the Brother was basically going into ruku real quick having only just begun the rakat. He was astonished how someone could read so fast, and found it unbelievable. And despite my saying I didn’t know, and trying to turn away, he insisted I watch. I found it incredibly distasteful to be forced to watch someone with the intention of trying to find a flaw in their prayer, wal iyadhubillah. I really didn’t want to. I don’t want to know that you think the Brother is remiss in his salat. Why didn’t you stop to consider that maybe he was only reading the Fatiha? Anyway, whatever the explanation, why do you think I care about agreeing with you that he is doing something blameworthy? He is my Brother, don’t draw my attention to something you consider to be a fault. If it causes you doubt about him, you go and speak to him. Don’t get me involved, because I don’t want to doubt someone. I’d rather make an excuse to explain the possible reason. It really bemused me and made me uncomfortable, that he wanted me to watch this Brother praying, so I could agree with him that he was praying unacceptably fast. Akhi, I have enough to be concerned about my own salat, why need I be sitting in judgement on the salat of others? The second example is probably one of the most pronounced that I have witnessed of this phenomenon of DIY scholarship. It concerns a Brother who basically used to stitch together what he felt to be the strongest Islamic opinion on a matter, by amalgamating all the material he had at his disposal. He didn’t know arabic. So he’d amass certain ayats, ahadith, tafasir, commentaries of the hadith by selected scholars – all of which were obviously translations into english, which itself has the possibility for a weaker meaning than the original language contains (a factor which one cannot afford oversight of) - and then present his case built from all of that. It wouldn’t bother him that his view might conflict with the relied-upon opinions of the ‘Ulema, or worse still, some ‘ijma [consensus] or ittifaq [agreement]. One of the most telling instances of a disagreement between the two of us, based on the differences in our approach – and I think I still have this recorded somewhere – was our discussion around the correct application of the adjective kaffir. It was a mighty frustrating to and fro, lol. Actually, since I’m on an example-roll, lemme share this third one with you. Earlier, a Brother called me, ostensibly to “seek clarification” on a certain view associated with a certain well-known Muslim author. He ended up criticising someone else – a scholar no less - in the process. Anyway, we got talking. This Brother belongs to an Islamic group, which holds some questionable opinions. I drew his attention to this, and he asked me to cite an example of one such erroneous view they are supposed to have. So I did. He then began to argue (not in the heated sense, rather in the sense of justifying their position and approach) that as long as they function within the confines of the accepted parameters of orthodoxy, then if there is an area of acknowledged ikhtilaf, it is not blameworthy if the scholars of the group assert their juristic prerogative, and arrive at a position which opposes the relied-upon position associated with orthodoxy. I told him that (i) this is not something to which ikhtilaf is attached, and (ii) how can you assume it is a scholarly effort when you don’t know who those scholars (in your group) are? So you see akh Timbuktu, this kind of approach manifests itself far and wide in these days of ours, sometimes with more serious ramifications, and other times with less. If one follows an accepted Islamic opinion, taken from those who are qualified and authorised to convey those opinions, then in effect, that becomes one’s opinion. And that is fine. It is not the same as *formulating* your own opinion based on canvassing a spectrum of opinion from different ‘Ulema. The latter is questionable, and not a safe course of action. If one is selecting one opinion over others because they feel that the others are not valid, then this is blameworthy if one is not at a level where they can be engaging in such an exercise, even if one happens to chance upon a correct conclusion. Because that is incidental. On occasion, when I have addressed the very same points I’ve made above, people have responded by taking umbrage. They feel patronised. It is as if they feel I have taken a potshot at their intelligence by saying they are not able to assess different scholarly opinions. Which is totally not the point being made. The issue is not about your not being intelligent enough to understand the argument, and evidence and proof cited by a scholar, or scholars. You may be exceedingly clever and able to smoothly comprehend the argument which backs up a certain opinion. However, the issue here is whether you have the capability – as a non-scholar – to *outweigh* variant scholarly opinions, and the grounds upon which you do that. Often, those who are engaging in such pursuits do not even have elementary Arabic under their belts, which means they cannot even verify whether the opinion related to them even exists! All they can do – since they have no other choice – is to trust that it does, according to the integrity of those from whom they’ve heard it related. Let me give you but one minor example. Sahih al-Bukhari. There exists a translation in english. But in the original arabic, there are around thirteen different riwayahs [chains of transmission] for it. Meaning there are at least thirteen alternative versions of it as related by the students Imam al-Bukhari, radhi’Allahu ‘anh; all of which contribute some nuances which one would miss if relying on only one riwayah. Yet the translation which is found in English relies on only one. If you read probably the most famous sharh [commentary] on the text, by Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, by the name of Fath al-Bari (which spans many volumes, and hasn’t been translated into English to my knowledge), and you will note he, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, referring to all the variant transmissions when there is a need. So how then can a layman be reading an English translation of Sahih al-Bukhari, and decide he is able to use that to infer legal implications in relation to fiqh rulings? It is foolish, dangerous and naïve. Far far better you turn to those ‘Ulema who have a direct connection, through unbroken chains of transmission, to a living tradition of (excellence in) scholarship, which sits squarely in the centre of such comprehensive ability to navigate the texts. Such a scholarly tradition reflects a process of *due diligence*, i.e. the comprehensive and exhaustive engagement with the corpus juri of legal texts, legal methodology and every single sub-discipline which is related to juristic endeavour. And as an aside, none of this is to do with infallibility, which is another common bugbear thrown towards those who caution against going direct to the sources without recourse to any scholarly steering. ‘But Brother they are men and we are men, so they can make mistakes! Why not go to that which is free of mistakes, i.e. the Qur’an and Sunna?’ Because Brother (and here I am not referring to you akhi Timbuktu, as I hope you realise), whilst the Qur’an and Sunna themselves may be free from error, *your* comprehension of them is not. So then it becomes a question of ensuring the optimal understanding of those two sources. That probability is optimised in the case of those who are trained to know how best to access and utilise the sources, and possess the tools to do so. That doesn’t guarantee them being right, but it helps minimise them being wrong. And in relation to them, if we consider ourselves, then if there is a possibility they could be wrong, that same possibility becomes a probability in our case, since we lack the tools they have. “from what I have learnt, the Sahaba (ra), Tabieen and later generations too weren't bound to any one person or school of thought (except the prophet  ).” If the implication is that since they weren’t, neither am I, then are you also at the level they were at, in terms of juristic calibre? Regarding your Answer 2: “Q2: Why should those with knowledge entertain questions? Answer: It is their duty to explain and satisfy the questioner. This is why they have been given the knowledge. If they hide it, it will be katmaanul Haq, which has been condemned by Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala) in the Book.” Does not answering necessarily equate to hiding? It was related to me that a man once asked if it was permissible to enjoy the fruits of the seeds he has sown. I believe he was told it was. So he went home and raped his daughter. Not everyone who asks a question is capable of comprehending the answer it would entail. So the harm that could occur as a result of answering could be greater than the benefit sometimes. How many times have I been in a darse [class] where a fuduli [stupid?] question has been asked? Sometimes the class is on one thing and the question is on something entirely unrelated. So not answering is appropriate. Is that hiding knowledge? The duty of the ‘Ulema is not to answer your questions, it is to assist you in reaching the akhira safely, by being mediums for guidance, bi’idhnillah ta’ala. To do that, sometimes, not answering your question is the better option. Many of us know about the consequences of the ‘Ulema hiding knowledge, and it is a grave matter indeed. But that we know it, makes it all the more likely they know it too. All I am saying is that not every instance of not answering a question, is an instance of hiding ‘ilm (I know you did not say it was). And Allah ta’ala knows best. “Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (Rahimullah) stated this matter very well. He said in whatever you say regarding the deen, bring a daleel from the Quran and Sunnah.” To whom did he say that to? And to whom was he saying that such a daleel should be presented to? What did he say immediately before he said the above, and immediately after? Do you know, me dear Brother? Are you aware if there was a context? And if that context fits with the context you have applied that statement in? Is Imam Ahmed, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, a proof for you? How do you know he – radhi’Allahu ‘anh – said this? Did you read it somewhere, or hear it from someone? That you accept he – radhi’Allahu ‘anh – said it, implies you trust the source which attributed it to him, radhi’Allahu ‘anh. What do you know about that source and the author attached to it? Have you verified it, or taken it on trust? If it is on trust, then did you canvass a range of associated opinions on the same question before selecting this one? If not why not? Did your acceptance of this statement come because it reaffirmed a position you have already taken? If it was on trust, then how different is that trust to someone else’s trust in a scholar concerning a fiqh ruling? May Allah tabarak wa ta’ala preserve you Sidi, Abu Khaled
NS
05/22/05 at 16:29:40
AbuKhaled

Very bitter
lucid9
05/23/05 at 01:36:18
[slm] Relying on scholars is great and fine.  But what happens when the scholars fail the people?   What happens when scholars are deeply and unconscientiously misoygnistic?  What happens when they seem more concerned with turning out a new crop of huffaz than educating the people in their neighborhoods of what Islam is all about?  What happens when they are detached from  the general public, sometimes arrogant, and deeply unaware of modern discourses on such things as democracy, human rights,  and often seem like they are from a different planet? Perhaps that is why people like Timbucktu and I are rather skeptical of those who are often most vocal about Islam. Real religous scholars are really really really really smart and are the ones who put your heart at ease and do not fill you with anxiety because they contradict some basic notion of justice or fairness which your parents taught you before you were toilet-trained.     I also believe that there are some very basic truths that *anybody* can judge a religious opinion or hadith by.  Islam cannot be that difficult a religion that you need a scholar to hold your hand at every moment and tell you what is right and wrong.  Basic truths are:  God is fair, God is compassionate, God doesn't make junk and God is not misogynistic, etc.   Hence for example, is it really possible that women make up most of Hell?  Is it really possible that we should kill geckos/chameleons on sight?? Is there any way OBL can be right?  What about the local Islamic group down the road who distribute flyers with "death to the Jews" on the headline?   Islam has become a very fiqhi religion.  It seems everything always boils down to fiqh and more fiqh.  And that has turned many of the scholars into people who are versed in legal issues rather than people who stimulate the fear of God in you and display the incredible beauty of islam.   -a very bitter hyper

Nutella?  (The spread...on toast...for breakfast)
theOriginal
05/23/05 at 02:43:27
[slm] Brother hyper.... Very often, I find myself valuing your posts highly BECAUSE you highlight the human issue as opposed to the muslim issue, and somehow (SOMEHOW) in my head it seems more Islamic that way. However, I feel that you did not quite read the entire thread and follow the discussion.  If you have, I'm sorry about this, yeh? I agree, you don't need a scholar to tell you things which are blatantly obvious.  I'll give you an example...we used to play volleyball at a school gym on saturdays (all girls, closed off, no big deal).  But some brother decides to tell us it's haraam, and has 2 fatwas to prove it!!!  (1 was about how all sports except swimming, horseback riding (but not for women), and archery are haraam  -- i exaggerrate not -- 2nd was about how women should not do anything other than step in and out of their closet -- i exaggerrate) It was funny, all these incredibly intelligent and religious women opted out of playing after that..and our volleyball days were squashed into nothingness.   I guess using one's own intellect was not an option...because after all, this was the most religious (and eligible) brother on the block. Okay so I had a point when I started writing this...but I got distracted by Mah Jong.   >:( Wasalaam.

of shuyookh and lesser mortals
timbuktu
05/23/05 at 09:57:53
[slm] Thanks for your replies. I am so sorry brother abuKhaled, I had hidden my email beacuse I was getting a lot of spam, and once I deleted a very important post while deleting the spam. However, I have now unhidden my email address, and I give it here as well: timbuktu@islamonline.net I agree that jannah should give you some award of sorts. This has become a really lively thread, showing me (as opposed to teaching me, for I am a very bad student) what logic really is. I, at least am thoroughly enjoying everything you write. brother hyper, scholars aren't all that blameworthy. We normally do not formulate our questions in a way that reveals all issues pertaining to our problem. If they were told everything, and if asked to explain the Fatwas, they give you quite convincing reasons. There is a woman I have adopted as a daughter over the net, and she is Masha`Allah very pious and knowledgable. Once I did slight a scholar, and did I get flak from her :( If she were to know I have shown disrespect to the scholars again, that daughter will disown me, and I don't want that. Many a times the non-Muslims or the doubting ones on IoL have asked questions and she has come up with brilliantly satisfactory answers. Only the answers get buried, and lost in archives, and my net is slow, so never good at searches. [hr] Now a story, for you all know I have been trying unsuccessfully so far to be a storyteller. And once again I tell a true one. It was quite some time ago, longer than most of you have been around in this world :) In a popular newspaper of a city in Pakistan, appeared a small classified advertisement: "wanted 10 seamstresses. Interview and test will be held on Sunday at the corner of Street x, at 8:00 am, outside hotel y. The pay will be Rs 200/= per month" By 7:00, a lot of women, some with children, had gathered outside that hotel. What you would have found remarkable was that all these women were clad in burqas, some white, some black. But this is remarkable only because we are tuned to today. In those days, women without burqas were rare, or shall I say [i]unknown[/i], in that locality. A few minutes before 8:00 two men came out of that shack which we have called a hotel, and in due course brought out two sets of dilipated desks and three chairs, and placed it on the street, for the street had no footpath. The men then asked the women to form a queue. Then one of them brought a Singer sewing machine and placed it on one of the desks. One chair was assigned to that desk, while two chairs were with the other desk. In those days you only saw Singer sewing machines. The name Singer stuck to sewing machines for so long, the layman used to call all sewing machines as Singer even though these were manufactured by others. It is only recently that the other brands have established a name for themselves. Have I mentioned that this locality was in a rundown old part of the city. At 8:00 the two men took the chairs by one desk. One of the men had a register before him, while the other, better clad than the first, was obviously the owner of the enterprise which had these jobs on offer. The first woman was called, asked her name and the father's/husband's name, address, and then asked to go to the sewing machine, do a task, and bring back the specimen. The woman did that, and was told to wait. The next one was called, and then another. Some were hired on the spot, while others were told to wait, and yet others were told to try their luck later. After a few had been interviewed, it was the turn of a woman in a white burqa. "What is your name?", the munshi (clerk) asked. "widow of Shaykh Fulan", she answered. On hearing the Shaykh's name the two men started shaking, and got up from their chairs. The owner started crying like a child and offered his chair to the woman, but the woman said: "I have come here for a job, nothing else." The owner took out some money, Two hundred rupees, and offered these to the lady, saying "sister, please go home. I promise you this amount will reach you at home on the first of every month." The lady refused. "My children's father fed them halal through his hard work, and I am not going to feed them on Kheirat and Zakat." The woman was hired. Who was that Shaykh? He was a very well-known Shaykh, not just in his locality or city, but all over the Indo-Pak subcontinent. His following was fairly big, and he led the Eid prayers which his followers attended. But the interesting bit is that another Shaykh who had a much larger, in fact the largest, following and belonged to a different school of thought, offered prayers behind this one on Eid. He had a residential madrassa, which took in students, and their living and the food and the clothes and the medicine were all borne by the Shaykh. This Shaykh never took any money from his disciples. If he had taken in only one rupee per month, he would have had an income of over a hundred thousand per month, which in those days was quite a lot. And I know some shaykhs who do take in contributions like that. I do not remember what this Shaykh did for a living. This woman was the second wife of that old Shaykh. How many women on this board would accept being a second wife to an old Shaykh, who would leave them with small children to feed? The story doesn't end there. The Shaykh's great-great ..  grandfather had brought the ilm of Hadith to the Indo-Pak subcontinent, accompanying Sultan Ghaznavi. They are one of the few ahle Hadith scholar families to be into Sufism. When the relatives of the Shaykh learnt that the woman had accepted a job at a garments factory, they raised a hue and cry over the loss of honour and dignity of their clan. The poor widow was forced to give up that job. Those relatives never bothered to look after the needs of that family. The good news is that the lady later took another job as a teacher in a school, and worked until retirement. Her children are quite well established, quite learned, and quite respected in their own right. this thread has gotten too big, and if jannah decides we have strayed from the topic, perhaps she can splice it to start a new one.
05/23/05 at 17:07:22
timbuktu

Very Gourd!
AbuKhaled
05/23/05 at 16:51:41
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Akhi Hyper, Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah. Oh my gourd! Very bitter. Gourd. Geddit! Come on now, that *has* to be worth at least one roll of the eyeballs! Who said Mozlems can’t be comedic geniuses, eh?! Masha’Allah akhi you make many salient points. I wonder if you managed to follow the story in the posts I’ve authored in this thread? In case you haven’t – and I know they could be described as *long* by *some* people who wanna be nitpicky – allow me to let you into a tiny little secret… *I* was one of those people who got misled by Shuyukh with dubious credentials. So this is not even an academic discussion for me, it is very real. I know firsthand the effects of being duped by false and/or  weak “scholarship”. I have been to that place where the sun doesn’t shine so bright. And yes, it is harder to see (things with clarity) there. With regards to your lamenting that Islam has become very fiqhi, then personally I would rephrase it. What is more accurate in terms of my own experience, which may not reflect yours I admit, is that Muslims – or *some* Muslim Scholars; perhaps who form the majority of your personal experience? – have become over-focussed on fiqh, in neglect of that which is it’s natural counterpart. There is a phenomenon which exists, known as legalism. Legalism essentially pertains to what you have referred to, let us say overfiqhification. It is when one focuses on fiqh to the detriment and exclusion of other equally important areas of the Deen.  Areas which have a natural connection and impact upon, that fiqh. One way of testing this hypothesis is to ask people what they think the Sunna is, as a concept? Ask them to give examples of things that reflect the Sunna. You will find many of them give examples like the beard, or sitting when drinking, or replying to salaams. Very few of them will cite things like exhibiting patience in adversity, or being thankful to Allah ta’ala, or making tawba [repentance]. Yet all these are also examples of the Prophetic Sunna too. But they are not associated with the Sunna as a concept in the minds of many. Which maybe reflects a trend of conceptualising the Sunna as some outward-only notion. And how far from the truth is this? An example of a legalistic attitude: Once I was a passenger in a car. We were in a narrow road and needed to turn the car around. Doing so would have entailed driving partway onto someone’s drive, and then backing out. One of the Brothers said, “Can you drive onto someone’s drive without their permission? Because it’s private property, so you’d need their permission first.” To me, although he probably meant it entirely sincerely, it was an instance of legalism. Though ironically, at the time, I thought nothing of it, as I was too busy being impressed at the fact that he’d managed to apply Islam even to the issue  of driveays. Another example, which one of our teachers gave: He was late for an appointment and had to catch a taxi. As he was about to board he noticed a Sister struggling with a heavy suitcase. He asked a passing Brother if he’d mind helping her, as he himself was running late and couldn’t. The Brother said he couldn’t go near her as she was non-mahram. Legalism is manifested in a straitjacketed kind of rigidity which exists at the expense of other principles that underpin the Deen, such as mercy, generosity, altruism, benevolence, consideration, etc. In actual fact both elements should function in harmony, but those who are legalists tend to neglect the inner principles which are also a force which impact how we do things. I sometimes break it down like this: The Science of Fiqh regulates the outward, and the Science of Ihsan regulates the inward. The former addresses the *what*, in terms of what we do, and the latter addresses *how* of how we should do it. So those Muslims I formerly aligned myself with were of the variety who focussed only on the outward, with perhaps only a surface polish to the inward. Hence their fiqh was very ‘do or don’t with little in between.’ Which reflected their inability to see other than black and white situations. In reality, life tends to shades of grey, and so a real faqih is able to embrace that and provide practical solutions, which take into account peoples individual inward conditions. Some Muslims are not yet at a point of firmness in their iman which allows them to accept everything. And so if you tell them some things in Islam, they will not be able to accept that, and you could risk pushing them away from the Deen altogether. I would cite examples, but they could confuse, so I won’t. If we make an analogy: There are different kinds of water one can make wudu with. Some water is purified, some is purifying, and some is both purified and purifying. People are the same. Some ‘Ulema are purified themselves (NB: purified does not mean perfected!), yet seem unable to purify others. Some ‘Ulema can purify (i.e. affect positively) others, yet don’t seem purified themselves (by their rank of scholarliness). And some - who you should find - are both purified and purifying. Don’t forget akhi, scholarliness does not mean one has arrived. As if no other challenges in life exist for them. Even ‘Ulema have to wrestle with their own issues. Some of which you mentioned (e.g. mysogyny). Ideally, what you want to do, is to acquaint yourself with those ‘Ulema who are not only trained in the outward (i.e. fiqh), but also the inward (i.e. ihsan), so that when they address the questions of the day, they do so holistically. You are right, real ‘Ulema are seriously smart, and they are able to put your heart at ease, bi’idhnillah ta’ala. Of course that is on the assumption that one’s heart is not covered in rust and therefore finds it hard to be affected by righteousness. People have their own motives too in not accepting scholarly verdicts. “I also believe that there are some very basic truths that *anybody* can judge a religious opinion or hadith by.” To some extent you may be right, though I would perhaps caution against including hadith in that statement. We live in times where the aspect of hadith science concerned with forgery is basically closed, so if there is some issue one has with some ahadith, then this is more likely to be a misunderstanding of the hadith, than the hadith itself being spurious. Wallahu ta’ala a’lam. The problem here often comes from the fact that people have a certain mindset and paradigm prior to approaching the fiqh and ahadith, which then has an implication in terms of the way they filter fiqh and ahadith. They judge Islamic rulings and the ahadith according to these paradigms and mindsets, when the problem may be more to do with the paradigms/mindsets themselves. In essence, this way is not too dissimilar to the method adopted by the Mu’tazila. For example, they defined the concepts of good and evil according to the dictates of reason and rationality, and then judged aspects of revelation according to those standards. They argued that since Allah ta’ala has created the intellect within them, then any notion of good/evil they are predisposed towards, or away from, must naturally be in accordance with the Divine judgement. Applying such reasoning to a 2005 context, many paedophiles fail to see what is so wrong with sexualising children, because then children can function on that level of adulthood, and enjoyment is something good, they argue, astaghfirullah. Such is one extreme example of what happens when the ‘aql becomes the foundation for morality and ethics. Islamic orthodoxy uses the revelation to define the notions of good/evil, not the ‘aql. The function of the ‘aql is to comprehend those value-judgements in deference and reference to the wahy, not independently of it. Yes, one may argue that it is possible to identify things which are good/evil using the ‘aql, but what is critical, is that that identification doesn’t obligate/prohibit those things, rather, the revelation does. Wallahu ta’ala a’lam. Establishing the foundation of value-judgements, and ideas concerning good/evil, falls under the rubric of epistemology, and is one of those areas which – yes, sorry to say – requires careful comprehension of ‘aqida, because it affects one’s entire outlook in relation to the religion, and can cause major misgivings if understood from a wrong perspective, may Allah ta’ala protect us all from this. You are right that one needn’t be a scholar to know that some things would be blatantly wrong. For example, I don’t need to be a scholar to know that abusing a child is wrong. Or that helping someone from a burning building is an act of merit. However, when it comes to judging a religious opinion, or hadith, as you have said it, then this requires additional detail, and a footfall preceded by the most extreme caution. Let us take the hypothesis that God is fair: If I tell someone that hardship may be a means of purification for sins, they may be able to accept that. But then their one year old son becomes afflicted with severe psoriasis. He is in constant discomfort, pain and itches nonstop. No amount of medication, treatment or painrelief brings him any respite, and he spends most of his day crying. A one year old. Incapable of sin. Has no taklif [legal responsibility], yet is suffering such immense hardship. Can you see why the parents of such a child may think God is unfair, and turn away from the religion? Would they be right to think that? Would they be right to judge Allah ta’ala and His, azza wa jal, Deen on the basis of a notion they have about Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala, being Fair? How about Muslim victims of the asian tsunami? Do you think any of them might have felt God was being unfair, hashalillah? Let us take the Divine attribute of Al-Rahman [The Most Merciful]. How does that square with some of the punishments in Islam? Maybe you will say that the mercy in those instances is for the victims, or the family of the victims, of the one who committed the crime against them. Allah ta’ala knows best. Such disastrous conclusions are prone to be drawn when we understand concepts related to Divinity from a rational basis. So we (and by we, I am not referring to you) need - if we take the above two examples - to Islamise our concept of fairness and mercy. These are delicate issues, and one can easily – even if not intentionally - step outside of Islamic propriety if one is not careful in the judgements they make about the opinions, or ahadith, they come across. You are not obliged to have an opinion on every single thing. So if you find something which troubles you, let it go, lest you reject it prematurely, because sometimes, unbeknownst to you, you may be rejecting something authentic, just because it conflicts with your ‘aql. Rather than take the position that that hadith, or opinion, must be wrong, why not take the position that you defer any judgement? When my own disastrous experience of dubious scholars and scholarship ended, I made sure that the next time I found myself in front of People of Learning, they embodied a completeness and balance whereby the outward was juxtaposed equally with the inward. Because it is undeniable that we have an inner reality, as well as an outward form. Our limbs exercise the actions we do, but wherefrom springs forth the manner in which we do them? I can pray using my limbs, but what ensures my concentration? Certainly not my limbs. What puts in place that feeling of reverence and awe towards my Lord, azza wa jal? What is it that allows me to stand with humility, and maintain my khushu? Why do I pray in a measured way, rather than rushedly? These are all aspects which are catered to from within, not from without. True ‘Ulema will be those who direct you to attend to both the inside and the outside when rectifying your affair. They will provide you with answers which enable you to fulfil the outward requirement of the Deen, whilst doing so with an inward presence which insha’Allah makes that act one which is acceptable to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. “What happens when scholars are deeply and unconscientiously misoygnistic? What happens when they seem more concerned with turning out a new crop of huffaz than educating the people in their neighborhoods of what Islam is all about? What happens when they are detached from the general public, sometimes arrogant, and deeply unaware of modern discourses on such things as democracy, human rights, and often seem like they are from a different planet?” Ya ani, when scholars fail the people, don’t make them your reference points. If they are misogynistic, turn to those who aren’t. Alhamdulillah all the teachers we have ever been blessed to associate with, have been far from such a foul attitude. If they are arrogant and unaware, then turn elsewhere. Akhi, I don’t have all the answers, as you can see, but I can empathise with many of the questions. For myself I had to seek out individuals who were exempt from the above paragraph you have written. Only the light of such lanterns of the Ummah can oppose the dim view you have of others of them. “Perhaps that is why people like Timbucktu and I are rather skeptical of those who are often most vocal about Islam.” I would tend to agree with this. Most of those I have ever found to possess true knowledge, have not been in a rush to claim for themselves titles of scholars. They may give talks, or teach, but that doesn’t mean they do so because they feel like they are worthy of doing so. I have had teachers who did not want to be in such a position, but their own Shuyukh instructed them and felt they were ready. If you find yourself beside such unobtrusive saliheen, on the floor in someone’s house, having dinner, they are so quiet and unassuming. They don’t seek the limelight, or to be centrestage. They recognise that what they have is not theirs to own by virtue, but because Allah ta’ala has been Merciful to them in allowing them a portion of it. And their very demeanour reflects their recognition of this. I must apologise to you, because try as I might, I feel I always fail to explain the magnitude of the impact of such proximity to the People of Allah ta’ala (who are not just the ‘Ulema by the way). Because when all is said and done, no matter how many words I write in some vain attempt to paint a picture for you, and portray what real ‘Ulema are like, ultimately, like taste, it is an experiential reality. Only by experiencing that company, is the propensity to recognise trueness – as opposed to charlatans who hijack the mantle of scholarship and authority – actualised. I will share something with you, and you are at liberty not to believe me. When I attend a darse, and make notes – and I take copious notes - I often also note mannerisms down, of my teachers, if they smiled at me, or looked at me, or any number of minor details probably many people would think insignificant and silly. But so many are the occasions, when during the session, I have wondered about a particular issue that is peculiar to my own personal circumstance, which I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to raise publicly during the class, and then only *a moment* later that very same issue is addressed! And we are not here referring to general things which you could feasibly foresee being addressed because they fall logically into the sequence of the subject matter! So many times, with so many different teachers. Subhan’Allah. Yes, we live in times when it is all too easy for people to make a name for themselves as a scholar of Islam. In fact, the article ‘The Crisis Within Islam’ by Professor Richard Bulliet, from Columbia University, exposits this phenomena brilliantly. The first half of that article is, I think, one of the most lucid and accurate analyses I have yet come across, of why people with inferior credentials, managed to gain the upper hand, over orthodoxy, in becoming voices for Islam. (The second half, for me, was not as noteworthy.) That doesn’t mean there aren’t also absolute gems of scholars in our ranks. Sometimes, as with many jewels to the untrained eye, it is just that we aren’t able to recognise them when we finally glimpse them, and other times, we may recognise them, yet fail to appreciate their worth. I am reading an unpublished work by the same teacher I alluded to in the original post in this thread; taken from a series of discourses given to a group of Sisters, which is so incredibly amazing and affecting, that you wonder how much more powerful it would have been to be part of the audience. The understanding of the female being, the sensitivity to the exalted status of our womenfolk, the recognition of their contribution and potential, is so refined that you end up thinking that if every Brother just read this stuff, no Sister would ever have any problems again from their menfolk! And were Sisters to cast an eye over this remarkable material they would immediately be won over by the gentle sensitivity and deep analysis of their worth. They are seriously beautiful and poignant words, which one simply cannot prevent from being touched by. Akhi, scholarship is a beautiful thing. It is rooted in the Divine Grace, and we know of our Lord, subhanahu wa ta’ala, that He, jalla jalalu, is (transcendentally) Beautiful and loves beauty. May Allah ta’ala grant us closeness to those with whom He, azza wa jal, is pleased, Abu Khaled
NS

Re: Oh!pinion
Abu_Hamza
05/23/05 at 17:54:17
[slm] AbuKhaled, I hope you will not mind a few comments and questions that came to my mind while reading your post: [quote]More than this, to choose to familiarise oneself with a range of scholarly opinion is to undertake a taklif [responsibility] greater than one needs to. It is not upon you to do that much. Your responsibility is to follow, not to know that what you follow is the strongest. To start delving into what is the strongest view is to create for oneself an increased burden of accountability in the akhira. Because if you want to follow the strongest opinion, you will be accounted at the level of the rank you accorded yourself. There is no way I want to be accountable for my assessment of scholarly opinion when it is enough that I refer to someone trustworthy, qualified, authorised and reliable. Leave the taklif upon their shoulders, where it should be.[/quote] AbuKhaled, regarding the last part of what you said above, how do I recognize who is "trustworthy, qualified, authorised and reliable?"  Is that recognition in and of itself not a burden, a taklif, upon my shoulders?  Does this not imply that I must *choose* someone to be my guide from the multitude of "scholars" that are out there?  If it does imply that, then how can I make such a "choice" (free from my nafs and my hawaa) without surveying the spectrum of the "scholars" that exist (or, at least, are available to me)?  And what would that survey be based on, if not the strength (or lack thereof) of their opinions and views? Perhaps the answer to this lies in what you said later in your post: [quote]Far far better you turn to those ‘Ulema who have a direct connection, through unbroken chains of transmission, to a living tradition of (excellence in) scholarship, which sits squarely in the centre of such comprehensive ability to navigate the texts.[/quote]   My question is, how can I, as a layman, verify which 'aalim has a "direct connection, through unbroken chains of transmission, to a living tradition of (excellence in) scholarship?"   The chains of transmission for the glorious ahadith of our Messenger (saw) have been critiqued, scrutinzied and graded for us by the muhadditheen.  And even then there are many ahadith whose authenticity is disagreed upon (let alone the precise meanings and implications of their content).  Yet, do we have any such critique for the chains of transmission that these 'ulemaa claim to have?   [Please note that I am not speaking of any specific 'aalim, nor am I denouncing the credibility and virtue of those who do possess such asaaneed and ijaazahs.  May Allah preserve them and bless them all.] Sidi, if I tell you that I received a teaching license from Shaykh Abdul Rahmaan al-Qahtaani, who got his teaching license from the esteemed Shaykh 'Aaidh al-Naisaabooree, who got his teaching license from the great Ottoman Shaykh Yusuf al-Genc, from .... from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (radiAllahu anhu), is that enough for you to take me as your sole guide to your Aakhirah, without ever questioning what I tell you, or what I don't tell you, even in the event that what I say clearly seems to you to be in contradiction with certain texts from the Qur'an and/or Sunnah and the opinions of a multitude of other scholars who also hold teaching licenses from other unknown Shuyookh to you?   If you say that such questioning from you is perfectly permissible and even encouraged, especially after you have mastered certain basic concepts of the Deen, then Sidi, what if the answer of the Shaykh is not satisfactory to you?  What if you clearly see Truth in another scholarly opinion, not under the influence of your hawaa but due to the apparent strength of the arguments that are employed?  Will you say that I, as a layman, must continue to follow this 'aalim because he has "a direct connection, through unbroken chains of transmission, to a living tradition of (excellence in) scholarship?"  Would you argue that in this case the burden of responsibility lies totally on the shoulders of the Shaykh, and the student has no choice but to follow, even in the event that there are texts that clearly contradict the teaching of the Shaykh whose credibility itself is not established with certainty in your heart? If I were to take the teaching of my Shaykh, regardless of what other opinions exist, and regardless of what the texts seem to suggest to me, for fear of following my nafs and my hawaa, will I not be indulging my nafs into another equally harmful territory of ta'assub and tahazzub?  Will I not be treading on the paths of those who came before us who "took their scholars as their gods?" With this, let me come back to what you said earlier: [quote]Your responsibility is to follow, not to know that what you follow is the strongest.[/quote] My responsibility is to follow, yes, but follow who?  Is it the Nabee (saw)?  If so, would you agree that I have no recourse - as a layman - to follow the Nabee (saw) except through the teachings and understanding of the learned Scholars?  If you would agree, which I think you would, then does that not imply that my responsibility - by extention - is to follow the Scholar?  If so, is such a following to be unconditional?  If not, then is it not upon me to ascertain that those conditions have been met?  And if it is, then, yaa Sidi, how do I do that? [quote]To start delving into what is the strongest view is to create for oneself an increased burden of accountability in the akhira. Because if you want to follow the strongest opinion, you will be accounted at the level of the rank you accorded yourself. [/quote] Akhi, assuming what you said is true, does this necessarily translate into a karaahah [dislike] for doing as such?  Many are the acts which increase the burden of accountability upon the person in the Akhirah, but does that mean that we should shy away from all of them?  Doesn't learning the rules of Tajweed amount to the person being increasingly accountable for respecting and adhering to the Qur'an?  Doesn't learning any aspect of the Deen amount to an increased accountability for the person in the Sight of Allah?   "Say, are those who know equal to those who do not?" Surely not!  Neither in their accountability nor in their rank and status before Allah (swt)  And if an increased accountability is a fear that keeps me from delving into what opinions among the scholars are stronger, then the elevation in rank and status in the Sight of My Lord should be the aspiration which pushes me forward into such research and arduous effort.   I am not saying that this is waajib upon every Muslim, but, what I ask is: if someone wishes to place this "burden" upon himself to seek higher stations of yaqeen [certainty] (in his adherence to the true teachings of the Nabee (saw)) in this life, and of qurb [nearness] with Allah (awj) in the Afterlife, would you not encourage him to do so, along with sincere advice - yes - to be mindful and careful of the pitfalls that will come along this path? Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah Abu Hamza
05/23/05 at 17:57:54
Abu_Hamza

Things that make you hmmmm.
bhaloo
05/24/05 at 01:24:33
[slm] Jazak Allah khairen Abu Hamza for your post, you've expressed so well some of the concerns I've had with some of the items that Abu Khaled has mentioned.  I will hold back from addressing these points publically for now.

What If?
anon
05/24/05 at 01:57:57
[slm] WHAT IF: - A grounp of muhaditheen (e.g. Imam Nawwawi who wrote the famous commentary of sahih Muslim and Imam ibn Hajar al-asqalani who wrote the most widely used commentary of sahih bukhari) - And a group of quran exegates (e.e. Imam Suyuti who wrote the brilliant Jalalyn) - And a group of people specialized in law (e.g. Shaykh Ramli who wrote the Nihaya and ibn Hajar who wrote the "tuhfa") - And a group of specialists in usool-al-fiqh (the legal principles behind islamic law) e.g. Imam Ghazali who wrote the usul-ul-fiqh text par excellence al-Mustasfa and Imam Shafii who wrote his "risala" and revised it 40 times (if my memory does not fail me here) If a group of all those [i]and many more like them[/i] collaborate by rechecking the existing works and adding and amending and distilling and finally develop: 1. A system of usul (legal principles) 2. A set of rulings on matters that do not change e.g. the method to do Hajj and the method to pray etc. 4. and a set of guidelines to tackle matters that change with time and place and to tackle new matters that may arise... and then a group of scholars come who: - learn 1. to 4. mentioned above - are observed to be pious, to follow the sunnah in external and internal matters - have an ijaza to teach tracing back to the group of scholars who did foundational work in 1. to 4. - who develop new rulings on new matters and matters that change with place and time and then along comes Sidi al-anon and he starts examining sources of Islamic law although it has been concurred in 1. to 4. that al-anon does not have the pre-requisites to derive fiqh from the primary sources... then will not al-anon be: a ) choosing a golf-cart over a mercedes? b ) trying to re-invent the wheel? opinions wanted on a. and b. Sorry for imposing a numbered structure on my post but am in a hurry and don't have time to come up with something decently organized.
05/24/05 at 02:05:07
anon

What now?
bhaloo
05/24/05 at 02:25:37
[quote author=al-anon link=board=sis;num=1112167244;start=50#51 date=05/24/05 at 01:57:57] WHAT IF: - A grounp of muhaditheen (e.g. Imam Nawwawi who wrote the famous commentary of sahih Muslim and Imam ibn Hajar al-asqalani who wrote the most widely used commentary of sahih bukhari) [/quote] Imam Nawwawi said : What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes. [quote] and then along comes Sidi al-anon and he starts examining sources of Islamic law although it has been concurred in 1. to 4. that al-anon does not have the pre-requisites to derive fiqh from the primary sources... then will not al-anon be: a ) choosing a golf-cart over a mercedes? b ) trying to re-invent the wheel? [/quote] The answer to A) and B) is yes and yes.  That is why one goes to qualified scholars and rulings that they have come up with and go with the strongest opinion that one of these scholars gives on a matter.   But don't take my word for it, let us see  how the scholars have addressed this issue, we've already seen how one of the scholars you cited viewed the matter. The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab: This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, according to Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah. It is also widely reported in Shafi’i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi’i - said: “The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi’i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him” Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: “What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.” Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i says in his al-Tahqiqat, “The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu’ al-rukhas).” Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi’i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.” Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma’sumi): “Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger r has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger r did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.” This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ‘Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: “It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.” Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu’, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi’is, saying: “It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion”. Al-Mardawi comments: “And this is the correct opinion”. Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: “A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab…” Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger r made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger r oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.” Ibn Taymiyah says: “If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah’s and His Messenger’s r Shari’ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says” - to his words - “For one to follow someone’s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar’i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar’ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger r have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.” He also says: “There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi’i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.” He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ‘the migrant for Umm Qais’, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet r said: “Indeed actions are based on intentions…”. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger r. Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah’s ruling on an issue. Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances: By ‘devising opinions’ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi’i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi’is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi’is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu. Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid. However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini’s book “’Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq”. Following allowances (Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas) is for a person to “pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself”, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi’i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: “If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut’ah), he would be considered a Fasiq”. Sulayman al-Taimi said: “If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you”. The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi’is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: “Ibn ‘Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma’) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others”. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ‘Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: “Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara’i) which would absolve one of their Shar’i responsibility.” However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu’ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation. Point of Benefit: Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: “It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it”; or that of Malik: “I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it”; or that of al-Shafi’i: “If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah r then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah r and leave what I said”; or that of Ahmad: “Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi’i, nor al-Awza’i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took”. All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: “[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus’ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.” (See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu’ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu’ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I’lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam… 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166) The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab: This is a minority opinion from the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, and a weak opinion, unworthy of being followed, due to the following reasons: a) There is absolutely no evidence from the sources of Islam - the Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma’) and analogy (qiyas) - nor a statement from one of the four Imams in support of this position. Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger r to oblige the people with that.” b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of ‘blocking the means’ (Sadd al-Dhara’i) for the layman to pick and choose whatever he likes from opinions, and thereby, freeing himself from Shari’ responsibilities, resulting in chaos. However, the one who looks at this issue justly, realises that this is merely a case of extending Sadd al-Dhara’i beyond that which is necessary, like for one to prohibit the growing of grapes, in case people use it to make wine. Moreover, the Hanafis and Shafi’is - if they do not deny its use altogether - are extremely lenient in applying this principle, so how can they use this as a support for their position. On the other hand, most of those who do not oblige the layman, with that which Allah did not oblige him, explicitly forbid a layman from seeking and following allowances. Moreover, following allowances is as much applicable to a Mujtahid as it is to a layman, as is apparent from the opinion of al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la (see footnote #52) and therefore, obliging the layman alone with adherence to a Madhab is not a solution to the problem. c) This opinion necessitates that a person may only ask a Mufti of his own Madhab, even if the Mufti of a different Madhab is more knowledgeable and pious, and the truth lies with him. This also makes unnecessary restrictions on the Mustafti and causes him unnecessary hardship. Ibn Taymiyah says: “Sticking to a Madhab necessitates obedience of other than the Prophet r in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma’).” Ibn al-Qayyim says: “This opinion necessitates the prohibition of asking the scholars of Madhabs different to his, as it equally necessitates the prohibition of adhering to a Madhab similar to, or better than, that of his Imam, as well as other things that this approach entails, the invalidity of which points to the invalidity of the opinion itself. In fact, it necessitates that if he sees a text from the Messenger of Allah r or an opinion of the four Caliphs, aiding someone other than his Imam, that he should abandon the text and the opinions of the Companions, and give precedence to the one to whom he attributes himself.” d) Those who oblige the layman with Taqleed of a Madhab say that he must make Ijtihad in choosing a Madhab and then follow it. Moreover, Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi from the Shafi’is and Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbalis say that the layman should not simply pick and choose a Madhab as he wishes, nor should he incline to the Madhab of his fore fathers. Undoubtedly, this opinion obliges something on a layman which he is unable to accomplish, since, for a layman to be capable of comparing between Madhabs requires him to possess knowledge of the principles of each Madhab, as well as some background information on its founder, his companions, some of the major books, and generally how close each of the Madhabs are to the revelation, and this, as is apparent, is obliging the Muqallid with that which is far beyond his capacity. Moreover, a layman must also look at the Madhab predominantly followed in his land; for if a layman decides to make Taqleed of the Hanbali Madhab, because he believes it closest to the truth, whilst he is a resident in a country which is predominantly Hanafi, then his ‘Ijtihad’ in finding the most suitable Madhab will be pointless. Surely, the difficulty and inappropriateness of this methodology is only too obvious, as well as it being a divergence from what the layman is required to learn from the basics of the five pillars, to that which is of no benefit to him in this world or the next. e) From the evil consequences of obliging the layman to compare between Madhabs is the spread of sectarianism and fanaticism in adherence to a Madhab. One cannot but notice sectarianism amongst the scholars who oblige the layman to make Taqleed of one of the Madhabs. Hence, Ibn al-Salah al-Shafi’i, while discussing this issue, claims to simplify the process of choosing the right Madhab, by arguing that because al-Shafi’i came after the great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik and others, he was able to look into their opinions, compare and evaluate, nor was he followed by someone else of his calibre; therefore, it follows that his Madhab is more worthy of being followed. Then came al-Nawawi, who summarised the work of Ibn al-Salah and included it in his Majmu’, using Ibn al-Salah’s argument in preferring the Shafi’i Madhab. Then came Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, who relied much on Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi’s work, except that he replaced ‘al-Shafi’i’ with ‘Ahmad ibn Hanbal’, and further refuted the Shafi’is in their preference of the Shafi’i Madhab over other Madhabs, arguing that since Ahmad was the last of the Imams, he was able to investigate into the opinions of Abu Hanifah, Malik as well as al-Shafi’i, and then compare and evaluate them; and since there is none after Ahmad of his calibre, it follows that Ahmad’s Madhab is the most worthy of being followed! Whereas the truth, as Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiya said, is that: “Most of the people speak out of conjecture and what the hearts desire, for they do not know the reality of the levels of Imams and Sheikhs, nor do they intend to follow the truth completely; rather, everyone’s heart desires that he favours the one he follows, and so he prefers him (over other Imams) based on conjecture, even if he has no proof for that. Sometimes, it may even lead to quarrelling, fighting and disunity, which is something Allah and His Messenger r prohibited.” Indeed, it led to wars amongst the Hanafis and the Shafi’is in Asfahan that resulted in the burning and destruction of the city as reported in Mu’jam al-Buldan 1/209. Hanafis and Shafi’is are known for their rivalry throughout Islamic history. It was their fanaticism, which lead some of Hanafis to say: “It is allowed for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi’i woman, but it is not allowed for a Shafi’i to marry a Hanafi woman. We regard them to be like the people of the Book”. Another fanatic, who was a Hanafi, saw in a dream that the Shafi’is will enter paradise before the Hanafis, so he became a Shafi’i. Even Imams such as al-Juwaini, wrote a book insulting the Hanafi Madhab and obliging everyone to follow the Shafi’i Madhab, which al-Kawthari - the “Abu Hanifah fanatic” – rebutted, insulting the Shafi’i Madhab; indeed, in some books, he went further than that and would even cast doubt on his lineage (as he did in his Ta’neeb), while the Prophet explicitly considered such behaviour to be from the acts of Jahiliyah! Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: “If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi’is”. Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that ‘Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah’s grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: “You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven”! Amongst the signs of such fanaticism in the ranks of the Shafi’is is what al-Nawawi reported from al-Isfara’ini, that a Shafi’i may not pray behind a Hanafi, due to the Hanafis not fulfilling the conditions of Wudu as affirmed by the Shafi’is. Another Shafi’i, al-Subki, claims that Allah told him to adhere to the Madhab of al-Shafi’i in his dream. Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab. If this is the condition of the learned men amongst the jurists, then what is expected of the layman? Therefore, if the principle of Sadd al-Dhara’i is to be applied, then surely it is more worthy of being applied here, in order to prevent internal conflicts between Madhabs and for the promotion of unity. f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person’s attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab? Ibn al-Humam says in his Tahrir (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): “…majority of the Muqallids say: I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi’i, while having no knowledge about the path of his Imam, hence, he does not become so by merely a claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or an author; he does not become as such, by merely a claim, whilst he is far distant from the life of his Imam. Therefore, how can such attribution be valid, by merely a claim, and futile speech without any meaning?!” Ibn al-Qayyim says: “A layman cannot have a Madhab even if he adheres to one, for the layman has no Madhab. This is because the Madhab is only for the one who has some insight and a way of deducing rulings, who also has insight into Madhabs befitting his level, or the one who studies a book in the applied Fiqh of that Madhab, and knows the verdicts of his Imam and his sayings. As for the one who has not accomplished any of that, yet says: I am a Shafi’i or a Hanbali, or other than that, then he does not become that merely by his claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or a grammarian, or an author, he does not become one merely by a claim. What makes it clearer is that the one, who says he is Shafi’i or a Maliki, or a Hanafi, actually claims that he is the follower of that Imam, adhering to his way. This can only be true for him if he were to tread his path in knowledge, understanding and deduction. As for one who is ignorant and distant from the life of the Imam, his knowledge and his path, how can his attribution to him be correct, with merely a claim, and futile speech in every sense?” Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab’s Position: There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book ‘al-Radd ‘ala Man Ittaba’a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba’ah’ (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion. Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a “Mujtahid” in his Dha’il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion. (See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu’ah 20/161, Mawsu’at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I’lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)

opinions on opinions
Abu_Hamza
05/24/05 at 16:40:55
[slm] [quote] opinions wanted on a. and b.[/quote] Akhi al-anon, although you did not specify who you were addressing in your post, I am assuming that it was addressed to me since it appeared immediately after my post.  (Actually, it appeared after bhaloo’s post, but his post was simply agreeing with what I had written).  If my assumption is incorrect, I apologize, and you can ignore the rest of this post.  If it is not, however, then below are my “opinions” regarding, “a. and b.” and some other things that you wrote.   Akhi, first of all, your entire argument is hypothetical.  You said at the beginning of your post, “what if,” which implies that this is not necessarily a realistic example, although it could be, but you never specified whether it was or not.  In my opinion, akhi, it is not a realistic example at all.  You said, after listing the names and attributes of a series of scholars: [quote]If a group of all those and many more like them collaborate[/quote] Akhi, when have we ever seen a group of scholars with the caliber of those you mentioned by example, not to mention “many more like them,” collaborating?  The scholars which you mentioned (Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, Suyuti, Ramli, Ghazali and Shafi’I, rahimahum Allahu ajma’een) all lived at different times.  They could not communicate with each other, let alone collaborate - which means to work together in a joint effort - on anything.  So the entire premise of your argument is false to begin with.   To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), never did such an exemplary group of scholars – as a group – formulate a science, set of rulings, or guidelines.  Each of them left their contribution in forms of books and students, and every few generations, a student of their legacy would add his own contribution based on his study of the teachings of his earlier teachers.  Often times, mind you, his own contribution would change, correct or complete the deductions of his teachers, including – sometimes - the most fundamental of their usool [principles]. So I would reword what you wrote by saying, “let’s assume that a group of scholars,” of such giant caliber as those who you mentioned in your post, “emerge successively over time and add to an already existing set of principles and guidelines, originally designed and doctored by some earlier scholars whose fundamental teachings they all adhere to …” Now this is a more plausible scenario, and also what you probably meant by “collaboration.”  Under these premises, you then proceed to argue the following: [quote]then a group of scholars come who: - learn 1. to 4. mentioned above - are observed to be pious, to follow the sunnah in external and internal matters - have an ijaza to teach tracing back to the group of scholars who did foundational work in 1. to 4. - who develop new rulings on new matters and matters that change with place and time [/quote] Akhi, let me remind you the two underlying questions in my earlier post.   First, how do we recognize such “group of scholars?”  If your answer is by looking for those who fulfill the four requirements you just mentioned in the four bullets I quoted above, then I ask you: how do I – as a layman – know with certainty which group of scholars have “learned 1. to 4. mentioned above”?  How do I know whether they “follow the sunnah in external and internal matters,” when I don’t even know what the Sunnah says, because I cannot, of course, simply read an English translation of Sahih al-Bukhari and figure out what the Sunnah says, as Sidi AbuKhaled pointed out so correctly?  And as I asked in my previous post, how can I be certain that this “group of scholars … have an ijaza to teach tracing back to the group of scholars who did foundational work in 1. to 4.”?   Second, once we do recognize these scholars, what is the extent to which we must follow them, especially in circumstances where there are other “group[s] of scholars” who fulfill all of your above criteria but deduce a variant opinion regarding an issue at hand. Tell me, akhi, is there only *one* set of scholars who perform 1. to 4. in your post?  If not, would it not necessarily mean that there will be different groups of scholars, each having the pre-requisites that you mentioned above, but each arriving at different conclusions because the group of scholars which they follow (who perform 1. to 4.) are different?  In this case, will there not inevitably be more than one *scholarly* verdict regarding *some* issues?   [quote] then along comes Sidi al-anon and he starts examining sources of Islamic law although it has been concurred in 1. to 4. that al-anon does not have the pre-requisites to derive fiqh from the primary sources[/quote] Akhi, your entire argument, besides being a hypothetical one (as I noted earlier) is also a strawman.  Your post is written to make the point that if someone lacking the pre-requisites to derive fiqh from the primary sources indulges in such exercise, it would be a futile effort because his expertise do not compare to that of the esteemed scholars who have been trained by the most qualified teachers to derive rulings based on principles that were established a group of scholars which consisted of the most brilliant minds and souls that this Ummah has ever produced.   This is an excellent point, and one that I would gladly submit to (though we would have to first settle what exactly constitutes the “pre-requisites” that you are talking about).  However, did I say anything in my post which implied otherwise?  If I did, can you please, haafidhakallah, point it out to me?  Did I ever say anything regarding a layman “deriving fiqh from the primary sources” independent from the scholars?  To the contrary, I was only speaking about cases where there are differences of opinion among scholars, and a person sees more strength – based on whatever he knows, not on hawaa or nafs – in the opinion of those scholars who are *not* necessarily his direct teachers.  And after discussing this issue with his teachers, he is still not convinced that the arguments of his teachers are stronger than those of the other scholars which carry the varying opinion. What does this have anything to do with “deriving fiqh from the primary sources?”  The student is still following the scholars, not his/her own interpretation of the “primary sources.”  S/he is not “deriving fiqh” from anything, but simply choosing to take the scholarly derivation which seems more plausible to him, based on the arguments that are presented to him.  Sure his conclusion may be wrong.  The Truth may very well be with his own teachers, but is there not a possibility that it may be, just may be, with the others?   When there are variant opinions on issues, though all of them may be valid scholarly opinions, is not only *one* of them the Truth in the Sight of the Lawgiver?  Surely it must be so, because how can something be both halaal and haraam – for example - at the same time?  It must be either or none.  But it cannot be both, can it? Therefore, akhi, since the Truth in the Sight of Allah (swt) is only One, I cannot regard the variant opinions that exist upon an issue to all be correct.  Please note again that this has nothing to do with the validity of the opinions.  The other scholarly opinions may be valid and rewardable because of the legitimate and arduous exercise of ijtihaad which is performed by the mujtahid (may Allah reward him) to arrive at them.  Nevertheless they are opinions.  They may arrive at the Truth, and they may not.  And thus, if a student is faced with a situation where he sees more truth in the opinion of a Shaykh other than his own, based on the strength of his arguments and the relative weakness of the arguments of his own Shaykh, is it not more befitting that he takes what strikes to him to be closer to the Truth instead of following his own esteemed Shaykh? Wallahu ta’ala a’lam.
05/24/05 at 16:42:20
Abu_Hamza

How does a layman evaluate evidences?
anon
05/25/05 at 01:00:53
[slm] My earlier post was not a reply to Abu_Hamza. I don't think I had even read his post when I posted mine. However this one tries to address some his concerns. 1. When I said collaboration, I defined what I meant in the words that followed: [quote]If a group of all those and many more like them collaborate by rechecking the existing works and adding and amending and distilling and finally develop: [/quote] 2. They did not leave behind just books. The best legacy they left behind were heirs to their knowledge and piety. Their students. 3. You pointed out that their rulings and usool changed. That is exactly what I meant when I said "rechecking the existing works and adding and amending and distilling" 4. The argument is not hypothetical. My what ifs were based on the 4 most wide-spread madhabs. The scholars I mentioned all belonged to one of them. 5. A layman by definition is someone who cannot evaluate the strenght of evidences. So it is self-contradictory to claim that a layman can follow what he deems to be the strongest opinion. The act of determining what is strongest is ijtihad that cannot be performed by a layman. That is exactly what the specialists of Islamic law do! For example, a lay man reads a hadith and sees it is classified as "saheeh" by a  famous muhaddith from Egypt. A scholar trained in examining evidance finds the same muhaddith classified the exact same hadith with the exact same chain as "weak" in another of his books. Maybe because the scholar has a lot more time to go through books as that is his job. Is the layman following the strongest, most saheeh hadith then? This is not a hypothetical example. I don't like to use names because some people tend to get angry. 6. The Quran has referred to specialization in deen in the ayat which tells Muslims that not all of them should go out in Jihad. But some of them should stay behind and learn the deen and teach it to others. What is learning the deen? Is it not evaluating sources and evidences? If a layman could evaluate the strengths he would not be a layman! 7. I met some "learned" laymen who said they followed the strongest evidence. They were following a ruling from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal about prayers. When I told them if they believed in the usul behind that Hanbali ruling, they would have to change this, this and this in their lives because you cant apply one usul in one aspect of life and do things that contradict the same usul! Not only were the ignorant of that usul but claimed that since some current day scholars who don't conform to madhabs used that ruling but did not keep the same usul in related matters, so they can go on and do the same! 8. If you mix madhabs without knowing the usul behind each ruling, you will probably end up contradicting yourself without knowing it. For example, some ppl dont make up missed prayers because they follow the Hanbali usul (which was later changed) that one who doesn't pray is not a Muslim. However they don't apply the same usul when buying meat or in the case of marriage when one of their parents doesn't pray! The butcher is still a Muslim if he doesnt pray, they claim, but we were not Muslim when we didn't used to pray so we don't have to do make-ups! Doesn't make much sense to me! 9. To evaluate rulings, the knowledge you must have requires yrs and yrs of full-time learning and after you have done that you are no longer a layman. 10. [quote]And as I asked in my previous post, how can I be certain that this “group of scholars … have an ijaza to teach tracing back to the group of scholars who did foundational work in 1. to 4.”? [/quote] That can be determined because you can find written proof in many places: e.g. sometimes when a scholar would give a reading (with explanation) to certain students he would record the names of the students who attended. Such written records are available sometimes in old manuscripts of the text that was read. Then you have collections of recorded short biographies (called 'tabaqat') of scholars written by historians who lived in the same time or soon after, including the name of the scholar, his students, his works, his date of death and or birth. Such historians used methods similar to hadith research to verify the facts. Then you have written ijazas and witnesses from other known students of that scholar. Ilm was transmitted with isnad just like hadith was, and you can trace scholars back to their teachers using methods similar to tracing hadith narrators. 11. [quote] When there are variant opinions on issues, though all of them may be valid scholarly opinions, is not only *one* of them the Truth in the Sight of the Lawgiver?  Surely it must be so, because how can something be both halaal and haraam – for example - at the same time?  It must be either or none.  But it cannot be both, can it?  [/quote] Have you forgotten the hadith of the Prophet(saws) that the halal and haram are clear and between them is a grey area? some scholar may classify something in that area as makruh, another as severely makruh and another as haram, but the fact remains that it is NOT halal and all of them are saying its NOT halal!!! Also sometimes there are different "halal" ways to do a halal act and some scholars may prefer some of those ways over the others. 12. The main problem a layman faces, and I would really like to know how you would go about tackling such issues, is when on an issue no clear guidance from the quran and hadith exists, or an apparent contradiction between 2 hadiths exists that can not be explained by chronological order. For example when we have an apparent contradiction in hadith we always follow what the Prophet (Saws) did towards the end of his life i.e. what came later. Sometimes we dont know what came later! For example: On the issue that what should a person do, if he is imprisoned without water for wudu and without earth for tayamum? e.g. if you are locked up in  a wooden hut, with a wooden floor, like the raised huts you find in areas that get flooded often. And since wood burns, you can't do tayamum with it. All 4 madhabs have different rulings on this issue. Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal use the exact same ayats from the Quran to arrive at 2 different rulings! Imam malik says that if a person can't do wudu or tayamum he should not pray because the Quran says that we don't burden a soul more than it can bear. Imam Ahmad says that such a person should pray without wudu as the exact same Quranic ayat removes the "burden of wudu" but does not remove the burden of prayer. How does a layman choose one interpretation of the ayats over another? Which is the stronger opinion? If he chooses what he "feels" to be correct he has done something frowned upon: that is choosing a ruling without having the ilm to discern, but rather going by his "feeling"
05/25/05 at 01:26:29
anon

kind of obvious
lucid9
05/25/05 at 01:56:09
[quote author=al-anon link=board=madrasa;num=1116975994;start=10#11 date=05/25/05 at 01:00:53] [slm] 12. The main problem a layman faces, and I would really like to know how you would go about tackling such issues, is when on an issue no clear guidance from the quran and hadith exists, or an apparent contradiction between 2 hadiths exists that can not be explained by chronological order. For example when we have an apparent contradiction in hadith we always follow what the Prophet (Saws) did towards the end of his life i.e. what came later. Sometimes we dont know what came later! For example: On the issue that what should a person do, if he is imprisoned without water for wudu and without earth for tayamum? e.g. if you are locked up in  a wooden hut, with a wooden floor, like the raised huts you find in areas that get flooded often. And since wood burns, you can't do tayamum with it. All 4 madhabs have different rulings on this issue. Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal use the exact same ayats from the Quran to arrive at 2 different rulings! Imam malik says that if a person can't do wudu or tayamum he should not pray because the Quran says that we don't burden a soul more than it can bear. Imam Ahmad says that such a person should pray without wudu as the exact same Quranic ayat removes the "burden of wudu" but does not remove the burden of prayer. How does a layman choose one interpretation of the ayats over another? Which is the stronger opinion? If he chooses what he "feels" to be correct he has done something frowned upon: that is choosing a ruling without having the ilm to discern, but rather going by his "feeling"[/quote] This is kindof like really obvious to 99.9999% of all muslims.   Of course you should pray.  You can always pray with wuhdu again later if you wish.   This is another example of legalism gone mad.  Any muslim with a brain will know that prayer is purification of the heart mind and soul, e.g. hadith like "prayer washes away sin like..." and ayaat like "Prayer prevents sinful actions..." (loose translation).  However, wudu merely purifies the outward self. In fact i have seen so many funny muslims who are not that sincere use this "oh my clothes are impure" or "I have to make ghusl" excuse not to pray or delay their prayers. Islam is simple.  You don't need a ph.d in islamic legal studies to live as a muslim.  All you need is a bit of knowledge, sincerity and the willingness to go to the more learned when you are really stuck.   However, of course sin darkens the heart and makes that very crucial sincerity really hard to come by if you've doing other stuff much of your life.... -butthead

huh?
bhaloo
05/25/05 at 02:10:14
[quote author=al-anon link=board=madrasa;num=1116975994;start=10#11 date=05/25/05 at 01:00:53] My earlier post was not a reply to Abu_Hamza. I don't think I had even read his post when I posted mine. However this one tries to address some his concerns. [/quote] Then what purpose did your post serve, as it wasn't related to the discussion?  Who was claiming what you said?  Just to throw something into the discussion, is not productive at all without at least reading what others have to say.  If your not going to read what others say in a discussion and just respond, then why should other people read what you have to say?  It defeats the purpose of a discussion, no? [quote] 5. A layman by definition is someone who cannot evaluate the strenght of evidences. So it is self-contradictory to claim that a layman can follow what he deems to be the strongest opinion. The act of determining what is strongest is ijtihad that cannot be performed by a layman. That is exactly what the specialists of Islamic law do! [/quote] This is not a correct understanding.  A layman doesn't have knowledge about a particular field, i.e. he is not a specialist/professional/expert.  I'm going to give an example to disprove your notion.  Consider the case of a patient that has been diagnosed with a life threatening disease. He goes to a variety of doctors (experts in their fields, scholars), to get their opinions on the disease. Some of these doctors give different options and cures. Each of these doctors have studied at least 15 or 20 years. How is a patient able to make a decision as what to do to remedy this affliction? It is the duty of the doctor to explain why he has chosen a certain treatment and cite the evidence for this. Only then can the patient make an informed decision and go with the best choice. Simply telling the patient you do this or do that, will make him feel uneasy and leave him clueless as to what is being done to him and what his chances are of survival. In the same manner, the same can be said about a layperson going to a variety of scholars. Since you didn't read Abu Hamza's post, most likely you didn't read mine with all the scholarly opinions, including that of Imaam Nawwawi (whom you cited), and who said: What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.  - Imaam Nawwawi. You should go back and read all the posts in this thread, because otherwise you will be talking about topics that have already been discussed and answered, as well as wasting other people's time.

mixing...
anon
05/25/05 at 02:24:14
[slm] 1. You don't have to read every post in a thread to know what is being discussed. 2. Our times are very different than the time in which Imam Nawwawi said that, if he did say that. 3. I never claimed one is obliged to follow a single madhab. I only showed concern at people mixing madhabs without having the required knowledge. To be concise, scholars agree that: One may follow the most stringent rulings from all the madhabs without asking a scholar as one is following the safest way. When taking dispensations, like not making up missed prayers, one should seek advice of scholars because otherwise one might end up combining usul that are contradictory.

...a heartfelt prayer ..
rkhan
05/25/05 at 02:57:36
[slm] Allaahumma arinal haqqa haqqan Warzuqnaa ittibaa'ahu Wa arinal baatila baatilan Warzuqna ijtinaabahu Our Allaah! Let us see the Truth as Truth And grant that we follow it... And let us see Falsehood as Falsehood and grant that we avoid it...

seeking knowledge from scholars
timbuktu
05/27/05 at 09:53:52
[slm] Thanks jannah for the splicing. There is so much here to learn and digest :) Ya Sidi abu Khaled, I will break up my sentence so as to be clearer.   My answer was: [quote]On the Day, every nafs will carry his/her own burden. No one will step forward to share it.[/quote] I thought this argument was clear: Since every nafs will have to answer for itself, each will have to use its own judgment in arriving at the Truth. 1. What did the earlier generations do, and why isn’t their method not good enough for us? I fail to see that the Hadith that asks us to follow the prophet [saw] and the Sahaba (ra) infers that we have to be like the Sahaba before following them. Perhaps you can elaborate on that. You have dealt beautifully with the time (earliest), reasons and process for the collection and authentification of the Ahadeeth, so no comments/ questions for now on this. 2. What was the need for the evolution of schools of fiqh, are the usool really different, and why is further evolution stopped? [hr] akhi al-anon, is Sunni thought restricted to the 4 madahib, and does not include the gheir-muqallid one? 3. You said: [quote] For example, a lay man reads a hadith and sees it is classified as "saheeh" by a  famous muhaddith from Egypt. A scholar trained in examining evidence finds the same muhaddith classified the exact same hadith with the exact same chain as "weak" in another of his books. Maybe because the scholar has a lot more time to go through books as that is his job. Is the layman following the strongest, most saheeh hadith then? This is not a hypothetical example. I don't like to use names because some people tend to get angry[/quote] Coming across such a conflict, and searching further or consulting the scholars, one is often provided a satisfactory resolution. Either: o      The books were written at different times, the later book reflecting revised opinion of the muhaddith. o      One of the books may be a forgery. 4. About the scholars of Ihsan: How is this ilm of Ihsan transmitted? What criteria do we use to check that what is being taught in this ilm is authentic. [quote]Ilm was transmitted with isnad just like hadith was, and you can trace scholars back to their teachers using methods similar to tracing hadith narrators.[/quote] I think I need enlightenement on this. From what I know, the ilm of narration of Hadith was accompanied by development of the ilm of “jirh and Ta`adeel”, whereas such an ilm is missing from the transmission of Ihsan. In fact, among what you call the scholars of Ihsan, Ahadeeth has been claimed to have been heard directly by people far removed from the days of the prophet [saw] and the Sahaba (ra). And sometimes these are in conflict with the tehqeeq of the scholars of Jirh and Ta`adeel. I am not saying such scholars do not believe that they have heard these Ahadeeth.  What I am saying is that the narration of such Ahaadeeth does not follow the stringent rules that you find in the classification of Hadith and their narrators. [hr] and akhi abu Hamza, while the rest of your post is very illuminating, I get the impression that sunni thought is restricted to the 4 madahib. Is that so? Is the ahle Hadith point of view outside the Sunni thought?
05/27/05 at 10:06:57
timbuktu

arghh...
anon
05/27/05 at 13:14:44
[slm] Ihsan 1. I searched and could not find the word "Ihsan" in my post. Plz clarify what you are talking about Br. Timbuktu. When I said Ilm I referred to fiqh and hadith ilm. Ilm and Isnad 2. Ilm (fiqh and hadith knowledge) is preserved with isnad because all the traditional madrassas I have seen give you an isnad with your "degree" that links you through scholars back to the sahaba. e.g. I have seen Darul Uloom Karachi's hadith isnad and it goes back through ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani. methods of the salaf 3. The salaf would travel great lengths to get knowledge from the scholars. I have read I have never read about "non-scholar" salafs deriving fiqh for himself. One man came all the way from Yemen to Imam Malik to ask him 40 questions. He replied only 18 (or so) of them. When the man asked him what he should tell the ppl back in yemen, Imam Malik said "Tell them Malik doesn't know!" Both that man and Imam Malik were amongst the Salaf. The method of sahaba was to ask the knowledgeable amonst them. If you consider yourself to be like one of the learned scholarly sahaba please go ahead and develop your own fiqh and enlighten us too. contradictions in works of a scholar In the times we live in, if a scholar makes a mistake he has a new edition printed out with the correction. Unless ofcourse you are a famous hadith scholar who happens to make more than 900 contradictions in your own works. And your followers do such taqlid of you that they give you the "benefit of doubt" when shown such mistakes. I am talking about a recent scholar with many mistakes!!! Not some 100s year old manuscript with a few mistakes! Evolution of fiqh The 4 schools are still evolving and most if not all 4 of them have contributed to Islamic banking and finance. Hanafi fiqh having contributed the most as so much fiqh work was done on transactions during the Ottomon caliphate. When new issues come up or the situation for old issues changes drastically the 4 schools do evolve. The only thing they don't do is evolve without need. Now a question to you Br. Timbuktu Please explain the differences we find in some classical texts printed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world. E.g. Kitab al Adkhar of Imam Nawwai printed in 1409/1988, published by Dar al-Huda in Riyad, Saudi Arabia, under the inspection and approval of the Riyasa Idara al-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyya wa al-Ifta’ or "Presidency of Supervision of Scholarly Studies and Islamic Legal Opinion" has some omissions and some words changed from the editions available in Syria for example. And the differences just happen to be, by coincidance I am sure, the exact same things agreed upon in the 4 madhabs, yet not accepted by the non-madhab group of scholars/people
05/27/05 at 13:17:12
anon

Closure
Abu_Hamza
05/27/05 at 17:58:49
[slm] I want to thank the brothers and sisters who have participated in this discussion thus far.  Alhamdulillah, I believe we did not let this topic get out of hand, and so far everyone has been pretty courteous in their posts.  May Allah (awj) reward all of you for that. However, due to the direction in which I perceive this thread to be going, and because I can sense *some* frustration among some of the posters, and also because the Constitution of Madinat al-Muslimeen specifically discourages prolonged discussions on the topic of madh-habs (see Article III, Section 2), I have decided to lock this thread. Those of you who wish to continue this discussion, please do so offline.  You can exchange emails over Private Messages, or check each other's profile.   May Allah (swt) increase us all in knowledge and grant us the proper understanding of this Deen. If you have any comments, concerns, questions or complaints about this thread, please feel free to Private Message and/or email me. Jazaakum Allaahu khairan.  And I hope you will forgive me for any offense from my part. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board A R C H I V E S Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org