Noorudeen Rashid mixing madhabs

I think this was discussed extensively on this forum but without any conclusion
Please check also the position of brother Asrar Rashid on mixing of madhhabs or taking from other madhhabs.

https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/taking-rulings-from-different-schools.13813/


The scholars of indian subcontinent are very strict regarding this but azhari and shami scholars are lenient and i assume brother asrar is following the azhari shami position.

Wallahu alam

 

Exactly.

 

https://islamanswers.co.uk/question/can-you-take-a-rukhsah-without-necessity/

He tries to quote from Radd al-Muhtar, Fath al-Qadir, and Minhat al-Khaliq. However, he misses a few things.

Firstly, in itself, something can be ja'iz and halal but be made haram by blocking the means
Secondly, simply cherry-picking quotes will get you nowhere.

For example, this quote picked up by Noor ud Deen Rashid from Radd al-Muhtar:

قوله: (عند الضرورة) ظاهره أنه عند عدمها لا يجوز، وهو أحد قولين. والمختار جوازه مطلقا ولو بعد الوقوع كما قدمناه في الخطبة ط. وأيضا عند الضرورة لا حاجة إلى التقليد كما قال بعضهم مستندا لما في المضمرات: المسافر إذا خاف اللصوص أو قطاع الطريق ولا ينتظر الرفقة جاز له


and from Fath al-Qadeer:

وَالْغَالِبُ أَنَّ مِثْلَ هَذِهِ إلْزَامَاتٌ مِنْهُمْ لِكَفِّ النَّاسِ عَنْ تَتَبُّعِ الرُّخَصِ وَإِلَّا أَخَذَ الْعَامِّيُّ فِي كُلِّ مَسْأَلَةٍ بِقَوْلِ مُجْتَهِدٍ قَوْلُهُ أَخَفُّ عَلَيْهِ. وَأَنَا لَا أَدْرِي مَا يَمْنَعُ هَذَا مِنْ النَّقْلِ أَوْ الْعَقْلِ وَكَوْنُ الْإِنْسَانِ يَتَّبِعُ مَا هُوَ أَخَفُّ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ مِنْ قَوْلِ مُجْتَهِدٍ مُسَوَّغٌ لَهُ الِاجْتِهَادُ مَا عَلِمْت مِنْ الشَّرْعِ ذَمَّهُ عَلَيْهِ، وَكَانَ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – يُحِبُّ مَا خَفَّفَ عَنْ أُمَّتِهِ، وَاَللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ. (فتح القدير)
It is probable that conditions like these (for taking a Rukhsah) were mentioned to prevent people from looking for dispensations (Rukhas). Since it is permitted for a lay person to follow the opinion that is easiest for him, provided it is the opinion of a Mujtahid scholar.

I do not know of anything that prevents a person from taking Rukhsah regularly neither from text (Quran and Hadith) nor Aql (rationality). Rather a person consistently following what is easy for him by taking from a qualified Mujtahid has no blame in Shari’ah. The Prophet ﷺ used to love things that made it easier for his Ummah. And Allah (Most High) knows best. (Imam Ibn Humaam, Fath al-Qadeer).

and from Minhat:

ثُمَّ لَعَلَّهُ مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى نَحْوِ مَا يَجْتَمِعُ لَهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ يَقُلْ بِمَجْمُوعِهِ مُجْتَهِدٌ كَمَا أَشَارَ إلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ اهـ. وَسَيَذْكُرُ الْمُؤَلِّفُ عَنْ الشَّارِحِ أَنَّ فِي فِسْقِهِ وَجْهَيْنِ أَوْجَهُهُمَا عَدَمُهُ، وَاَللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ أَعْلَمُ. (منحة الخالق).
It may be that it (the opinion that taking a Rukhsah is not permitted without necessity) is in a context where one is engaged in an action that all Mujtahid (scholars) disagree with (Talfeeq). As the author alluded to. The author will mention from the commentator that there are two opinions regarding his (a person who takes a Rukhsah) sinfulness, and the sounder opinion is that it is not sinful. And Allah Most High knows best. (Imam Ibn Abideen, Minhatu al-Khaliq).


Similarly, the famous quote about praying according to another madhab:

وَأَمَّا لَوْ صَلَّى يَوْمًا عَلَى مَذْهَبٍ وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ يَوْمًا آخَرَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ فَلَا يُمْنَعُ مِنْهُ. (رد المحتار على الدر المختار)
If a person were to pray according to a Madhab one day and wanted to pray according to another Madhab on another day, then there is nothing preventing him from doing so. (Imam Ibn Abideen, Radd al-Muhtaar)



This text is also in Minhat al-Khaliq:

الرَّأْسِ وَالْإِمَامِ مَالِكٍ فِي طَهَارَةِ الْكَلْبِ فِي صَلَاةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ كَذَا ذَكَرَ الْعَلَّامَتَانِ ابْنُ حَجَرٍ وَالرَّمْلِيُّ فِي شَرْحِهِمَا عَلَى الْمِنْهَاجِ.

وَفِي كَلَامِ ابْنِ الْهُمَامِ مَا يُفِيدُ ذَلِكَ فِي غَيْرِ هَذَا الْمَحَلِّ أَوْ الْمُرَادُ بِمَنْعِ الْمَرْجُوعِ فِيمَا قَلَّدَ فِيهِ اتِّفَاقًا الرُّجُوعُ فِي خُصُوصِ الْعَيْنِ لَا خُصُوصِ الْجِنْسِ، وَذَلِكَ بِنَقْضِ مَا فَعَلَهُ مُقَلِّدًا فِي فِعْلِهِ إمَامًا؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَمْلِكَ إبْطَالَهُ بِإِمْضَائِهِ كَمَا لَوْ قَضَى بِهِ فَلَوْ صَلَّى ظُهْرًا بِمَسْحِ رُبُعِ الرَّأْسِ لَيْسَ لَهُ إبْطَالُهَا بِاعْتِقَادِهِ لُزُومَ مَسْحِ الْكُلِّ، وَأَمَّا لَوْ صَلَّى يَوْمًا عَلَى مَذْهَبٍ، وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ يَوْمًا آخَرَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ فَلَا يُمْنَعُ مِنْهُ اهـ.

وَقَدْ بَسَطَ الْكَلَامَ فِيهَا فَرَاجِعْهُ وَمَا ذَكَرَهُ الْمُحَقِّقُ مِنْ جَوَازِ تَتَبُّعِ الرُّخَصِ رَدَّهُ ابْنُ حَجَرٍ وَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْإِجْمَاعِ وَانْتَصَرَ لَهُ الْعَلَّامَةُ خَيْرُ الدِّينِ فِي حَاشِيَتِهِ هُنَا بِكَلَامٍ طَوِيلٍ، وَمَنَعَ دَعْوَى الْإِجْمَاعِ فَرَاجِعْهُ وَيُؤَيِّدُ مَنْعَهُ مَا فِي شَرْحِ ابْنِ أَمِيرِ حَاجٍّ بَعْدَ نَقْلِهِ الْإِجْمَاعَ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ حَيْثُ قَالَ إنْ صَحَّ احْتَاجَ إلَى جَوَابٍ، وَيُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُقَالَ لَا نُسَلِّمُ صِحَّةَ دَعْوَى الْإِجْمَاعِ إذْ فِي تَفْسِيقِ الْمُتَتَبِّعِ لِلرُّخَصِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ رِوَايَتَانِ وَحَمَلَ الْقَاضِي أَبُو يَعْلَى الرِّوَايَةَ الْمُفَسِّقَةَ عَلَى غَيْرِ مُتَأَوِّلٍ وَلَا مُقَلِّدٍ، وَذَكَرَ بَعْضُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ إنْ قَوِيَ دَلِيلٌ أَوْ كَانَ عَامِّيًّا لَا يَفْسُقُ وَفِي رَوْضَةِ النَّوَوِيِّ وَأَصْلُهَا عَنْ حِكَايَةِ الْحَنَّاطِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَفْسُقُ بِهِ ثُمَّ لَعَلَّهُ مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى نَحْوِ مَا يَجْتَمِعُ لَهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ يَقُلْ بِمَجْمُوعِهِ مُجْتَهِدٌ كَمَا أَشَارَ إلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ اهـ.

وَسَيَذْكُرُ الْمُؤَلِّفُ عَنْ الشَّارِحِ أَنَّ فِي فِسْقِهِ وَجْهَيْنِ أَوْجَهُهُمَا عَدَمُهُ، وَاَللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ أَعْلَمُ. (قَوْلُهُ بِقَوْلِ مُجْتَهِدٍ قَوْلُهُ أَخَفُّ) قَالَ الرَّمْلِيُّ الْجُمْلَةُ مِنْ الْمُبْتَدَأِ وَالْخَبَرِ نَعْتٌ لِمُجْتَهِدٍ.


We say that something can be permissible in and of itself but be restricted by blocking the means (sadd al-dhara'i). Imam Ahmad Raza رضى الله عنه alluded to this as well.

Incomplete

 

Section titles in An-Nayyir-ash-Shihabi

 

Question: Who is a Hanafi?

Answer from Fatawa Ridawiyyah please.

Question: What did Alahazrat say of those scholars who restricted the layman to a single madh'hab?

Answer from Fatawa Ridawiyyah please.

 

What are Sh. Noorudeen's qualifications - 5 years in Syria? And he is handing out carte blanche permission to follow rukhas?

Whereas, fiqh works explicitly state that pursuing dispensations (tatabbu' e rukahs) is ittiba al-hawa.

khulasatul tahqiq of imam nablusi (posted with translation by @Bazdawi )




Alahazrat said of those who closed the door to switching madh'habs: 'naasihaan e ummat' - those who were anxious for the ummah.

But I guess, the new mantra is: The ummah is already reeling under countless fitan, one more or less - what does it matter?

 

you surprise me brother.

I have been pushing these two short books under everybody's noses but you seem not to have noticed!

Kashf-e-Ahwaal, Saif-e-Lazawaal

And that is in addition to Alahazrat's masterpieces:

Ajla' al-'iylam, Al-Fadl-ul-Mauhabi, al-Nayyir-ush-Shihaabi (p. 593-594), Jali an-Nass fi amakeen al-Rukhas etc.​

---

You ask for quotes - you will find quotes aplenty in these works.

But fiqh is not a quotes and takhreej game, it's insight (tafaqquh, tafheem) and inspiration or innate capability (mawhibah) - notice the name that Alahazrat chose for his risalah: Fadl al-Mauhabi - which is indicative of divine aid and gift.

What will you and I do with the quotes? What's important is whether we have the skills to derive from them what was meant to be conveyed - and what are our own skills (or those of our contemporaries) compared to that of a phenomenal faqih like Alahazrat?!

For example, in Nayyir, Alahazrat moves beyond quotes, into axioms and usul and strikes at the root of the matter:

• What is taqleed and why is it essential in the first place?
• What does it imply when one flits between schools like a butterfly?

Go through these works and if you are still in doubt, you can post on here. Try writing a refutation of Nayyir ash-Shihabi (or ask any contemporary who disagrees to pen an academic rebuttal).

Interestingly, all three works listed above, were written in refutation of the wahabiyya (or mention them as the torchbearers)!

 

Jazak Allahu khayra @AR Ahmed good to have all these quotes together.

 

One text from Fath al-Qadir of 'Allamah ibn Humam رحمة الله عليه, right before what was quoted:


والعامي لا عبرة بما يقع في قلبه من صواب الحكم وخطئه ، وعلى هذا إذا استفتى فقيهين : أعني مجتهدين فاختلفا عليه الأولى أن يأخذ بما يميل إليه قلبه منهما . وعندي أنه لو أخذ بقول الذي لا يميل إليه قلبه جاز لأن ميله وعدمه سواء ، والواجب عليه تقليد مجتهد وقد فعل أصاب ذلك المجتهد أو أخطأ . وقالوا المنتقل من مذهب إلى مذهب آخر باجتهاد وبرهان آثم يستوجب التعزير فبلا اجتهاد وبرهان أولى

A translation:

As for the layman) it is obligatory for him to do taqlīd of a single mujtahid...The jurists have stated that the one who moves from one madh'hab to another by his ijtihād and evidence is sinful and deserves to be punished. Thus, one who does so without ijtihād and evidence is even more deserving."

The rukhsah that Imam ibn Humam رحمة الله عليه mentions is for darurah only - even if it is not mentioned specifically, it is specified by the context of the whole passage which was omitted.

As for the text from Radd al-Muhtar a similar ibarat is in Bahrul Raiq:

وَفِي كَلَامِ ابْنِ الْهُمَامِ مَا يُفِيدُ ذَلِكَ فِي غَيْرِ هَذَا الْمَحَلِّ أَوْ الْمُرَادُ بِمَنْعِ الْمَرْجُوعِ فِيمَا قَلَّدَ فِيهِ اتِّفَاقًا الرُّجُوعُ فِي خُصُوصِ الْعَيْنِ لَا خُصُوصِ الْجِنْسِ، وَذَلِكَ بِنَقْضِ مَا فَعَلَهُ مُقَلِّدًا فِي فِعْلِهِ إمَامًا؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَمْلِكَ إبْطَالَهُ بِإِمْضَائِهِ كَمَا لَوْ قَضَى بِهِ فَلَوْ صَلَّى ظُهْرًا بِمَسْحِ رُبُعِ الرَّأْسِ لَيْسَ لَهُ إبْطَالُهَا بِاعْتِقَادِهِ لُزُومَ مَسْحِ الْكُلِّ، وَأَمَّا لَوْ صَلَّى يَوْمًا عَلَى مَذْهَبٍ، وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ يَوْمًا آخَرَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ فَلَا يُمْنَعُ مِنْهُ

The author of Bahr adds:

وَقَدْ بَسَطَ الْكَلَامَ فِيهَا فَرَاجِعْهُ وَمَا ذَكَرَهُ الْمُحَقِّقُ مِنْ جَوَازِ تَتَبُّعِ الرُّخَصِ رَدَّهُ ابْنُ حَجَرٍ وَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْإِجْمَاعِ وَانْتَصَرَ لَهُ الْعَلَّامَةُ خَيْرُ الدِّينِ فِي حَاشِيَتِهِ هُنَا بِكَلَامٍ طَوِيلٍ، وَمَنَعَ دَعْوَى الْإِجْمَاعِ فَرَاجِعْهُ وَيُؤَيِّدُ مَنْعَهُ مَا فِي شَرْحِ ابْنِ أَمِيرِ حَاجٍّ بَعْدَ نَقْلِهِ الْإِجْمَاعَ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ حَيْثُ قَالَ إنْ صَحَّ احْتَاجَ إلَى جَوَابٍ، وَيُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُقَالَ لَا نُسَلِّمُ صِحَّةَ دَعْوَى الْإِجْمَاعِ إذْ فِي تَفْسِيقِ الْمُتَتَبِّعِ لِلرُّخَصِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ رِوَايَتَانِ وَحَمَلَ الْقَاضِي أَبُو يَعْلَى الرِّوَايَةَ الْمُفَسِّقَةَ عَلَى غَيْرِ مُتَأَوِّلٍ وَلَا مُقَلِّدٍ، وَذَكَرَ بَعْضُ الْحَنَابِلَةِ إنْ قَوِيَ دَلِيلٌ أَوْ كَانَ عَامِّيًّا لَا يَفْسُقُ وَفِي رَوْضَةِ النَّوَوِيِّ وَأَصْلُهَا عَنْ حِكَايَةِ الْحَنَّاطِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَفْسُقُ بِهِ ثُمَّ لَعَلَّهُ مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى نَحْوِ مَا يَجْتَمِعُ لَهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ يَقُلْ بِمَجْمُوعِهِ مُجْتَهِدٌ كَمَا أَشَارَ إلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ اه


The author of Radd al-Muhtar vol 1 is quoted by the author which is in full:

وإما لو صلى يوما على مذهب وأراد أن يصلى يوما آخر على غيره فلا يمنع منه، على أن في دعوى الاتفاق نظرا، فقد حكي الخلاف، فيجوز اتباع القائل بالجواز، كذا أفاده العلامة الشرنبلالي في العقد الفريد. ثم قال بعد ذكر فروع من أهل المذهب صريحة بالجواز وكلام طويل: فتحصل مما ذكرناه أنه ليس على الانسان التزام مذهب معين، وأنه يجوز له العمل بما يخالف ما عمله على مذهبه مقلدا فيه غير إمامه مستجمعا شروطه ويعمل بأمرين متضادين في حادثتين لا تعلق لواحدة منهما بالأخرى، وليس له إبطال عين ما فعله بتقليد إمام آخر، لان إمضاء الفعل كإمضاء القاضي لا ينقض. وقال أيضا: إن له التقليد بعد العمل كما إذا صلى ظانا صحتها على مذهبه ثم ثبين بطلانها في مذهبه وصحتها على مذهب غيره فله تقليده، ويجتزي بتلك الصلاة على ما قال في البزازية: إنه روي عن أبي يوسف أنه صلى الجمعة مغتسلا من الحمام ثم أخبر بفأرة ميتة في بئر الحمام فقال: نأخذ بقول إخواننا من أهل المدينة: إذا بلغ الماء قلتين لم يجعل خبثا اه‍.

Yes, perhaps Imam Ibn Abidin رحمة الله عليه believed in taqlid mutlaq but later ulama held strongly to, as I advocate, sticking to one madhab as being wajib li ghayrihi.

Note what Sh Abu Hasan translated from Khulasat al-Tahqiq:

khulasat al-taHqiq of abd al-ghani nablusi, p6 citing ibn humam:

View attachment 4003

ibn humam said:
the position of a muqallid [follower] in issues of ijtihad [mas'alah al-ijtihad] is similar to that of a mujtahid; because if there are two opinions on one issue and he has acted upon one of them, by choosing one of them to act upon it and has signed it off by acting upon it, then he cannot revert from his opinion towards another [other than the one he first acted upon] except by reason of precedence [i.e., consider the other better than the first, tarjiH],

similar to a person who is confused about the direction of the qiblah in two or more different directions, then he chooses one of them by selecting one of the many directions, so long as any of the other direction is not given given precedence. so also, is a judge, when has to choose from two opinions and after he has issued the judgement and signed the verdict [by selecting] one of the two opinions.

thus, a muqallid, when having acted upon a ruling of a madh'hab cannot revert from it to [the other ruling of] another madh'hab.

 

Great. You highlight it please, from those same or similar fiqh references.

 

The mention of darurah
Taqlid shakhsi vs taqlid mutlaq

etc

 

Such as...

 

I think his answer is missing a few things....

 

His answer is valid. Nothing wrong with it.

 

As salam alaykum, Who is this scholar?
It says he studied in Shaam shareef under Shaykh Samer Nass and others. Here it seems he is allowing a person to pick and choose the easiest rulings from different madhahib.
https://islamanswers.co.uk/question...ukhsah-follow-an-opinion-from-another-madhab/