Taking rulings from different schools

[Abu Hamza]

ibrahim al-bajuri in tuhfa tul-murid:

# some of them have said: following (taqlid) one (madhab) incessantly is not desirable, rather he can opt to take from this madhab sometimes and another madhab during other times. thus, salat ul-dhuhr is permissible according to the madhab of al-shafiyi and salat ul-asr according to the madhab of malik, and such examples like this...

 

[abu Hasan]

a few questions:

1. are you saying that a common man can choose any ruling from any madh'hab at any time, regardless of necessity or seeking dispensation?

2. if the above is true, then what is the difference between us and the salafis?

3. if not, what is the difference between us and the salafis? (notice that you have yourself cited the example of asking any of the sahaba and acting upon their opinion - if it was good for tabiyis, why is it not for us? please remember this is your own statement).

4. hypothetical example:

a man entered a masjid and it was asr time according to shafiyis. the congregation had stood up and the prayer begun. the man had not prayed zuhr yet. the man joined the shafiyi jama'ah and prayed asr according to the shafiyi madh'hab with the intention of obligatory asr.

after prayer, he went home (as praying after asr would raise questions) and since it was still hanafi prayer time, and he prayed zuhr according to the hanafi madh'hab.​

which of the two prayers are valid and why?

 

[Abu Hamza]

1. up until now, i have simply quoted the books of ulema and their views on the matter (with references), i.e, the overwhelming majority (jamhur) have stipulated that it is not wajib to adhere to a specific madhab, according to nawawi, that is absolutely fine as long as he does not do so seeking concessions, i accept this:

# my question to you is, do you accept this position, as advocated by the likes of nawawi, al-izz ibn abd al-salam, nablusi, bajuri, al-aamadi, sha'rani, ibn ul-humam and countless others, if not, why?

3. you have misunderstood the point, nowhere did i say that 'you can ask any of the sahaba and act upon their opinion', what i quoted was the following:

# the sahaba and ta’biyin would not prevent a layman from asking whosoever he wished to ask, and neither did they make it imperative upon a person to strictly abide to the ijtihad of one of them in every matter (#post 10)

# sayf ul-din al-aamadi - such a prohibition has not been transmitted from the sahaba and ta'biyin for the questioner to make taqlid of one imam in numerous different matters, rather, they permitted him to question whoever he wished to ask in every matter. if that was considered reprehensible, they would have certainly objected to it (#post 24)

# zahid al-kawthari - the sahaba (radiy'allahu anhum) were unanimous that the one who took a legal opinion from abu bakr and umar (radiy'allahu anhuma), or he followed them both, that he could also follow abu hurayra and muadh ibn jabal and others (#post 3)

now, all of these citations are obviously referring to that time, the era of the companions and ta'biyin, none of them prohibited the layman from taking rulings from different companions/imams, so imam zahid al-kawthari's point is very pertinent, if they did not prevent the layman from doing so (yet they were khayr ul-qurun), then why should that be the case now? this is why he says:

# the one who claims that these two consensus rulings (ijma'ayn) have been raised and are no longer applicable need to bring forth substantial proof to support their claim.
now, as to why we don't take rulings of the companions without consulting the schools, then i would have thought that is obvious,. in any case, i will summarise imam al-manawi's statement here:

imam al-manawi (rahimahullah) said in his commentary on suyuti's ja'mi:

# it is impermissible to make taqlid of the sahaba and ta'biyin according to imam al-haramayn, since their schools have not been recorded (tadween) - i.e, we do not know their limitations etc, therefore, other than the four schools, it is impermissible to make taqlid of anyone else... imam al-razi transmits an ijma on this issue, i.e, the prohibition of the awaam to make taqlid of even the greatest of companions, imam a-manawi is in agreement.

4. at this stage, the question is irrelevant, we are yet to establish what you make of the position itself, only then we can discuss practical implementations and hypothetical scenarios.

allah knows best

 

[abu Hasan]

we are yet to establish what you make of the position itself,

i am sorry brother. you started the thread and it is you who will have to first clarify your position.

i will, in sha'Allah try to answer all your questions - but we need clarity on your position and what you have understood from the texts of nawawi and the rest. not to mention 'khulasatu't taHqiq' of shaykh abdu'l ghani nablusi.

we need to be clear on our stand - for example, i am a Hanafi and my position is that of Hanafi fuqaha. of course, there are multi-layered explanations for what exactly do i mean by 'position of Hanafi fuqaha', and that will appear as we move on.

---
you have started a thread, and quoted books of ulama. and also made a categorical statement that the "jumhur" position is that it is not wajib to follow any madh'hab. before we go further, i would like to understand your approach and understand if your argument is from a salafi/ghayr-muqallid viewpoint.

therefore, i asked two simple questions. [brother, please don't hash your answers; use numbers as it will be easy to reference].

1. are you saying that a common man can choose any ruling from any madh'hab at any time, regardless of necessity or seeking dispensation?

2. if the above is true, then what is the difference between us and the salafis?

while the answer to the first question is also vague, you have not answered the second question. it is crucial to know how do you differ from salafis. please understand that even salafis admit the sayings of fuqaha and attempt tarjiH by choosing that which is closest to available hadith.

4. at this stage, the question is irrelevant, we are yet to establish what you make of the position itself, only then we can discuss practical implementations and hypothetical scenarios

it is not irrelevant.

if you are not able to answer this question, your claim of "not wajib to adhere to one madh'hab" becomes shaky. the scenario is not far-fetched-hypothetical either.

---
let me give you another scenario.

firstly, according to your categorical statement, it is not wajib to adhere to a specific madh'hab according to jumhur [your claim]. in which case i can choose the non-jumhur position [implied by your statement] and insist that it is wajib to adhere to a specific madh'hab. which means, i don't have to accept any of your arguments or proofs. [if you blinked: it is by your own admission that i am free to choose any madh'hab and it will be valid].

secondly, what is the point of tarjiH within a madh'hab and the umpteen instances fuqaha insist that this is the right opinion; and the muftis exhorted to give fatwa according to the rajiH opinion. i can quote nawawi if you wish.

thirdly, you are advocating a book like fiqhu's sunnah, except that your version of fiqhu's sunnah would be even more liberal and chooses from various madhahib without any restraint. so do you advise common people to read and take from fiqhu's sunnah. if not why?

----

4. we are yet to establish what you make of the position itself

don't know why, but it sounds like an interrogation.

lastly, brotherly advice: don't restrict analysis or your judgement to quoted excerpts, without properly examining the context of the said statements.

 

[Unbeknown]

the scenario is not far-fetched-hypothetical either.

from personal experience I second that it certainly is neither far-fetched nor hypothetical.

I also know of two instances in which the Imam is a shafi'i and the majority of the muqatdis are hanafi. Now, as per shafi'i madhhab, consistently failing to offer prayers at the outset of the prayer time (awwal-waqt) makes a person (in this case the Imam) ineligible for testimony in any Islamic court/case (matrook-ash-shahadah). On the other hand, the hanafi 'asr time does not begin until it is long past the awwal-waqt per shafi'is.

So there is a clear dead-lock. Multiple hanafi muftis were contacted and all of them returned for answer that regardless of the situation, hanafis cannot pray during the shafi'i awwal-waqt.

 

[Unbeknown]

9) should the urf be taken into account? if the awam are informed they can follow any position from any maddhab then wouldn't this cause fitna? isn't sidd al-zarayi important especially in this day and age?

(there may be overlap and repetition so I am apologise to shaykh abu hasan from before.)

its all hunky-dory telling people they dont have to keep a beard as they can follow imam shafiyis position but what about the fitan and repercussions?

this is one of THE most important concerns.

We have the principle of sadd-al-dharayi in our shari'ah - which shows that we need to acknowledge the temerity and fitnah of people's nufus and understand that not all knowledge is for everyone. There are grades and times and contexts and temperaments to be mindful of.

Past ulema wrote lengthy works insisting on sunnahs because people were falling into neglect regarding them.

And now, when the neglect and nafs-parasti among people is at it's height, we have pirs and scholars educating people about dispensations, telling them how to bypass strictures [pun not intended] to provide justifications for one's chosen way of life.

I mean how can such people not shudder to call themselves pirs and murshids while simultaneously following easier rulings, when taswwuf is all about squelching the nafs?

Just look at the murideen of pir saqib - they have gone even further than him in regards their beards.

Looking at the shafi'i teachers at azhar and elsewhere (barring perhaps shaam al-shareef) I think that the madhhab of imam a'zam should receive all the credit for reviving the sunnah of the beard in the post-colonial world. And it is the scholars like alahazrat and his students here in the subcont and other ahnaaf in the arab world whose stringent fatwas are responsible for making people think thrice before taking a razor to their cheeks.

And now we have people trying to reverse all that in the name of fiqh and being open-minded.

If reviving a sunnah brings the reward of a shaheed what will be the effect of being a cause for it's erasure?

How will these people answer on the morrow?

 

[Abu Hamza]

there is absolutely no ambiguity in the position i am advocating, if there is, it means you haven’t read any of the citations that i have posted, or you are simply unwilling to accept it as a credible argument, whatever the case, i will further elaborate:

imam abd al-ghani al-nablusi:

‘...as for those who are not mujtahidin, then they are the general masses, it is not wajib upon them to cling to the to the actions of a specific madhab from the four madhahib according to the preferred (ra’jih) opinion, like what has already come to pass, rather it is permissible for anyone from amongst them (the awaam) to perform, in terms of ibadah and mua’malat , any madhab he wishes, however, only after consulting all the conditions which that particular school has stipulated, otherwise his actions are rendered void by consensus’.

This is the position i adhere to, and all your questions are answered within:

1. a common man has to confine himself to the four schools.

2. it is not wajib upon him to adhere to the actions of a specific madhab, and this is the dominant position.

3. a common man can perform his ibadah/muamalat according to any school, as long as he consults and knows the conditions of that school with regards to that particular matter otherwise he risks nullifying his actions altogether.

the above position v salafi/ghayr muqalidin manhaj

there are palpable differences between this view and the salafi/ghayr muqalidin position:

1. the clue is in the name, ‘ghayr muqalidin’, they do not consider themselves adherents of the four schools whilst we do.

2. salafi/ghayr muqalidin act upon ahadith without any consultation to the four schools whatsoever, whilst this position asserts that you must consult the schools and know the limitations and conditions if you wish to act according to another ruling.

3. they do not see the need to make taqlid of anyone of the four imams to the point that they abandon their schools entirely, and they examine them with their own flawed understanding (this quote is taken from yusuf al-nabhani’s muqadima of shawahid’ul-haq). according to al-nabhani’s own testament: ‘i have witnessed some of them call upon common people to derive legal rulings (istimbat ul-ahkam al-shariyya) themselves from qur’an and sahih bukhari’. Does this position advocate such behaviour? Nope, in fact, none of the imams i have quoted thus far have encouraged such a practice (and i stand by this statement).

4. imam al-nabhani immediately goes on to say: ‘so beware o my brother, beware of gathering with the likes of those imbeciles, and adhere to your madhab and follow (qallid) any imam you wish from the four imams without following concessions and performing talfiq in rulings, since what results from adopting such an attitude is something none of the imams said, that is prohibited (mamnu).’

As for:

‘i can choose the non-jamhur position’ – be my guest, but don't criticise and condemn those who follow this position, it's the stronger of the two and the ra'jih qawl, you have not presented anything to suggest otherwise.

as for giving tarjih within a madhab, that doesn’t go against what these ulema are purporting, i’m pretty sure they understood the concept of tarjih within a madhab better than any of us but despite that, they still gave this ruling.


as for ‘advocating a book like fiqhu’s sunnah, not really, if that was the case, you’re implying shaykh abd al-ghani, and a host of other ulema are towing a similar line, that’s absurd!

Now...


1. If you think this position of shaykh abd al-ghani (as quoted above) is incorrect, then i would like you to explain why?


2. If you think i have misunderstood what these Ulema are actually saying, then i would like for you to highlight exactly where I’m mistaken.


As for your hypothetical example in the previous post, that will be addressed shortly since that is to be with talfiq which none of the ulema allow, but like i said, one issue at a time. Also, please post the relevant attachments to support your points.


*** i will only respond to mawlana aH, i haven't got time to respond to peoples personal experiences

 

[Unbeknown]

i haven't got time to respond to peoples personal experiences

that's like you.

The personal experience was not about my trip to Disneyland, it was in reply to your claim that the situation is hypothetical. Besides, it was for the benefit of others not you . My "personal experience" will be automatically responded to if and when you reply to aH's questions.

Am waiting to see how you prove it to be talfiq.

 

[Alf]

4. imam al-nabhani immediately goes on to say: ‘so beware o my brother, beware of gathering with the likes of those imbeciles, and adhere to your madhab and follow (qallid) any imam you wish from the four imams without following concessions and performing talfiq in rulings, since what results from adopting such an attitude is something none of the imams said, that is prohibited (mamnu).’

So, following any maddhab is allowed only if one is not seeking concession thereby? For instance, if a hanafi were to trim his beard less than one fist following the shaafi view on keeping beard being not wajib, it will be seeking concession, hence impermissible?

 

[Aqib alQadri]

# the overwhelming majority (jamhur) of fuqaha and usuliyun take the position that it is not wajib to make taqlid of a specific imam in every occurrence... rather, it is permissible for him to make taqlid of any mujtahid he wants. If he adheres to a specific madhab, it is permissible for him to transfer to another. allah azawajal has not ordered us to restrict ourselves to one madhab, as a consequence, adhering to a specific madhab is not wajib..allah has obligated that we follow the people of knowledge without specifying one alim over the other, he says (most high): ‘and ask the people of ‘dhikr’ if you do not know’ (al-nahl, 43).

(In the quote, the underlining is mine)

How many times during one's life? Once, thrice, twenty times?????

Or how often (at what intervals) can a person switch?? Once in the morning, once in the afternoon????

Can he switch completely, or pick and choose??

 

[Bazdawi]

So, following any maddhab is allowed only if one is not seeking concession thereby? For instance, if a hanafi were to trim his beard less than one fist following the shaafi view on keeping beard being not wajib, it will be seeking concession, hence impermissible?

well, a little background on why this topic arose in the first place. the hanafi viewpoint on a fistful beard was being discussed, then those who advocate the permissibility of trimming the beard said - 'if hanafi ulema declared it impermissible to trim the beard to less than a fistful then where are the citations?' then once citations were provided, the discussion suddenly moved onto 'taking rulings from different schools'

1) Zayd wants to trim his beard but he is generally a follower of the hanafi fiqh in which it is impermissible to do so.
2) Zayd finds out that there is concession in the shafiyi fiqh with regards to keeping a fistful beard.
3) Zayd declares that it is permissible to pick and choose from different maddhahib and ignores the fact he is doing it for following a concession.

then zayd goes rabid declaring that by trimming his beard, he is just following the position of the jamhur (conveniently forgetting to mention what they said about rukhas) and anyone who tells him not to trim his beard is a zealot.

 

[abu Hasan]

hey bros. wait.
am a bit slow. please slow down too.

---
we started here:

# the overwhelming majority (jamhur) of fuqaha and usuliyun take the position that it is not wajib to make taqlid of a specific imam in every occurrence... rather, it is permissible for him to make taqlid of any mujtahid he wants. If he adheres to a specific madhab, it is permissible for him to transfer to another. allah azawajal has not ordered us to restrict ourselves to one madhab, as a consequence, adhering to a specific madhab is not wajib..allah has obligated that we follow the people of knowledge without specifying one alim over the other, he says (most high): ‘and ask the people of ‘dhikr’ if you do not know’ (al-nahl, 43).

and i began asking whether a man can have a free hand...that has now been diverted to the generic question of taqlid itself.

the issue is now mixed up. i mean, reading abu hamza's posts, one would get the impression that i am in a totally opposite camp. that is because, he has moved the goalpost from a specific ruling and questions he asked in the first post to the question of taqlid itself in a broader sense.

i can go even broader if you wish: imam shafiyi said: 'it is not permissible for anyone to do taqlid'.

----
we can all take to grandstanding, and post citation for citation but what will the public make out of all this? i came to know that some respectable ulama are also being rather naive about this issue and think it to be an academic exercise. do they not see the danger of debating an academic issue, and thereby emboldening people of our age to do what they wish under the garb of following any madh'hab they choose?

while young muftis can be excused for their naivete, i am surprised by the support of some experienced people. it is as if we live in a world where common people are just and upright, who will never look for dispensations, and they will know how to practise any madh'hab by following all its conditions (that is what is stipulated in 'following any madh'hab you like'). apparently, common men/women in our time are so diligent in learning religious rulings and scrupulous in being close to the Haqq, that they will investigate all the four madh'habs in detail, list down all the necessities of the madh'hab and then choose one opinion over other - as the circumstance demands. why fret? if someone asks you a fatwa whether it is permissible to follow another madh'hab, you just tell them 'yes' and your responsibility is over.

if it is written down in a book, and we have to do taqlid of that passage - perish forbid if one wishes to examine the historical context of an isolated statement of a scholar and the relevance in our time. if imam nablusi said that smoking was permissible, we should close our eyes to everything else - even overwhelming medical evidence - and insist that smoking is permissible. even if nablusi himself showed the way in the very same fatwa explaining the context of the ruling AND the rider, that the ruling may change if circumstances change.

so it is wajib to do taqlid of a passage - even if it is not wajib to do taqlid of a specific mujtahid. but no! you have to do taqlid of a passage in a book - else you are an ignoramus, you don't know the issue, you are blinded by your bias etc, etc.

sub'HanAllah, do they not fear that they will be held to account for opening the door to fitnah? if this whole exercise is to justify short beards of some people under whatever excuse, do they not know that Allah ta'ala Knows everything?

ibn abidin said: "one who does not know the people of his age is an ignoramus".

=====
i will comment in sha'Allah later. i am tied up with a lot of work and need to make some time to reply to abu Hamzah. i posted this, in case my silence becomes tacit acceptance of all of abu Hamzah's allegations.

Allah ta'ala knows best.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.

 

[abu Hasan]

please no trading insults.

 

[abu Hasan]

some side discussions were moved to another thread.

here it is for reference:
http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/side-discussion-on-sp-moderator-abilities.13821/

 

[abu Hasan]

ignoring our collective ignorance for the moment, what i gather from abu Hamzah's argument is that he advocates that common men practice their religion and take for their selves from religious rulings like any mujtahid.

 

[Abu Hamza]

ignoring our collective ignorance for the moment, what i gather from abu Hamzah's argument is that he advocates that common men practice their religion and take for their selves from religious rulings like any mujtahid.

subhan'Allah! i'm amazed that you would post such a response especially after i've already answered this objection in post. 27 (i can only assume somebody else has access to your account).

you have totally dismissed my response to your questions in post. 27. let me state again, i have left no room for ambiguity, you asked me a heap of questions, i duly answered them, i then posed a few questions to you, i will ask you the same questions again (we seem to be going around in circles):

1. If you think this position of shaykh abd al-ghani (in post 27) is incorrect, then i would like you to explain why?


2. If you think i have misunderstood what these Ulema are actually saying, then i would like for you to highlight exactly where I’m mistaken.

 

[abu Hasan]

i'm amazed that you would post such a response especially after i've already answered this objection in post. 27 (i can only assume somebody else has access to your account).

just to clarify - my account is mine and no one has access to it. if such a thing happens, i will let it be known. thanks for the husn zann though.

brother, it doesn't have to be the case always that someone understands everything from your point of view. sometimes, a question might be asked for clarification. i will answer your quesstions in time, in sha'Allah.

---
but i just want you to know if you agree to this statement. if you have already said so, what is the harm in saying it again. here let me rephrase it as a direct question:

are you advocating that common men practice their religion and take for their selves from religious rulings like any mujtahid?

 

[Harris786]

i came to know that some respectable ulama are also being rather naive about this issue and think it to be an academic exercise. do they not see the danger of debating an academic issue, and thereby emboldening people of our age to do what they wish under the garb of following any madh'hab they choose?

are you talking about shaykh asrar rashid ? why is he all of a sudden naive? if not who are those respectable folk it is unlike sunniport to not mention names?

 

[abu Hasan]

are you talking about

you are free to make assumptions. i have absolutely no obligation to answer you and if you misbehave, you can stay away and rant on facebook.

 

[Abu Hamza]

are you advocating that common men practice their religion and take for their selves from religious rulings like any mujtahid?