The madhabs and Albani - SBC masjid
- Thread starter Aqdas
- Start date
Unbeknown
sunniport user
I would also like to see how sh. buti's famous book against Albani (and the debate with him), can be reconciled with his apparent position of "follow anyone in any ma'sala anytime" (if he attached any strings to this carte blanche permission - I would like to know that as well).
Alahazrat flogged bhopali (see) in as'sahm ash'shihabi for this very point - which can be said to be the belief of the less extreme salafi (who does not deny the necessity of taqleed outright - but disputes the obligation of following a particular Imam in all matters - with the rhetorical flourish of "What Allah did not obligate cannot be obligated by anyone else" - this
also happens to be the favorite argument of those Sunnis who deny the obligation of taqleed shakhsi (under all circumstances) - and to which Alahazrat responded in ajlal 'iylaam.), one that nevertheless opens the door for his more extreme brethren like Albani (who essentially wanted every single person to open up Bukhari and Muslim and do their own ijtihaad).
In short, is sh. Buti arguing for and against the same thing?
And just who are the "Machiavellian" Sunnis who insist on taqleed shakhsi? And what does such insistence make them?
Related.
Alahazrat flogged bhopali (see) in as'sahm ash'shihabi for this very point - which can be said to be the belief of the less extreme salafi (who does not deny the necessity of taqleed outright - but disputes the obligation of following a particular Imam in all matters - with the rhetorical flourish of "What Allah did not obligate cannot be obligated by anyone else" - this
also happens to be the favorite argument of those Sunnis who deny the obligation of taqleed shakhsi (under all circumstances) - and to which Alahazrat responded in ajlal 'iylaam.), one that nevertheless opens the door for his more extreme brethren like Albani (who essentially wanted every single person to open up Bukhari and Muslim and do their own ijtihaad).
In short, is sh. Buti arguing for and against the same thing?
And just who are the "Machiavellian" Sunnis who insist on taqleed shakhsi? And what does such insistence make them?
Related.
abu Hasan
Administrator
imam ibn Hajar al-haytami in his sh. of arbayin: al-fat'h al-mubin, p.474 (dar minhaj ed, 2009)
as for our times:
some scholars have said - it is impermissible to follow (do taqlid) of anyone other than the four imams: shafiyi, malik, abi hanifah and ahmad ibn Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with all of them.
because the principles of their (respective) schools are well-known; the rulings are established; the followers of (respective) madh'habs have written extensively on every issue and rulings (far') - there is rarely any issue upon which there is not a written document in (respective) madh'ahbs - either as a summary or a detailed exposition. [ijmal and tafsil].
compared to other (mujtahid imams) - whose madh'habs have not been documented nor compiled so extensively (as the four madh'habs). so the principles of their school (madh'hab) is not known, based on which rulings can be derived - so it is not permissible to follow them, (even) in opinions that are recorded and available. because it is possible that the specific ruling was based on certain conditions which they expected those who took from them (i.e. their disciples, those who heard from them etc.) to understand those rulings within that framework (of their principles).
rarely do we find an authentic source that gives us their (i.e. mujtahids sans the four) opinions along with the conditions and context (qayd, sharT) for their opinions.
thus it becomes impermissible to follow (taqleed) those (mujtahid) imams.
obviously, this is about taqlid in general of the 4 madh'habs; the mix-and-match any from the madh'habs is a different issue.some scholars have said - it is impermissible to follow (do taqlid) of anyone other than the four imams: shafiyi, malik, abi hanifah and ahmad ibn Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with all of them.
because the principles of their (respective) schools are well-known; the rulings are established; the followers of (respective) madh'habs have written extensively on every issue and rulings (far') - there is rarely any issue upon which there is not a written document in (respective) madh'ahbs - either as a summary or a detailed exposition. [ijmal and tafsil].
compared to other (mujtahid imams) - whose madh'habs have not been documented nor compiled so extensively (as the four madh'habs). so the principles of their school (madh'hab) is not known, based on which rulings can be derived - so it is not permissible to follow them, (even) in opinions that are recorded and available. because it is possible that the specific ruling was based on certain conditions which they expected those who took from them (i.e. their disciples, those who heard from them etc.) to understand those rulings within that framework (of their principles).
rarely do we find an authentic source that gives us their (i.e. mujtahids sans the four) opinions along with the conditions and context (qayd, sharT) for their opinions.
thus it becomes impermissible to follow (taqleed) those (mujtahid) imams.
The mix and match, and a person being permitted to choose from the four what he thinks is more correct - that has a fundamental problem:
How can a layman even decide which is more correct?
So you can say in theory a person won't follow his nafs and is staying within the four schools and choosing one of the four correct opinions, but in practice, that too is simply following his nafs.
No way can a layman know which is more correct.
This idea needs to be outlawed. It's blatantly nafsanic.
---
I read one book and the conclusion I got it: as long as a person is within any of the four, he's ok.
This is a very dangerous idea.
People who write such books and espouse such ideas need to look around them and realise what age we live in.
You are giving people a carte blanche to pick and choose in an era where people love shortcuts and workarounds.
How can a layman even decide which is more correct?
So you can say in theory a person won't follow his nafs and is staying within the four schools and choosing one of the four correct opinions, but in practice, that too is simply following his nafs.
No way can a layman know which is more correct.
This idea needs to be outlawed. It's blatantly nafsanic.
---
I read one book and the conclusion I got it: as long as a person is within any of the four, he's ok.
This is a very dangerous idea.
People who write such books and espouse such ideas need to look around them and realise what age we live in.
You are giving people a carte blanche to pick and choose in an era where people love shortcuts and workarounds.
Last edited:
Sorry, but don't you mean sunnis who insist on taqleed ghayr shakhsi(taqlid mutlaq?)?
How about a hanafi, who suffers from OCD, decides to take the maliki ruling on purity of water, which actually helps him beat his OCD problem?
AliNaqshbandi
sunniport user
sorry you're comparing apples and oranges.
Barelwi and devbandi is an issue of Sunni 3aqidah vs a cocktail of non-Sunni 3aqaid
Maliki and Hanafi are issues of fiqh within Ahlus Sunnah. The reason you can't mix and match across mazahib (in rukhas) is because many people including scholars are not aware of the length and breadth of the usul and furu3 of the 4 mazhabs, and people can fall into fisq where they're not following any mazhab at all.
Just a crude example - Hanafi fiqh permits marriage without consent of wali for a girl under some conditions. Maliki fiqh permits lack of witnesses under some conditions. Let's say a couple decide to follow both simultaneously and forego permission of wali, as well as witnesses. What you get is outright fisq - a non-marriage and a de facto partnership!
As abu Hasan replied to Alf, at certain times people of one mazhab can take rukhsah from another mazhab following all the stipulated conditions of that mazhab for that matter, consulting a good mufti. Sometimes the permission is widespread. Example, most people in the world today follow the Hanafi ruling for Zakat Al-Fitr payable in cash, as opposed to other mazhabs strictly stipulating giving grains or dates.
Sometimes, people follow one mazhab in one entire bab of fiqh, and another mazhab in another. Mostly otherwise Hanafi Arab and Turkish folks (barring some scrupulous scholars) follow the Shafi3i permissions on sea food (prawns, scallops, mussels, oysters, crabs, octopuses etc.), as eating is a different issue on its own merit. It's not the same as dangerously mixing conditions and rulings across mazahib on an individual matter such as wudu for instance.
The flip side of rukhsah is 3azeemah where you follow the most scrupulous opinion across mazhabs. This is commendable. Example, in Hanafi mazhab gargling the mouth and rinsing the nose is necessary for ghusl, and the flowing of water on every spec of the body is necessary, rubbing by hand not a necessity. In Maliki mazhab, gargling and inserting water in the nose is not necessary; however, rubbing water on the body by hands is a necessity. In Shafi3i mazhab pronouncing the niyah by mouth is a necessity. Now if someone pronounces the niyah by mouth for ghusl, gargles the mouth, rinses the nose, and also rubs water on the body by hand, he is staying in the scrupulous confines of all of Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi3i mazhabs. This is commendable.
So you can't say that the issue of different mazhabs within Ahlus Sunnah is the same things as Sunni/non-Sunni issue in beliefs.
afaik, Ghawthe A3zam radi Allahu 3anhu was well versed with the usul and furu3 of both Hanbali and Shafi3i mazhabs and used to issue rulings from either of the mazhab (depending on the questioner's mazhab). I've heard Mufti Akmal say (not yet read myself) that he was formerly a Hanafi and changed his mazhab to Hanbali as the number of people in the Hanbali mazhab was dwindling in his times.
Last edited:
Unbeknown
sunniport user
no.
In the past "some people" who insist on taqleed shakhsi have been referred to as "Machiavellian" (search the forums) - and that is what I was talking about.
Because that charge would apply to many great scholars - as they were the ones who laid down the principle - we are merely quoting and following.
Unbeknown
sunniport user
AliNaqshbandi
sunniport user
Barelwi and Deobandi fiqh is different than their aqeedah, so yes, i can compare them to this issue
Abdullah Ahmed
sunniport user
what??
“Apples are different than oranges, so yes I can compare them to each other”
AliNaqshbandi
sunniport user
AbdalQadir said I can't compare Barelwi and Deobandi aqeedah to one school of fiqh vs another, but I was referring to Barelwi and Deobandi fiqh, not aqeedah.what??
“Apples are different than oranges, so yes I can compare them to each other”
Unbeknown
sunniport user
with due respect sidi, that is not their argument at all.
their argument is precisely that the layman can never know which is more correct and hence he need not attempt to differentiate between rulings of different madhhab.
If the claim was that people should be allowed to follow whatever they think is most correct, that would still be tolerable. Because, in that case, the bases of selection would be overwhelming conviction about something/someone having stronger proofs. So the switcher would not merely be following whim or ease.
The best analogy from their point of view is that of a room with four doors. Whichever door you enter from you will end up in the same place. So then, why take pains to differentiate? What sense does it make to always enter from the same door?
For a layman (and this includes every non-mujtahid, so even people like Mufti Akmal or Nizamuddin or Alahazrat himself) - can't tell the right hand from the left (metaphorically speaking), so why burden them with choosing between things which, as far as they are concerned, are all equally right?
So then the only bases for choosing one over the other would be whim/mood/ease (provided the condition of knowing all relevant details is met).
These types claim this all the time. Meaning, for a lot of them, it is their argument.
Just in case you missed it, the 4 maddhabs are legitimate schools of fiqh while deobandi is not. Deobandi is a heretical sect, and we don't even seek answers to fiqh questions from them even if they happen to quote hanafi authorities.
For a Hanafi, will following the Shafi ruling on beard be similar to following the sea food ruling? Or will that lead to talfiq?
Last edited:
Unbeknown
sunniport user
really, I have only ever heard that line from salafis.
I thought sunnis knew that tarjih is not everyone's cup of tea.
What does this leave us with then?
On the one hand are those who say people can hop madhhabs because they can tell a strong from a weak position and on the other those who say people can hop because they can't tell positions apart!