On the Necessity of Following Qualified Scholarship

[lumumba_s]

On this issue of following qualified scholarship, there are many misconceptions and historical inaccuracies that those who so vehemently attack it hold. This is regardless of whether they attack it outright, or merely attack what they refer to as "blindly following" of the Imams. In order to have a meaningful discussion on any subject, especially one so full of emotion, yet scarce of content, wisdom would necessitate reliance upon someone whom all sides agree on. On the issue of the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of the strict adherence to the cannonical juridical schools, this person would be Ibn Rajab. Ibn Rajab was a traditional Hanbali scholar, student of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the main student of Shaykh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, whom the former loved and respected just as much as his teacher. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali is also considered, without question, one of the Imams of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'at, by all those who claim affiliation to this group. Hence, my choice of him to open this discussion.

The crux of my forthcoming post is a passage from a short work authored by Ibn Rajab entitled, al-Rad' ala Man Itaba'a Gaira al-Madhhahib al-Arba'a (“The Refutation of He Who Follows Other than the Four Juridical Schools”), I reference it as an introduction, and in it he states:

At a certain point [in our Ummah's history], religion and piety diminished, and many people began to speak about matters of religion without the requisite knowledge, and men set themselves up as self-appointed authorities, and they were not at a level that warranted that station.

Had the condition continued along those lines up until now in these later days---in other words, that each person gave his opinions and legal judgements as to what he considered to be correct as you had in the early days---then inevitably, the entire foundation of this din would be underminded. The permissible would be deemed prohibited and the prohibited permissible. Anyone would say what he desired, and as a result of that, our din would become like the religions of the two previous dispensations [the Jews and the Christians].

Thus, it was in accordance with the Providential Wisdom of Allah, Glory be unto Him, that he precise preservation of the din would be maintained by raising from among the people Imams about whom all would agree regarding their understanding and [their] arrival at the ultimate levels of human possibility concerning knowledge about the rules of this din and the legal opinions of the scholars of the opinion and tradition. This resulted in everyone depending upon these scholars for their rulings, and they became the sources for the people to refer to in order to understand the sacred rulings. Moreover, Allah raised up those who would serve their schools by transcribing them with precision and extricating their axioms and principles until each of the Imams' schools was preserved with precision in all matters of the prohibited and permissible.

There is no doubt that this was from the gentle concern of Allah for His servants, the believers, and among the beautiful benefits He gave us to preserve this din. Indeed, had it not been for that, you would have seen the most bizarre wonders from every ignorant, meddling fool, amaze with his own opinions, pretentious, seizing suddenly upon the masses. This one would claim to be the "Imam of all Imams", the other to be the "guide of the Ummah", and another that he is the sole source of authority to whom all should refer, to the exclusion of all others, while sole dependence upon him alone and no other.

Praise belongs to Allah for, indeed, He has through His divine gift sealed this door whose danger is grave and whose matter is awesome. Moreover, these corrupting elements were severed. Again, I say, this was from the gentle concern of Allah with His servants, from His great benefits for us, and from His compassionate concern. Despite these facts, there continue to be those who, from time to time, claim to have reached the level of highest authority (ijtihad), and speak about matters of din with no recourse (taqlid) to any of these Imams and certainly with no submission [to their authority].

Among them are those who feel comfortable in doing so, given the truthfulness of their claims as manifested, and others who have had their words thrust back at them and were deemed lairs in their claims. As for all the others who have not reached the level of authority, they have no other choice but to follow those Imams (taqlid) and to join the ranks of the rest of this Ummah.

Some meddling idiot (ahmaq mutakallif) may ask, "How can you force all of the Ummah to follow such a handful of Imams and prevent them from following anyone other than these few Imams of the religion?" My reply is [that this is] just as the Companions gathered all of the people of their time and imposed upon them one authoritative Qur'an among the various editions that existed and prohibited anyone from reciting from other than one edition in all the cities of Islam because they discerned that the overrriding social benefit would be not to complete except by doing so. Moreover, if people were left to read all of the various editions, they would have fallen into grave and destructive dangers.

Analogically, the same applies to the rulings of our Imams and the various legal opinions about the prohibited and permissible. Had not people's perspectives been limited to a small number of Imams, then every meddling idiot whose ego sought leadership would consider himself to be among the small elite of absolute religious authorities, and would innovate opinions and attribute them to our pious predecessors. Perhaps as a result, deviant and unacceptable changes would be interpolated into authoritative collections, as has occurred several times for some of the scholars of the Dhahiri school. Or perhaps the opinion [found in the Dhahiri school] wasn’t from the predecessors but was from someone's blunders, and the other scholars agreed that it should be abandoned as being a valid opinion.

Indeed, there is no other alternative except that Allah's Providential Wisdom has decreed that people should follow these agreed upon schools and Imams.

As I said, my explanation is forthcoming.

[Usman]

lumumba_s  

On this issue of following qualified scholarship, there are many misconceptions and historical inaccuracies that those who so vehemently attack it hold. This is regardless of whether they attack it outright, or merely attack what they refer to as "blindly following" of the Imams. In order to have a meaningful discussion on any subject, especially one so full of emotion, yet scarce of content, wisdom would necessitate reliance upon someone whom all sides agree on. On the issue of the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of the strict adherence to the cannonical juridical schools, this person would be Ibn Rajab. Ibn Rajab was a traditional Hanbali scholar, student of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the main student of Shaykh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, whom the former loved and respected just as much as his teacher. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali is also considered, without question, one of the Imams of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'at, by all those who claim affiliation to this group. Hence, my choice of him to open this discussion.

The crux of my forthcoming post is a passage from a short work authored by Ibn Rajab entitled, al-Rad' ala Man Itaba'a Gaira al-Madhhahib al-Arba'a (“The Refutation of He Who Follows Other than the Four Juridical Schools”), I reference it as an introduction, and in it he states:

At a certain point [in our Ummah's history], religion and piety diminished, and many people began to speak about matters of religion without the requisite knowledge, and men set themselves up as self-appointed authorities, and they were not at a level that warranted that station.

Had the condition continued along those lines up until now in these later days---in other words, that each person gave his opinions and legal judgements as to what he considered to be correct as you had in the early days---then inevitably, the entire foundation of this din would be underminded. The permissible would be deemed prohibited and the prohibited permissible. Anyone would say what he desired, and as a result of that, our din would become like the religions of the two previous dispensations [the Jews and the Christians].

Thus, it was in accordance with the Providential Wisdom of Allah, Glory be unto Him, that he precise preservation of the din would be maintained by raising from among the people Imams about whom all would agree regarding their understanding and [their] arrival at the ultimate levels of human possibility concerning knowledge about the rules of this din and the legal opinions of the scholars of the opinion and tradition. This resulted in everyone depending upon these scholars for their rulings, and they became the sources for the people to refer to in order to understand the sacred rulings. Moreover, Allah raised up those who would serve their schools by transcribing them with precision and extricating their axioms and principles until each of the Imams' schools was preserved with precision in all matters of the prohibited and permissible.

There is no doubt that this was from the gentle concern of Allah for His servants, the believers, and among the beautiful benefits He gave us to preserve this din. Indeed, had it not been for that, you would have seen the most bizarre wonders from every ignorant, meddling fool, amaze with his own opinions, pretentious, seizing suddenly upon the masses. This one would claim to be the "Imam of all Imams", the other to be the "guide of the Ummah", and another that he is the sole source of authority to whom all should refer, to the exclusion of all others, while sole dependence upon him alone and no other.

Praise belongs to Allah for, indeed, He has through His divine gift sealed this door whose danger is grave and whose matter is awesome. Moreover, these corrupting elements were severed. Again, I say, this was from the gentle concern of Allah with His servants, from His great benefits for us, and from His compassionate concern. Despite these facts, there continue to be those who, from time to time, claim to have reached the level of highest authority (ijtihad), and speak about matters of din with no recourse (taqlid) to any of these Imams and certainly with no submission [to their authority].

Among them are those who feel comfortable in doing so, given the truthfulness of their claims as manifested, and others who have had their words thrust back at them and were deemed lairs in their claims. As for all the others who have not reached the level of authority, they have no other choice but to follow those Imams (taqlid) and to join the ranks of the rest of this Ummah.

Some meddling idiot (ahmaq mutakallif) may ask, "How can you force all of the Ummah to follow such a handful of Imams and prevent them from following anyone other than these few Imams of the religion?" My reply is [that this is] just as the Companions gathered all of the people of their time and imposed upon them one authoritative Qur'an among the various editions that existed and prohibited anyone from reciting from other than one edition in all the cities of Islam because they discerned that the overrriding social benefit would be not to complete except by doing so. Moreover, if people were left to read all of the various editions, they would have fallen into grave and destructive dangers.

Analogically, the same applies to the rulings of our Imams and the various legal opinions about the prohibited and permissible. Had not people's perspectives been limited to a small number of Imams, then every meddling idiot whose ego sought leadership would consider himself to be among the small elite of absolute religious authorities, and would innovate opinions and attribute them to our pious predecessors. Perhaps as a result, deviant and unacceptable changes would be interpolated into authoritative collections, as has occurred several times for some of the scholars of the Dhahiri school. Or perhaps the opinion [found in the Dhahiri school] wasn’t from the predecessors but was from someone's blunders, and the other scholars agreed that it should be abandoned as being a valid opinion.

Indeed, there is no other alternative except that Allah's Providential Wisdom has decreed that people should follow these agreed upon schools and Imams.

As I said, my explanation is forthcoming.

Assalamualaykum

many pardons...but I thot all muslims follow anyone of mazhab? That is not "qualified scholarship"??? I dun get 'blind following' part. My ustaz teach me based on imam shafi'ie. I follow imam shafi'ie. Dus it mean I am blind? Confuse...

[lumumba_s]

Assalamualaykum

many pardons...but I thot all muslims follow anyone of mazhab? That is not "qualified scholarship"??? I dun get 'blind following' part. My ustaz teach me based on imam shafi'ie. I follow imam shafi'ie. Dus it mean I am blind? Confuse...

As'salamu 'alaykum,

No sidi. I posted this as an introduction to a new thread I intend to start tomorrow. It is a continuation of the discussion that is now occurring on the "question of Deobandis and the Ahl-i Hadith" thread. I posted it here because I did not want that thread to become hijacked, as the discussion has already gotten away from the original question posted.

You are fine. There are some people, particularly in the Arab and English speaking world, who have made a habit of attacking those who follow the scholarship of our Imams. I posted this inorder to show the true position of the classical scholars on the issue of the necessity of taqlid. The only one blind is the one who criticizes you for following an imam the calibre of Muhammad ibn Idris, may Allah be well pleased with him. Just ignore this whole thread and continue in what you are upon.

For everyone else, I plan to post tomorrow morning, as I will edit tonight. I warn that it is extremely long, 5.5 pages of my rantings, but I do not perceive having to say much by way of explanation after I am done. Please excuse me, but this is my way of avoiding what occurred before. There are only a few points that I left out and I feared that including them would add another page. Actually, excluding relatively long quotes at the end, it would only be about 4 pages long.

I have posted a fatwa in the university of cut and past from one the eminent scholars of our time: Murabit al-Hajj. The majority of the quotes that I have taken are from the booklet that Zaytuna collected as a text for the oral exposition of that fatwa by Hamza Yusuf. It contains many blessed fatwas and articles, including a fatwa signed by Bin Baz in 1988 if I am not mistaken, among which it states,

Therefore, we ask, where is the deficiency to be found in these juridical differences, which we have explained to be a source of good, mercy and a blessing from Allah to His believing bondservants? . . . As for that other group that calls for doing away with the schools (madhhahib) and wants to make people follow a new approach towards juridical reasoning, all the while attacking the current juridical schools and their Imams, or some of them, then what we have clarified above concerning the juridical schools, the benefits of their existence and about their Imams, si more than enough to obligate this group to desist from this dreaded manner that they are pursuing, thereby leading people astray, splitting their ranks and breaking up their unity (lit. "word")

I am unlearned and hope only to shed insight on the perspective of taqlid from those who do say by way of methodology, as most people who attack the practice are never privy to hearing the otherside of the argument, either do to closing their ears or having them closed for them. It is not my intention to argue, or even discuss at the intensity and frequency as I had in the past. And hence, I have tried to cover all possible angles the first go round.

Please forgive me if it is boring, and please be patient with me.

[khalid zaheer]

assalaam o alaikum friends

First of all I want to ask my friends "what was the reason to created four schools of thought while we have one Deen"

And second "what is the base for accepting that it is neccessory for us to follow one of the four scholarships"

Third is "if all these schools of thought are right then what is the problem if one mix up or acquire one's "Aqaa'aid" through four scholarships"


Allah Hafiz

[Usman]

As'salamu 'alaykum,


You are fine. There are some people, particularly in the Arab and English speaking world, who have made a habit of attacking those who follow the scholarship of our Imams. I posted this inorder to show the true position of the classical scholars on the issue of the necessity of taqlid. The only one blind is the one who criticizes you for following an imam the calibre of Muhammad ibn Idris, may Allah be well pleased with him. Just ignore this whole thread and continue in what you are upon.

Assalamualaykum

many pardon...but why people attack those who follow Imams? Are Imams not clever scholars of Islam?

I live in enclosure world, but I meet arab ustaz before in the masjid. They also say they follow of mazhab of Imam Shafi'ie. Are you sure Arabs and english people don't like Imams?

[Usman]

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Navy]assalaam o alaikum friends

First of all I want to ask my friends "what was the reason to create four school for thoughts while we have one Deen"

Assalamualaykum,

Not sure wat u mean, brother khalid. Is it that 4 mazhab mean 4 deens? Is this wat you talk about. Sorry. My english can be quite complication. Hope you understand.

And second "what is the base for accepting that it is neccessory for us to follow one of the four scholarships"

becos they cleverer than me?

Third is "if all these schools of thought are right then what is the problem if one mix up or acquire one's "Aqaa'aid" through four scholarships"
Allah Hafiz

There are 4 type of painkiller ...can you take all four to cure one headache?

many pardon, my logic may be quit high...hope u not headache or offence.

[Al-Boriqi]

Assalamualaykum

many pardons...but I thot all muslims follow anyone of mazhab? That is not "qualified scholarship"??? I dun get 'blind following' part. My ustaz teach me based on imam shafi'ie. I follow imam shafi'ie. Dus it mean I am blind? Confuse

No akhee, your not inshallah. Rather I will fix what was mistranslated in order to leave confusion and arrive at yaqeen and baseerah.

as for the thread, in order to end to the rhetoric of the suspicions of the shabaab.

The tread was most execilent, and I agree 100 percent with what Ibn Rajab has said rahimahullah.


In fact, I say just as he said, whoever leaves the jumhoor, has definately problem.

Now, marginal errors on the side on part of the translator.I dont know if your did or someone else, but it was truely misleading.

first one is

Despite these facts, there continue to be those who, from time to time, claim to have reached the level of highest authority (ijtihad), and speak about matters of din with no recourse (taqlid) to any of these Imams and certainly with no submission [to their authority].

How in the world did the reader or translator of this article come to the conslusion that what Ibn Rajab wrote concerning the bold words above to mean "taqleed". Was this word used in the original article. It seems as if they had tried to find the means to justify the validity of "blind following" under the guise of ittib'aa.

As for all the others who have not reached the level of authority, they have no other choice but to follow those Imams (taqlid) and to join the ranks of the rest of this Ummah.

How is this. Did he say in his book "walakin, fil aimahtu taqleeduhum".
What the trasnlator did was intertwine ittib'aa and taqleed to be one in the same. This is incorrect.

I use what just happened to Usman to prove a point.

No madhaabi from all those whom I have conversedwith from here or from t hose overseas has ever admitted taqleed, even those who do taqleed. To the muslim world "taqleed" is a matter that is condenmable, a negative. This is in the thouhgts of those who do not make taqleed and those who do. This is why when they are confronted with the accusation of taqleed, they are quick to deny it, because the norm of everyone is that they usual;ly understand taqleed to be a bad thing. So it is kind of strange to encounter a muslim who actually says that taqleed is a good matter, an obligatory one at that.

This is why when Usman had questioned, he did not have in mind that following Imaam Shafi'ee rahimahullah was considered taqleed, which due to the mistranslations above, could mislead one to understand that from Ibn Rajab rahimahullah.

I will use what you have said habeeb lumumba to show the stark contrast between your deeming of the arab and english peoples (I also assume that you hold the majority of these people as salafee or ahlul-hadeeth correct me if Im wrong). You have spoken how these people reject the acceptance of adopting a madhaab. And yet here you posted this from whom you think is Bin Baz, one of the leaders of the salafee ulema and whom some people consider the mujadid of the era after al-Albanee rahimahumullah

Therefore, we ask, where is the deficiency to be found in these juridical differences, which we have explained to be a source of good, mercy and a blessing from Allah to His believing bondservants? . . . As for that other group that calls for doing away with the schools (madhhahib) and wants to make people follow a new approach towards juridical reasoning, all the while attacking the current juridical schools and their Imams, or some of them, then what we have clarified above concerning the juridical schools, the benefits of their existence and about their Imams, si more than enough to obligate this group to desist from this dreaded manner that they are pursuing, thereby leading people astray, splitting their ranks and breaking up their unity (lit. "word")

if it was stated by Bin baz, then this should prove once and for all that following one of he madhaahib is of a good matter by which this thought pattern is present with the body of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah. whom people say they are haters to the following of madhaabs and warn against it.

khalid

First of all I want to ask my friends "what was the reason to created four schools of thought while we have one Deen"

akhee, this was due to the fact that many fo the aimah had differing views in certain issues of deriving fiqh from the religion and other issues like the acceptance of the hujjat of Islam.

And second "what is the base for accepting that it is neccessory for us to follow one of the four scholarships"

The quraan. Allah said to the effect "And if you do not know, thenask the people of adh-Dhikr" and the aimah of this nation had understood from this to mean the scholars, the mujtahid imaams of the sunnah of Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa salam due to the fact that another ayaat says "And it is only the people of knowledge that truely remember (adh-Dhikr)". So ahlul-dhikr, is ahlul-ilm.

Third is "if all these schools of thought are right then what is the problem if one mix up or acquire one's "Aqaa'aid" through four scholarships"

Now this is another issue. The four imaams, and the rest of thousands of others in the past and present had differing views in many topics. But their aqa'id, their aqeedah as a whole was one. They did not fall into any other beleifs outside of the beleifs of the salafu-saalih. And those who did err were warned for it and were abandoned (matrook) in it.

So even thouhg you had ulema of hadeeth like the ofur Imaams and other than them differ in many issues they did not fall into the aqqedah of the khawarij, nor the sufis, nor the shia, the mutazilis, the jahmiyyah, asharis, murji'a, qadariyyah, etc, etc, etc. And those who did were abandoned by the ijmaa of ahlul-ilm.

asalamu alaikum warahamtullah

[lumumba_s]

What the trasnlator did was intertwine ittib'aa and taqleed to be one in the same. This is incorrect.

This is what I perceive to be the main difficulty in this conversation, as it was in another. You have your own definition, reject the definition that is presented to you, and then attempt to have a discussion based upon that. There is no difference between taqlid and following. The muqallid who learns the proofs of his school remains a muqallid, unless his is able to refute the positions of the other Imams. The muqallid makes taqlid of the school and taqlid of the proofs, unless he is able to refute the proofs of the other Imams, not just recite those of his own. Your labeling this one a follower is only sophistry (i.e. word play).

and speak about matters of din with no recourse to any of these Imams and certainly with no submission

What else would this mean but taqlid? What else would you call recourse and submission? Ittib'aa? Following someone and submitting to their authority are two entirely different things and in the context of law, how else can it be understood but to submit to the ijtihad of those of greater authority? If you cannot admit that this is taqlid, there is no point in continuing.

No madhaabi from all those whom I have conversedwith from here or from t hose overseas has ever admitted taqleed, even those who do taqleed.

I'm a "madhhabi" and I do taqlid. Wallahi, the only reason why I am aware of the proofs of the school that I am aware of, is that when I first began learning the what the madhhabs actually were, I went and asked people who followed them for refutation of the claims the Salafis were making. Had I come across people who practiced Islam in the traditional, received way, first, then "blind following" would have sufficed me, as it suffices me now. I am not one to take someone's word whose scholarship I have no confidence in and I discovered that my confidence in the "scholarship" of the people around me was waining. So I asked.

They claimed (and still do) the Malikis had no proof for sadl, so I asked them and they explained it to me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed the Hanafis had no proof for praying with their hands below their belly button, so I asked them and they told me and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed the Shafi'is had no proof for stating that touching the opposite sex breaks wudu absolutely. So I asked them and they told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed that none of the four schools had any proof for praying tawarih as a 20 raka' prayer, so I asked them all and they all told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed that no one had proof for stating that bid'a hasan was an acceptable categorization. So I asked, they told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. This happened again and again and again. Until they finally claimed that tawassul was shirk and the people who did so by means of the deceased or absent had no proof. So I asked and they told me, and the Salafis couldn't reply. At that point I realized and then I was called a kafir for praying with my arms to my side and carrying Reliance of the Traveler with me to the masjid.

To the muslim world "taqleed" is a matter that is condenmable, a negative. This is in the thouhgts of those who do not make taqleed and those who do. This is why when they are confronted with the accusation of taqleed, they are quick to deny it, because the norm of everyone is that they usual;ly understand taqleed to be a bad thing. So it is kind of strange to encounter a muslim who actually says that taqleed is a good matter, an obligatory one at that.

All the scholars from the beginning to the end have stated that taqlid is obligatory for the one who cannot perform ijtihad, according to the definition that Aasem so eloquently gave. If you ask a Muslim, "Do you make put your imam over the Prophet?" of course they will deny it. That understanding of taqlid was something that was borrowed from the Orientalist by the historical Salafi modernist, by whom I mean Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad 'Abdu and Rashid Rida. Prior to them, the only people of this ummah who condemned taqlid were the Dhahiri school of al-Andalus. Hussein quoted Ibn Taymiyya and I find it odd that you seemed to completely ignore what he translated. No where will you find the phrase taqlid 'ama in the books of usul, not even in the writings of Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn al-Qayyim. Translating taqlid as "blind" following, is an interpolation into the text. I know many "madhhabis" far more learned that any Salafi I have ever met and they all admit that they make taqlid and do not deem it to be a bad thing. From the fatwa of Murbat al-Hajj:

[Sidi Abdullah Ould Hajj Ibrahim] has said in his Maraqi as-Sa’ud:

“[taqlid] is necessary for other than the one who has achieved the rank of absolute ijtihad. Even if he is a limited [mujtahid] who is unable [to perform absolute ijtihad].

And this book that he quoted is studed in Medina University.

This is why when Usman had questioned, he did not have in mind that following Imaam Shafi'ee rahimahullah was considered taqleed, which due to the mistranslations above, could mislead one to understand that from Ibn Rajab rahimahullah.

I don't have the original text. The only 'Arabic text included in the booklet is the actual fatwa from Murbat al-Hajj. If you are claiming that Hamza Yusuf has lied, then you need to prove it before you accuse him of mistranslating or interpolating. Usman can speak for himself and I assume he will, but I did not gather that he had a problem with taqlid, what I gathered is that he did not understand what I meant when I referred to people such as yourself equating taqlid to "blind following."

I will use what you have said habeeb lumumba to show the stark contrast between your deeming of the arab and english peoples (I also assume that you hold the majority of these people as salafee or ahlul-hadeeth correct me if Im wrong). You have spoken how these people reject the acceptance of adopting a madhaab. And yet here you posted this from whom you think is Bin Baz, one of the leaders of the salafee ulema and whom some people consider the mujadid of the era after al-Albanee rahimahumullah.

I did not mean that the majority of the English speaking or Arab world is Salafi. The majority of African-Americans are Salafi however, but alhumdulillah, that is starting to change. The vast majority of the Middle-East is either Shafi'i or Hanafi. The stronghold of the Salafi movement is Egypt and Saudi. But even in those places, I imagine that they are a minority. However, they get the vast majority of the funding, which is the reason why the vast majority of African-Americans are Salafi.

As I know from person experience, the vast majority of people who claim to be on the da'wat al-Salafiyya do not actually know what their "leaders" believe. As far as the traditional scholars go, both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim were Sufis in the traditional sense of the word. If you told most of them that, they would call you a liar. Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Ansari, who they both referred to as "our shayh" was a Naqsbandi. Ibn Taymiyya wrote a commentary on the Futuh al-Ghayba of 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and Ibn al-Qayyim wrote several works on tasawwuf. The Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya is full of things that if the Salafis knew, they would have no choice but to abadon the vast majority of their hostilities or turn against Ibn Taymiyya, which some authors had. They don't know that Ibn Taymiyya declared tawassul to be bid'a, not shirk. They don't know that Ibn Taymiyya stated that the laymen will be rewarded for participating in the mawalid, so long as they avoid the hurumat (like mixing between the sexes, music and the like). They don't know that Ibn Taymiyyah spoke with the uptmost approbation of Imam al-Junayd, Sari al-Saqati, Hasan al-Basri, Fudayl ibn 'Iyad, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah al-Tustari and those like them. Most won't even admit that these people were Sufis. Ibn Rajab even more so, who the most staunch anti-tasawwuf Salafi have admitted that he was a Sufi. And let us not even mention Imam Shawkani, who despite his views on taqlid, agreed with one of the four madhhabs in nearly everything, including tawassul through the Prophet and the number of raka's for tarawih. Even much of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's opinions in fiqh appeared to be distorted. He was a full-fledged Hanbali in the recesnion of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Bin Baz claimed the rank of ijtihad. Ibn 'Uthaymin admits to being a follower of the Hanbali madhhab, but deviates from the school on issues that he disagrees with, i.e. he claimed the rank of al-tarjih. Nasrideen al-Albaani never had a madhhab. His father was Hanafi, not he, and it is not true that he was Shafi'i. He studied hadith on his own and extracted his fiqh from what he undesrtood. I do not wish to get into a discussion about Shaykh Nasrideen, but suffice it to say that not all people consider him to be a mujaddid. I know people who have sat with him and studied under scholars who were intimate friends with his family in Jordan. Muqbil likewise did not follow a madhhab, but the vast majority of Salafis only know of him by name. Enough of this.

I again invite everyone to listen to the introduction to a fiqh class based on Reliance of the Traveler by Imam Zaid at Zaytuna, recorded at Zaytuna last year before making any comments, for he explains the situation much more scholarly than I. Here is my post.

[lumumba_s]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious and Merciful. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our leigelord Muhammad and his wives, family and Companions.

This by far the longest post that I have written to date. But I deem its length necessary, since there are so many issues involved. I only hope that its length does not turn people away. I am open to having a rational, calm discussion, so long as it does not capitulate into an argument. If and when it does, expect things to return to how they were before. Since I feel that most acknowledge to taqlid to some degree, I will only focus on the nature of taqlid as is understood and practiced by the traditional scholars and layment/ignorant such as myself.

In the previously quoted excerpt, Ibn Rajab explains both the logical rationale and traditional understanding of what the madhhabs actually represent and their role in this ummah. As has come in the hadith, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) stated that there are three types of muftis, two in Hell and one in Paradise. The most relevant to our discussion is the description of one of those in the Hell-fire: the “mufti” who does not know, yet attempts to issue a ruling. From this, and fundamentally from the Qur’an, it is understood that in order for a person to be able to issue a fatwa, it necessitates a certain level of knowledge. The level of knowledge that allows one to issue fatwa that became known in the books of the Usulieen as ijtihad, or istinbat more specifically. What is istinbat? It is the ability to refer to the sources of the din in order to extract rulings from them. The scholars of usul have divided ijtihad into their respective categories, in order to explain what level of knowledge permits that scholar to do what. The basic levels are as follows: mujtahid mutlaq, mujtahid fi madhhab, sahib al-tarjih, al-faqih/mufti and the muqallid. These categorizations are what reason demands, as will become evident. There are scholars go went into more detail and further divided these classifications, but for our purposes, these are enough.

The Independent Jurist

Regarding the first category, the mujtahid mutlaq is the one who can independently derive rulings from the sources without recourse to another. This entails that the mujtahid be a middle-ranked master of hadith, grammar, poetry, tafsir, Qur'an recitation, usul, logic, know the fatwas of the Companions and the various other ancillary disciplines needed to properly understand the text. The most fundamental contribution of the mujtahideen of this category was not the actual rulings that they issued, but the methodology that they employed and in turn, taught to their students. The exercise of sifting through and utilizing the massive amount of information required is much more than discovering which hadith is the most authentic and then following its literal purport. There are several nuances that exists that the non-specialist is not able to identify on his own, a fortiori address them with any real authority. The way that the Imams resolved these differences is what lead to their differing opinions, not the myth that some hadith reached some, while not others. This point I will touch upon later.

The nuances are things such as: how do you reconcile the different types and levels of evidence? What if two sahih hadiths contradict one another? What if the Prophet’s words and his actions appear to be at odds? How are the general and specific of the Qur’an and hadith dealt with? What if they contradict each other? What if a Companion narrates a hadith, but was known to not act according to it? What about abrogation? What takes precedent, a prohibition or a command? And various other issues. These are issues that no specific guidance as given on, neither in the Revelation nor from the Prophet. Nonetheless, they are issues that exists and the reconciliation of which in not something that can be left to non-specialists. Examples would help to clarify.

Division of Evidences

One of the most common slanderous accusations hurled against the necks of Abu Hanifa and his school is that he either was not established in hadith, or more commonly in our times, the existence of liars amongst the inhabitants of his city left him in a situation such that he was forced to give more weight to opinion than would have been otherwise necessary. Both of these allegations are patently false. In order to understand the usul of the Hanafi madhhab, one must understand their division of evidence according to probability. According to the Hanafi scholars, evidences are of two types: qata’i (absolute) and dhanni (probable). The absolute evidences are those things which are established in such a way as to remove all doubt regarding their veracity. The speculative is everything else. Practically speaking, the qata’i are the Qur’an and mutawatir hadith, and the dhanni is the khabar al-wahid or ahadith al-ahad, the latter of which the vast majority of hadith fall into. This division of evidence directly relates to their seven fold classification of the akham, as opposed to the five that the other schools uphold. But more importantly, this classification is key in understanding how they arrived at particular positions. Why? What happens if a daleel dhanni conflicts with a daleel qata’i?

Disregard of the Probable for the Certain

According to Abu Hanifa and his companions, reason demands that the qata’i be given preference over the dhanni when the two clash; for the simple fact that were it otherwise, it would be tantamount to placing speculation over certainty, which the Qur’an explicitly forbids. Hence, when the Qur’an gives explicit permission in a general way for women to represent and marry themselves in a marriage contract, it is of no consequence that hadith exists that state otherwise, because the hadith have not reached us to the degree that would produce certainty, and “certainty is not removed by doubt.” That is a point of view that cannot be easily dismissed, and is shared by the Maliki school as well, even though they do not explicitly state such.

For example, Imam Malik stated that one had to remove their turban or headpiece when wiping their head in wudu. Were Malik and his companions ignorant of the hadith that permitted for the turban to be wiped over? No. How then could he reject a hadith that was established from the Prophet? Because in his view, the literal purport of the command, “wipe your heads” was too emphatic to be negated by the existence of a single-narrated hadith, especially in something so fundamentally important to the validity of various types of ‘ibada as tahara. Someone unaware of this fact may then mistakenly accuse the Hanafis or Malikis of denying the hadith or placing their Imams over the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but the reality is otherwise. Another example from Malik is his statement that it is preferred for a person to look straight ahead while in salat, rather than look at the ground. He was aware of the hadith, but believed that the nature of the language in the Qur’an about “turn your face towards a qibla that pleases you”, was too strong to be ignored. As was admitted in the context of ‘aqida, the literal of the Qur’an is always taken, unless there is a reason to make ta’wil. Regarding this verse, the literal purport is that the face of a person must face the qibla, while interpreting it to mean the body is a ta’wil, but included in the meaning. Hence, when place aside a khabar al-wahid, the Qur’anic verse is given preference and the hadith is not considered.

This has precedent in the Companions, and hence cannot be considered an innovation or deviancy. Aisha, for instance, when she heard one of the companions narrate the hadith that mentions the inhabitant of the grave being punished for the wailing and ill behavior of people who follow the funeral procession, vehemently denied it, citing the verse in the Qur’an where it states, “No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another”, which in her opinion, that “hadith” indicated just that. This is despite the fact that the companion who narrated the hadith was known to be truthful and trustworthy in his narrations. So how much more is it relevant in the case of a hadith heard indirectly?

Differences of Opinion Based Upon Language

Another aspect relates to understanding the language itself. As everyone knows, the ‘Arabic language is pithy and has several ramifications, each which could greatly effect the meaning of a statement. Hence, the proper understanding of hadith necessitates an absolutely mastery of the ‘Arabic language at a level few scholars today are able to do without recourse of the past grammarians and fuqaha’. The vast majority of the time, the difference between the schools are a result of this. Often, two scholars can read the same hadith and walk away with two completely different, yet valid, understandings. For example, on the issue of the intention for fasting. The jamhur of the scholars state that an intention for a voluntary fast can b made mid-day, so long as one has not eaten. Their evidence for this is the hadith of Aisha in Sahih al-Bukhari, in which it states that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) came to Aisha’s house around dhuhr time and asked, “Do we have anything to eat?” She relied, “No.” So the Prophet stated, “I am fasting.” However, if you turn to the books of the Malikis, they explicitly state that a fast is not valid, voluntary or otherwise, unless the intention is made at night. Why? Because of the existence of a hadith that states, “There is no fast for the one who has not made his intention during the night.” What of the above hadith then? According to the Maliki scholars, the Prophet’s reply to Aisha should not be read, “I am fasting.” rather, it should be read, “I have not eaten.” Which is what he literally said, as sawm means imsak, to refrain from something. So in light of the above hadith, why did Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i and Ahmad state that an intention could be made after the dawn has come in?

According to Abu Hanifa’s opinion, since the primary function of the Prophet was the establishment of the shari’ah (which includes tawhid), his statements to his Companions must be taken in that context, unless their exists reason to understand it otherwise. In Malik’s opinion, the hadith about the intention being made at night is just such a reason, in Abu Hanifa’s, it didn’t. Since the examples of comparative fiqh can and have filled volumes, the above should suffice to demonstrate my point. One point needs to be made before I switch subjects. That is the fact that “hadith” and “Sunnah” are not necessarily synonyms; at least in the eyes of the earlier of the mujtahids. Hence, denial of hadith is not synonymous with denial of the Sunnah in the above examples. “Hadith differs from Sunnah in that hadith is a narration of the conduct of the Prophet whereas Sunnah is the example or the law that is deduced from it. Hadith is this sense is the vehicle or the carrier of Sunnah, although Sunnah is a wider concept and used to be so especially before its literal meaning gave way to its juristic usage. Sunnah thus referred not only to the hadith of the Prophet but also the established practice of the community.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, 61) This fact can be seen most evidently in the Muwatta of Imam Malik, where he often quotes a hadith from the Prophet, and then numerous athars from the Companions and Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, for the sole purpose of demonstrating that the meaning of the hadith is still relevant, or at times, is not.

The Mujtahid as an Independent Authority in Hadith

Another aspect of the mujtahid is his establishment in the science of hadith as an independent authority. Hence, when the Imams used a hadith in a ruling, it is understood that they considered the hadith strong enough to establish rulings from. That being the case, it is of no consequence that another hadith scholar, regardless of their place in history, may have declared the hadith too weak to utilize. Just as Abu Hanifa, Malik, ‘Awzai, Shafi’i, Layth, and Imam Ibrahim were all scholars of hadith. Malik, for example, taught Imam al-Bukhari’s father the science, and the chains al-Bukhari received from Malik are considered by him to be the strongest possible, which he called the "Golden Chain" and considered it practically at the lvel of mutawatir. So, the fact that Imam al-Bukhari may not have included in his collection a hadith that an Imam used to rule by, is of no consequence. Even more so the fact that Shaykh Nasrideen al-Albaani, who came along 1,000 years later may have declared a hadith to be inauthentic. It is well known that Imam Ahmad ruled by hadith that others considered weak. Not only did he rule by them, he often used them to obligate. For example, his statement that saying, “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful” is an obligatory element of the wudu, is based solely upon a hadith that is aknowledged by all to be weak. However, he considered it strong enough and religiously more precautionary to act upon. Another example, and one that is more relevant, considering the way it has been received in recent times. According to the madhhab of Abu Hanifa and Ahmad, it is sunnah to place one’s right hand over the left, below the belly button. This is despite the fact that Imam Ahmad included a hadith in his Musnad that would seem to indicate otherwise. This fact is clear when you consider that all of the majority of the books of the Hanbalis mention the sunnah nature of grasping below the belly button, as Ibn al-Jawzi declared it it was the stronger of the two positions coming from Ahmad. Even Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab states relates such in his writings.

Another, and perhaps the most relevant example is that of the type of water than can be validly used for purification. By consensus of all the scholars, water cannot be used that has been changed by a non-naturally occuring agent, even if pure, provided that it changed the color, taste or smell of the water. In such a case, the water cannot be used for legal purification, but can still be benefitted from. Yet, the hadith that established this ruling is considered weak according to all of the scholars.

Muhaddith is not Synonymous with Mujtahid

Memorization of hadith alone is not enough to permit ijtihad. Even so, the amount of hadith necessary for one to know is far beyond what one would need to memorize to be considered a muhaddith. When Imam Ahmad was asked, “How many hadiths does one need to have memorized before he is considered a faqih [i.e. mujtahid]?” He indicated that at least 400,000. One is considered a muhaddith/hafidh if one has memorized only 100,000. Hence, the scholars state that one of the biggest mistakes that have been made in this age, is that people have begun to take hadith scholars as faqihs. Sidi Ahmad al-Zarruq states in his Qawa’id at-Tasawwuf (Principles of Sufism) that the hadith scholar is not consulted in fiqh, unless he is known to be established in that field. Nor is the faqih consulted about a hadith, unless he is established there in. It is one thing to have memorized a hadith, and it is quite another to be able to use it proficiently. All sahih hadith are not acted upon, as I hope I have demonstrated above. Imam Shafi’i once said, “You [the scholars of hadith] are the pharmacists but we [the jurists] are the physicians.” Imam Ahmad himself stated, “How rare is fiqh among those who know hadith!” Sufyan Ibn ‘Uyana, another of the mujtahids of the Salaf said, “Hadith are a source of misguidance for everyone but the fuqaha.” And more importantly, as in narrated by Imams al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad from the Prophet in a mashhur hadith (nearly mutawatir), “It may be one carries understanding (fiqh) without being a person of understanding (faqîh).” And what is it that the one who carries understanding carries? It is quite clear from this hadith that the assertion that a muhaddith is necessarily a mujtahid, or faqih for that matter, is false. It is also clear from the aspect of common sense. As Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller has written,

And I understood why, of the top hadith Imams, Imam al-Bukhari took his Shafi'i jurisprudence from the disciple of Imam Shafi'i, and why Imams Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and al-Nasai also followed the Shafi'i school, as did al-Bayhaqi, al-Hakim, Abu Nuaym, Ibn Hibban, al-Daraqutni, al-Baghawi, Ibn Khuzayma, al-Suyuti, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, Nur al-Din al-Haythami, al-Mundhiri, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Taqi al-Din al-Subki and others; why Imams such as Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi followed the madhhab of Ahmad ibn Hanbal; and why Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, Ali al-Qari, Jamal al-Din al-Zaylai (the African sheikh of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, thought by some to have been even more knowledgeable than him), and Badr al-Din al-Ayni followed the Hanafi school.

These facts speak eloquently as to the role of hadith in the sharia in the eyes of these Imams, for whom it was not a matter of practicing either fiqh or hadith, as some Muslims seriously suggest today, but rather, the fiqh of hadith embodied in the traditional madhhabs which they followed. There would seem to be room for many of us to benefit from their example.

In other words, had knowledge of hadith alone been sufficient for ijtihad, why did the likes of these men bother following the fiqh methodology and/or rulings of another? Shaykh Nuh is a Shafi'i and hence is more familari with his school. However, there are at least 20 Malikis that can be thrown in that list, and many more Hanafis and Hanbalis, just so no one gets the impression that only the Shafi'i school has the support of hadith scholarship.

The Non-Mujtahid Imam's Role

In regards to the other categories of scholars after the mujtahid, they all approach the evidences according to their capability. The mujtahid fi madhhab is the one who meets all the requires of ijtihad, with the exception of being able to derive their own methodology, and thus is forced by necessity to use the methodology of the independent mujtahid, which is a limited form of taqlid (e.g. is accepting and submitting the principles laid down by the mujtahid based upon confidence in him and his method). What gives the independent mujtahid the right to derive a methodology, as opposed to the one who is limited? Malik for example, studied with 300 Followers, and 600 Followers of the Followers. He surpassed the vast majority of his teachers, and by the time he was a mere 17, was practically the only scholar issuing fatwa in Medina. The methodology he used to issue fatwa was derived from his teachers and further refined by himself, according to his insight, which Ibn Rajab stated was “at the limit of human possibility.” Hence, the manner in which he and those like him, reconciled between the evidences was based upon firm knowledge, not mere opinion. Therefore, those scholars who are unable to “invent” their own principles, are forced to follow the principles of another that have been accepted by the scholars of usul. So their istinbat is absolute from the perspective of evidence, but limited to the established methodologies that were first formulated by the Imams, and then refined by the scholars of usul. Among these scholars are the likes of al-Muzani, Ibn al-Arabi (both the Maliki and Sufi), Imam Tahawi, Imam al-Bayhaqi (who it was said was at the level of independent ijtihad, but chose to strengthen and refine Imam Shafi’is school instead) and Ibn Taymiyyah according to his supporters (I do not wish to get into a discussion about the implications of that qualification, as it has already been discussed in previous posts). All of these scholars considered themselves members of one of the dominant schools, except Muhyidden ibn al-Arabi, who considered himself an independent mujtahid, but who still make his ijtihads within the framework that Da’ud al-Dhahir and Ibn Hazm had set.

The rest of the scholars are either those who helped refine, organize, support or implement the schools. Enter your Imam Nawawis, Ibn Rushds, Ibn al-Jawzis and Ibn ‘Abideens. Each who took it upon themselves to clarify the weak from the strong, mashhur from ‘aziz, mu’tamid from the shadhh in their respective schools. Also the likes of Imam al-Ghazali and Ahmad al-Zarruq, who brilliantly refined and brought a whole new level of sophistication to the science of usul. The sahib al-tarjih is the one who understands the usul of the school, has a firm grasp on the various opinions, can work with the evidences and therefore, possesses the ability to make fatwa on the strength of each position (Imam Nawawi, Ibn al-Jawzi). The faqih or mufti is the one who understands the positions of the school and can pass fatwa based upon precedence. At this juncture, I wish to now discuss the true nature and ramifications of taqlid.

The Nature and Incumbency of Taqlid

Taqlid, according to the scholars of usul, as is applicable to us is following the scholarship of another, without necessarily knowing their proofs, in those matters upon which there is no absolute guidance from the Qur’an or Sunnah. In light of the above discussion, taqlid is not blind obedience to the Imams to the exclusion of the Prophet. The very term “blind obedience” or “taqlid ‘ama” is a term and concept that was borrowed from the Orientalists. No where in the classical books do you find such an idea. The idea was not used until Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad ‘Abdu began expounding their innovative philosophy. Taqlid rather, is the admission that one is incapable of determining with any real authority what the Prophet’s Sunnah actually is, and hence, as the Qur’an dictates, one is forced to follow those who were able to with authority. And this is the meaning of Imam Ahmad’s statement, "From the little knowledge that a man possesses is that he blindly follows others in his din." This is not a negative statement, it is a statement of reality, humiliating to those who are too proud to admit that they need to imitate. And this statement does not contradict what I just said. Far be it from our scholars, the Imams of guidance and inheritors of nabuwwa, to make arbitrary judgements. Those who accuse either our righteous Salaf and/or Khalaf of deviancy, misguidance and abandonment of the Sunnah, do so only to the detriment of their own souls. As I have tried to demonstrate, following a madhhab is not following Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad or Abu Hanifa exclusively, and to the exclusion the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Rather, to follow a madhhab is but to follow an entire group of specialists, who aided, supported, refined and corrected when needed, the genius that was the Salaf al-Salih. Within the schools, there are various positions, based upon the ijtihad of the scholars who adhered to the basic methodology. If taqlid was merely following the words of the Imam of the school, there would be only one opinion. However, you find for example in the Maliki school that qabd, or grasping the right hand over the left in the fard prayer is: mustahhab (‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Baghdadi), makruh (al-Wazzani), and mubah (Ibn’Abd al-Barr). Were they merely blind followers, they would have all stated it was makruh.

As for those who negate taqlid, whether in whole or in part; if they mean so in reference to the scholars, there is no disagreement, according to what I have related previously regarding the different classifications of ijtihad. Every scholar has the right, if not obligation, to make ijtihad according to what he is qualified to do so in. The reason that I say right and obligation, is that it is permitted for a scholar to make taqlid to someone higher than he, the prohibition is in reference to someone whose knowledge has not reached theirs; as the words of the Imams of the Salaf have indicated. When asked why he did not practice raf’ al-yadayn in other but the initial takbir, despite it was known that he believed it to be a recommended act of prayer after the ruku’ as well, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr replied, “I detest contradicting all of my scholarly companions in a matter that is not essential to the prayer, and there is much room in the Sunnah concerning it.” If only we all had such an expansion attitude towards each other!

However, if they mean to negate taqlid for the commonality of believers, then they have erred and have imposed upon the masses, what is impossible for them to do. And more importantly, they are guilty of the very thing that they accuse others of doing. There is a vast difference between being made aware of the evidence of a scholar, and following an opinion based upon certainty of the evidence. For certainty entails both affirmation and negation. Affirmation of the veracity of the position being followed, and negation of the veracity of the differing position that other mujtahideen hold. Any humble person will admit to the truth of this. There is a great difference between Malik preferring to limit the taslim to merely one pronouncement to the right, for instance, and my preference of it, despite the fact that I am aware of the evidence that he used to do so. He is in one valley and I in another.

The scholars of the madhhabs are those upon whom there is consesus of their uprightness. There is no position in any of the four schools that is not supported by evidence. Therefore, whether the individual muqallid, or is his critic, is aware of the proof or not, they exist and can easily be accessed in the books of the scholars. And contrary to popular myth, it is not incumbent upon the worshipper to be aware of the daleels for what he does. The taqlid that is unlawful is the taqlid in 'aqida.
I have already mentioned the case of Imam al-Tahawi and his compellation of the hadith proofs of the Hanafi madhhab. There also exist, for example, in the Maliki school, the following books have been written that deal specifically with the proofs of the school: Fiqh ul Maliki wa Adillatuhu (3 vols) by Habib ibn Tahir, Muduwanna al-Fiqhiyya al-Malikiyya wa Adillatu (4vols) by al-Ghiriyani, al-Mu'awanah fi Adillah 'Alim Ahli Madina (3 vols) by Qadi 'Abdul Wahhab al-Baghdadi, and al-Dhakhira (9 vols) by Imam al-Qarafi. However, being able to read them correctly, specially the latter two, would entail that reader to have gone through the traditional study of the core books of the madhhab, as many of them involve discussions of advanced usul, and therefore cannot be accessed by the laymen. But such a person would have no real need of the proofs in the first place, unless they plan on taking on official position in the judiciary. Which is why, historically, the proofs texts are not studied until the very end of one's education.
The Real "Blind" Followers

The reason why I say that those who negate taqlid or liken it to blind following of scholars is because their submission to their scholars is far more fanatical that anything the people of the madhhabs can be accused of. How can I make such a claim? There is one point that the all those who attack or disparage taqlid agree upon, in direct opposition to all four of the juridical schools, and that is the number of raka’s recommended for tarawih prayer. Although, as merely a mandub prayer, it is something that is inconsequential, it serves as the perfect example of what I had just stated.

There is a general consesus among the four schools that it is preferrable that tarawih be prayed with 20 raka's of congregation. Both Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah relate consensus on this fact, particularly from the Companions and their Followers, while the only differences from this consensus involve the establishment of 36 by the khalifa 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz in Medina, and some of the Salaf prayed 47 according to the latter.. This is despite the fact that the Prophet only prayed 8 raka's. But what a difference between the 8 raka's of the Prophet and of common men! As everyone is aware of, the Prophet's tahajjud/tarawih (when alone) was so long, that it caused physical pain to his body; so much so that it cause Aisha to weep upon seeing the swelling of his noble feet. When the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about how to pray tarawih, he replied, "Pray them two by two until you fear the approach of dawn." And for that reason, and the general good that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab saw in doing so, 20 raka's was the established practice of the city of Medina al-Munawarra, the Prophet's city. Why? Part of the reason is that when the words and actions of the Prophet seem to conflict, preference is given to his words, as it is aknowledged by all that there are some things that were incumbent upon him or permissible for him, but not for others. And the Companions did not understand that praying more than what the Prophet prayed (in number) to be innovation, and neither does Ahl us-Sunnah.

So what we have is a situation where 99% of the ummah holds on position, including the totality of the Companions, Followers, the Followers of the Followers and nearly every subsequent scholar for 1,300 years of history holding one position, while those who negate taqlid hold another. How likely is it that the jama'at who has aligned themselves with the Companions are incorrect? And who is the one who calls to "blind" following? In essence, those who negate taqlid to the commonality, only call to the taqlid of themselves or their scholars. So you find them stating, "There is nothing wrong with learning fiqh according to one of the four madhhabs, on condition that one follows the daleel (evidence) if it becomes apparent that the madhhab says something contrary to the daleel on a given matter, because obedience to Allaah and His Messenger comes before obedience to anyone else. (Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)" If it comes apparent according to whom? Malik? Qadi Sahnoon? Ibn 'Abd al-Barr? or Nasrideen al-Albaani?

Limiting the Schools to Merely Four

As this discussion could go on and on, I wish to make only two more points. Firstly regarding the retention of the four schools, in exclusion to all others. Even though Ibn Rajab already discussed it, there remains much to be said. Firstly, although it maybe true that politics played a factor (and I find this ironic coming from a people who support the Saudi regime, a group who locks up nearly any and every scholar that has the audacity to disagree or criticize them publically), it is not true that the only reason why the four schools survived was due to political intervention. Let me just mention one example and it should suffice. Regarding the "conversion" of al-Andalus to the Maliki school. It occured at the hands of Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi. Why? Because both Yahya ibn Yahya and the khalifa at the time, enjoyed the favor and love of Imam Malik. Imam Yahya travelled to Medina, studied under Malik, mastered his method and then returned to al-Anadalus to teach. Impressed with his scholarship and exerting a great amount of influence on the political structure, Yahya ibn Yahya became the Shaykh al-Islam of the empire and taught what he knew. And due to his scholarship, the Maliki school was considered stronger and more able to deal with the issues of the time, just as Egypt came to prefer Malik to al-Layth. This is in addition to the influence of the Maghribi political entity based in modern-day Morocco, who had been Maliki ever since 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz first commissioned the scholars of Medina to spread knowledge in the region. I find it odd that the same people who blamed the the Maliki and Hanafi schools for enjoying the favor of the politicians, have absolutely nothing to say about the Taymiyyan retention of the Hanbali madhhab being made the official state school of the Saudi Arabian kingdom.

In addition, the real reason why the four schools remained, as opposed to the others, is that they were supported and carried on by successive generations, due to the strength of the original founder's, his companions and subsequent scholars who established the school. Hence Imam Shafi'is statement, "Al-Layth knew more fiqh than Malik, but his companions wronged him" Meaning that in his estimation, Imam Layth was stronger in fiqh than Malik, but Layth's students did not record, transmit and strengthen his school as had Malik's companions. The merit of al-Layth and Malik was something disputed amongst the Salaf, and I do not wish to get into it here. I only cite that quote to demonstrate what I have just stated. The notion that the schools being limited to four, resulted other positions and aspects of the Sunnah being lost is not grounded in fact. If one looks to what has been preserved from the other mujtahid Imams, one finds that the vast majority of the time, they were in agreement with one of the four imams. Ibrahim al-Naka'i was the intellectual grandfather of Abu Hanifa, whom agreed with him on so many points, that he was accused by his critics of merely making taqld to him. Imam Layth ibn Sa'd and Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak studied at the same time, with the same scholars as Imam Malik. They also studied with the Companions of Abu Hanifa. So you will find that on most issues, they either agreed with Imam Malik, Abu Hanifa, or Shafi'i (who in many ways, joined the two methods of al-Kufa and the Hjaz as Shafi'i had done-hence his above statement about Layth). The hadith scholars of Baghdad, the vast majority of the time were in agreement with Imam Ahmad ibn Hanibal, who actually learned his fiqh from Shafi'i. So you will find similarities between the madhhab of Sufyan al-Thawri, Hasan al-Basri, Imam al-'Awzai and Tabari with what has been established from Imam Ahmad's school. As I mentioned before, there exists several positions within the madhhabs themselves, so it is not a case of one position per school. As for those positions that became extinct, they only became so due to the perceived weakness of the evidence. The best example is the case of the imamate of women, which according to one narration from al-Tabari, he held it to be valid in jama'at prayers. Due to recent events, there is no need to anaylze the proofs. What one must realize, as I mentioned before regarding the people of tarjih, due to the strength of the isnad, it can be assertained that the Imams actually held some of the positions that are recorded from them, and did not hold others. As the living link between the other Imams and their school has been broken, this cannot be ascertained for them. And this is the meaning of Ibn Rajab's words about the Dhahiri school

The Salafs True Stance on Taqlid (Imitation)

As a final point, I wish to demonstrate the true view fo the Salaf us-Salih regarding the permissibility and nature of taqlid. And to do those, I leave it for Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawzi to speak,

To those who reject taqlid, it should be said that they have rejected taqlid because they fear that the person who imitates (taqlid) will fall into grave error should the one he is imitating be wrong in his legal opinion. Moreoever, they have obliged this person to seek out for himself the truth, yet it is without any doubt that the probability of his being correct when following a valid scholar is much greater than should he use his own reasoning skill by himself. A useful analogy is that of a person who wishes to purchase some commerial good and has no expertise in the object of his purchase. Should he ask a trustworthy expert who is sincere in his advice as to which type is the best to buy and then follow his advice, it is qute obvious that it is much more likely that by doing so he will chooose the correct one and achieve his desired objet as opposed to relying upon his own unqualified opinion. This is a fact agreed upon by all people of intellect everywhere!

All of the Imams have clearly declared the permissibility of taqlid. Hafs ibn Ghiyath said, "I heard Sufyan say, 'If you see a man doing some action that scholars had differed about, and you deem it to be impermissible, don't prohibit him from doing it!'" Muhammad al-Hasan said, "It is acceptable for a scholar to imitate (taqlid) someone more learned than himself, but it is not permissible for him to imitate someone who is at his own level." Imam al-Shafi'i has clearly declared [the validity of] taqlid when he said, "The expiation of [killing] a hyena [in ihram] is one camel, and I say that in accordance with 'Umar (taqlidan li 'Umar)." Also, in the matter concerning selling an animal with the condition that it is free of blemishes, he said, "I permit it in accordance with 'Uthman taqlidan li 'Uthman)." Furthermore, in the case of inheritance where a grandfather and brothers exist, he said, "[The grandfater] has a share with them. I say that because this is what Zayd said, and we accpeted most of the inheritance rulings from Zayd." He also said in one of his books, "I say this in accordance with 'Ata (taqlidan li 'Ata)." [note: 'Ata was a Follower, not a Companion, so the fact that Imam al-Shafi'i followed him without proof is a clear example of taqlid, especially since there are other positions narrated from the Companions].

Consider Abu Hanifa, who says about a matter concerning wells, "We have nothing to do here but to follow (taqlid) those who preceded us from the Successors of the Companions." Malik, who never abandons the actions of the people of Medina, has clearly stated many times [in the Muwatta], "This is what the actions are in our city." And again, "This is what we found the people of knowledge in our city doing." In many places, he makes the remark, "I did not see anyone among those who should be imitated (uqtudiya bihi) doing it." If we gathered all such remarks from his words, it would be quote extensive [as he states such in nearly every section of the Muwatta]. Imam al-Shafi'i stated, 'The opinions of the Companions are better than our own opinions" And we say, "We believe that the opinions of al-Shafi'i and the other Imams with him are better for us than our own opinions!"

So take heed. More could be quoted from him in this regard, but the above should be sufficient for anyone with an open mind. The last two paragraphs can be found here .

I wish to close by quoting the fatwa of Muhammad 'Illiyish, who was the Shaykh al-Azhar when this idea first arose in the modern age. For this reason it is relevant and sheds a great amount of insight on the psychology of those who seek to prohibit people from following the Imams. Indeed I could have quoted him and nothing more and it would have been sufficient as a rebuttal. I take this from the Murabit al-Hajj's "Fatwa Concerning the Obligation of Following the Rightly Guided Scholars", and in it he states,

In Muhammad ‘Illish’s, Fath al-‘Ali al-Malik, there are many strong rebukes for those who wish to force people to abandon the study of the judicial branches and take directly from the Book and the Sunna. The actual text of the question put to him is as follows:

“What do you say about someone who was following one of the four Imams, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them, and then left claiming that he could derive his judgements directly from the Qur’an and the soundly transmitted hadiths, thus leaving the books of jurisprudence and inclining towards the view of Ahmad bin Idris? Moreover, he says to the one who clings to the speech of the Imams and their followers, “I say to you ‘Allah and His Messenger say’, and you reply ‘Malik said’ and ‘Ibn al-Qasim said’ or ‘Khalil said.’”

To this, Imam ‘Illish replies:

“My answer to this all this is as follows: Praise be to Allah, and Prayer and Safety be upon our Master Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. It is not permissible for a common person to abandon following the four Imams and take directly from the textual sources of the Qur’an and the hadiths for the simple reason that this entails a great many conditions that have been clarified in the books of usul. Moreover, these conditions are rarely met by the great scholars, especially in these last days in which Islam has become a stranger just as it began a stranger.”

Ibn ‘Uyyana, may Allah be pleased with him, has said,

“The hadiths are a source of error except for the jurists.”

What he means is that people, other than the scholars, might interpret a tradition based on an apparent meaning, and yet [the hadith may] have another interpretation based on some other hadith that clarifies the meaning or some proof that remains hidden [to the common people]. After a long discussion, he remarks,

“That as for their saying, ‘How can you leave clear Qur’anic verses and sound hadiths and follow the Imams in their ijtihads, which have a clear probability of error,’”

His answer to them is as follows:

"Surely the following of our [rightly guided] Imams is not abandoning the Qur’anic verses or the sound hadiths; it is the very essence of adhering to them and taking our judgements from them. This is because the Qur’an has not come down to us except by means of these very Imams [who are more worthy of following] by virtue of being more knowledgeable than us in [the sciences of] the abrogating and abrogated, the absolute and the conditional, the equivocal and the clarifying, the probabilistic and the plain, the circumstances surrounding revelation and their various meanings, as well as their possible interpretations and various linguistic and philological considerations, [not to mention] the various other ancillary sciences [involved in understanding the Qur’an] needed.

“Also, they took all of that from the students of the companions (tabi’in) who received their instruction from the companions themselves, who received their instructions from the Lawgiver himself, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, divinely protected from every mistake, who bore witness that the first three generations of Muslims would be ones of virtue and righteousness. Furthermore, the prophetic traditions have also reached us through their means given that they were also more knowledgeable than us through their means given that they were also more knowledgeable than those who came after them concerning the rigorously authenticated (sahih), the well authenticated (hasan), and the weak (da’if) channels of transmission, as well as the marfu’u, mursal, mutawatir, ahah, mu’dal and gharib transmissions.

“Thus, as far as this little band of men is concerned, there is only one of two possibilities: either they are attributing ignorance to Imams whose knowledge is considered by consensus to have reached human perfection as witnessed in several traditions of the truthful Lawgiver, upon him be prayers and peace, or they are actually attributing misguidance and lack of din to Imams who are all from the best of generations by the testimony of the magnificent Messenger himself, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Surely, it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts in our breasts.

Imam al-Sha'rani said, "May Allah reward all of our Imams, the people of ijtihad, for had they not extricated from the Qur'an and Sunnah the rulings they derived, we would not have been able to follow this teaching. Similarly, had the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) not demonstrated ritual washing to us, we would never have worked it out from the Qur'an alone." And Qadi Asad, "We have no other thing but to follow Ahmad [the Prophet-Allah bless him and give him peace], but you should know, had it not been for Malik and his likes, none of you would even know how to follow the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace]." And verily it is as they said.

Any mistakes are my own, and anything that I have gotten correct is from the gentle concern of Allah through the wasila of the 'ulama he has made as lamps of guidance and standard bearers of the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the only one who is truly blindly followed.

We ask You, O Allah, by his eminence with You and preciousness to You,
to make our bodies flourish with his works, our hearing with his words
our hearts with his effulgences, our spirits with his secrets,
our selves with his states, our mind with his ways,
our inward souls with beholding him, our
eyes with the lights of the
face of his beauty.

[lumumba_s]

Third is "if all these schools of thought are right then what is the problem if one mix up or acquire one's "Aqaa'aid" through four scholarships"[/COLOR][/FONT]

There is no problem so long as one doesn't mix in a manner that leaves the act of worship unacceptable to any Imam. For example, following the Hanafi opinion about a wali not being necessary under certain conditions, the Maliki opinion that two witnesses are not necessary under certain conditions, and the Shafi'i opinion that the walima is not necessary. Which would mean that one walks up to a girl, tells her "We're married" and procedes to go on a "honeymoon". That is an extreme example, but makes the point.

No leading scholar of the traditional schools has ever said it is not permissible for a muqallid to make taqlid to another school. What they have said that one has to actually have learned the position from someone who can relate it, and not be in a position where one is simply seeking out the easiest position to follow, as that is equvalent to following one's hawa. Rather, is that it is closer to taqwa to stick to one school, unless one needs to go outside of one's school to remove a difficulty or for general social benefit. Otherwise, how are you choosing which position to follow? Based upon strength of evidence? It is a delusion for a laymen to believe that they have the ability to refute the positions of the mujtahid Imams. Anyone who has actually studied in a traditional way knows the truth of this.

The Shafi'is are the strictest on this point, but even they permit it. For example, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami was asked about praying behind the Hanafis, due to their not agreeing with all the obligations of the salat as the Shafi'is (I can't remember which specific detail, as I am not Shafi'i or Hanafi). In their school, according to Imam Nawawi, the stronger opinion (ashah) states that the validity of the followers prayer is upon their certainty that the Imam's prayer is correct. Where as the Malikis and Hanabli state that the validity of the follower rests upon the certainty of the Imam. There is a strong opinion (sahih) in their school that agrees with the Malikis and Hanabali, and that is what they follow today. Anyway. He passed the fatwa stating that the Shafi'i should pray behind the Shafi'i. They went to prayer and found him praying behind the Hanafi Imam. His students were confused and asked, "How can you do that when you passed a fatwa stating such and such." He replied, "That was my fatwa and this is my practice." I might regret relating this later.

In anticipation of confusion, I defer to Amjad Rasheed, a young Shafi'i, Yemeni scholar who currently lives in Amman, Jordan (I think) to explain his school:

Q. In a previous response, you advised a questioner to follow the Hanafi school in his wudu so that his wife would not get angry when he tried to keep on wudu. Is it permissible for a Muslim to follow a school other than his own in any manner that he wishes? Is it permissible for me to follow the Hanafi school in wudu, the Shafi‘i school in prayer, and the Hanbali school in marriage?

A.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمالحمد لله رب العالمين و صلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلمأما بعد.

(1) What the scholars of exacting verification (muhaqqiqeen) have explicitly stated is that it is not obligatory to follow a single school in all matters. Rather, it is permissible for one to switch from one school to another as long as one does not seek out dispensations, which means to take the easiest position from every school.

(2) It is permissible to follow the Hanafi school in wudu, the Shafi‘i school in prayer, and the Hanbali school in marriage because impermissible mixing between schools (talfiq), as the Yemeni Imam Ibn Ziyad al-Shafi‘i said, is "to join between two schools on a single issue in a manner that makes it invalid according to both schools", such as if one makes wudu and follows the Shafi‘i school by wiping less than a quarter of the head and then touches a woman who is not a close relative and follows the Hanafi school by not repeating one’s wudu. In this case, one’s wudu will be invalid according to both schools because the Hanafis hold that it is obligatory to wipe [h: at least] a quarter of the head (and he has not done this) and the Shafi‘is hold that touching a woman who is not a close relative (mahram) invalidates one’s wudu (and he has touched [h: a non-mahram] and not repeated his wudu).

Shaykh Ibn Hajar, however, said that impermissible mixing between schools (talfiq) can also occur between two separate issues, such as wudu and prayer. According to him, then, both one’s wudu and prayer must be valid according to a single school in order for one to have validly made taqlid.

The great scholar ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mashhur said in Bughyat al-Mustarshidin (p. 9), "Ibn Hajar’s position is more cautious and that of Ibn Ziyad is more suitable for the commonality (‘awamm)."

Amjad Rasheed
Amman, Jordan

(Translated by Hamza Karamali)



السؤال : أرشدتم أحد السائلين في جواب سابق إلى تقليد المذهب الحنفي في وضوئه حتى لا تغضب زوجته عندما يحاول أن يحافظ على وضوئه ، فهل يجوز لمسلم أن يقلد غير مذهبه كيفما يريد ؟ هل يجوز لي أن أقلد المذهب الحنفي في الوضوء والمذهب الشافعي في الصلاة والمذهب الحنبلي في النكاح ؟



الجواب : أولاً : الذي صرح به المحققون من العلماء أنه لا يجب التزامُ مذهب واحد فقط في جميع المسائل ، بل يجوز للشخص الانتقالُ من مذهب إلى آخر ما لم يقصد تتبعَ الرخص وهو الأخذ بالأسهل من كل مذهب .

ثانياً : يجوز تقليدُ المذهب الحنفي في الوضوء ، والشافعي في الصلاة ، والحنبلي في النكاح ؛ لأن التلفيقَ الممنوع كما قال الإمامُ ابنُ زياد اليمني الشافعي : هو الجمعُ بين مذهبين في قضية واحدة بحيث تصيرُ غير صحيحة على كلا المذهبين ، كأن يتوضأ ويمسح أقلَّ من ربع رأسه تقليداً للشافعية ، ويلمس امرأةً أجنبيةً فلا يعيد الوضوء تقليداً للحنفية ، فيكون وضوءه على كلا المذهبين غيرَ صحيح ؛ لأن الحنفية يوجبون مسحَ ربع الرأس وهو لم يفعل ذلك ، والشافعية يقولون بنقض الوضوء بلمس المرأة الأجنبية وهو لمس ولم يُعِدْ وضوءه .

وقال الشيخُ ابنُ حجر : التلفيقُ الممنوعُ يكون بين قضيتين كالوضوء والصلاة . فلا بد عنده لصحة التقليد أن يصح الوضوءُ والصلاةُ على مذهب واحد من الأئمة .

قال العلامة عبد الرحمن المشهور في "بغية المسترشدين" ( ص 9 ) :" وكلام ابن حجر أحوط ، وابن زياد أوفق بالعوام ". اهـ

And as al-Izaaree stated, these schools only relate to fiqh, legal matters. Their 'aqida was basically the same, although some went into details concerning verses and/or hadiths that others did not.

[Usman]

No madhaabi from all those whom I have conversedwith from here or from t hose overseas has ever admitted taqleed, even those who do taqleed. To the muslim world "taqleed" is a matter that is condenmable, a negative. This is in the thouhgts of those who do not make taqleed and those who do. This is why when they are confronted with the accusation of taqleed, they are quick to deny it, because the norm of everyone is that they usual;ly understand taqleed to be a bad thing. So it is kind of strange to encounter a muslim who actually says that taqleed is a good matter, an obligatory one at that.

This is why when Usman had questioned, he did not have in mind that following Imaam Shafi'ee rahimahullah was considered taqleed, which due to the mistranslations above, could mislead one to understand that from Ibn Rajab rahimahullah.

Assalamualaykum bro al-Izaaree,

I going more confuse. i dun wan offense my bro in Islam, but taqleed is teached by my ustaz. I am born in Kelantan, malaysia, but studying engineering in new place. Our state is Islamic state in Malaysia. Do it mean my ustaz, my friend, my mother, my father, all is 'blind follower'?

I am fear for my religion.

[Al-Boriqi]

Inal-Hamdulillah rabbil-alameen, wa salatu wa salamu 'ala ashraafil anbiyaa e wal mursaleen, wa salatu wa salamu 'ala rasulillah wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een, wa b'ad

Due to the recent post from lumumba I will lay the ground by which we can either move on or going around in circles pointlessly. So my reply to the very first quote from lumumba will inshallah lay the groundwork to prevent confusion later on.

This is what I perceive to be the main difficulty in this conversation, as it was in another. You have your own definition, reject the definition that is presented to you, and then attempt to have a discussion based upon that. There is no difference between taqlid and following. The muqallid who learns the proofs of his school remains a muqallid, unless his is able to refute the positions of the other Imams. The muqallid makes taqlid of the school and taqlid of the proofs, unless he is able to refute the proofs of the other Imams, not just recite those of his own. Your labeling this one a follower is only sophistry (i.e. word play).

1. You say I have my own definition of it. So we will caste this statement upon the statements of the aimah concerning this to see if your claim had any truth (even a fraction which I will be admitting to submit).
2. The main issue. The number one issue by which further progression can occur is only in defining what is going on.

what is going on is that I, Izaaree, see a wide gap between taqleed and ittib'aa. On the other hand you, lumumba, do not see any variance at all between taqleed and ittib'aa, to the point that taqleed is merely ittibba.

So if we establish baseerah in this from the aimah then maybe inshallah we can see what it is that seems to be in accordance with the haq inshallahu t'ala.

So in accordance with this foundational topic (in this subject) then I will reply to this very first issue at hand.

What Is Taqleed

Shaikh Shaamee Hanafee said,
“Taqleed is to take the statement of someone without the knowing the evidence.” (Aqood Rasm al-Muftee p.23)


Shaikh Ibn Humaam Hanafee said,
“Taqleed is to act upon the statement of someone whose statement does not contain any evidence, rather it is without evidence.”(Tayseer at-Tahreer)


Below are some statements of some of the scholars in regards to taqleed and most of the statements are from the scholars and sheikhs of the hanafee’s.

Imaam at-Tahawee rahimahullah said
"ONLY THE DISOBEDIENT AND MISGUIDED DOES TAQLEED." (Leesaan ul-Meezaan (1/280) Of Imaam Ibn Hajr al Asqalaanee.

Imaam Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafee said
"The Companions and Taabi'een would follow the path instructed by the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) and the earlier and latter people were also advised to follow (Ittibaa) the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam). They followed the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) all their lives..." (Sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (p.72).

Imaam adh-Dhahabee said
"The Scholars of hadeeth of this era and period close, and from them a great number and we have not even mentioned 1/10 (One tenth) of them. Likewise in the same time a group of people of Ahlur-Rayy (The people of opinion) Wal-Furoo (The hanafee's), and how many of their heads were mu'tazilees and Shee'ah and the people of Kalaam were present. Who chased people statements (Fatwaas) and left the way of the Salaf which was to hold onto the hadeeth of the Prophet. And from this same time taqleed became apparent amongst the people and the fuqaha performed ijtihaad to a lesser extent." (Tadhkirratul-Huffaadh (2/627-628, after the ninth Tabaqah).

Shaikh Shaah Waleeullaah Muhaddith Dehlwee said

“The general people especially nowadays in every place will be seen to be adherent to a particular madhab of the earlier scholars. They think that if a person leaves his madhab of the Imaam he does taqleed in any one issue then it is as if he has left the religion. So they consider their Imaams to be Prophets that have been sent and they consider and hold it obligatory for him to do taqleed of the Imaam, whereas the people of this ummah before the fourth century were not adherent to a particular madhab.” (at-Tafheemaat al-Aalhiyyah (1/206), Hujjatullah al-Baalighaah (1/445)

The respected scholar of the hanafee’s, Zamakhsharee mu'tazilee said,
"If there is a mother of misguidance! then it has to be taqleed." (Itwaaq Az-Zabaab (p.42).

Allaamah Aloosee Baghdaadee said,
"If there is a father of misguidance, then it has to be taqleed." (Rooh al-Ma'anee Fee Tafseer al-Qur'aan al-A'dheem Was-Sabal Mathaanee)

Sarkhasee hanafee said,
"If taqleed was permissible then the people before us had more right, of us making taqleed of them (rather then the four Imaams) such as Hasan al-Basri and Nakha'ee." (al-Mabsoot (12/28).

Maulana Abdul Hayy Lucknowee Hanafee said,
“A group of the hanafee's is engrossed in extreme partisanship and bigotry in adhering strongly to the books of fataawa (verdicts) and when these people come across an authentic hadeeth or a clear athar which is contrary to their madhab they say, "If this hadeeth was authentic then (our) Imaam would have definitely issued verdicts according to it and not contrary to this, then this is the ignorance of these people.” (al-Naaf'ie al-Kabeer (p.145)


Only One Imaam
We just follow one Imaam. Muhammad (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam), Allaah Azzawa Jal says,
"(And remember) the Day when We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imaam." (Soorah Israa (17):71).

Imaam Ibn Katheer said,
"Some of the Salaf said the status of the people of hadeeth (Who follow hadeeth and do not do taqleed) is that their Imaam Will be Muhammad (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam)." (Tafseer al-Qur'aan al-A'dheem (3/56) of Imaam Ibn Katheer.
Imaam Suyootee said the same. (Badoor as-Saafirah Fee Amoor al-Aakhirah (p.73).
Imaam Qaasimee said the same. (Mahaasin at-Ta'weel (10/252).
Imaam Shaaf'iee said,
"When I see a person of the hadeeth it is as if I see the Messenger of Allaah."
(This narration is authentic, Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadee in Sharf Ashaabul-Hadeeth (p.94), Imaam Harawee in Dhamm ul-Kalaam (2/306), Toosee in Amaalee (p.41), Imaam Baihaqee in al-Mudkhil (p.391) and in Manaaqib ash-Shaafi'ee (1/477), Abu Nu’aym in Hilyah (9/109).

It becomes to appearent the stance of the Imaams of ahlu-sunnah, both those who sakeem in their creed, and those who were afflicted with ashari thought and itizaal. So I wonder, how in the universe, after what has preceded concerning the position of the aimah, that anyone could deem taqleed in its absolute sense to be a good matter, and beyond that, a waajibaat.

But nevertheless, there is more to it than this because there are conditions to this. This is what I was going to adress in reply to brother hlatif's post.

Since I cant find the post I will narate what he brouhgt inshallah

Brother Hussein (hlatif) brought an excerpt from Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the permissibility of it through the route of qiyaas and another matter which I forgot what has been stated.
So I say taqleed is to be done throuhg a condition which i will reveal right now inshallah.

The Place of Taqleed

al-Alamaah al-Imaamu-Zaahid al-Faqeeh, Muhammad ibnu-Saalih al-Uthaymeen rahimahullahsaid concering this issue as to its permissibility is that
Taqleed is done in two cases:
1) when the muqallid is an 'aamee (a common person) who does not have the ability to aquire knowledge of the sharee'ah ruling by himself. So taqleed is obligatory upon him, due to the saying of Allaah - The Most High, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." So he does taqleed of one whom he considers to be a person of knowledge and piety. If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.
2) The mujtahid when he encounters a new situation, for which an immediate solution is required, but it is not possible for him to research into this matter. So in this case he is permitted to perform taqleed.


Some stipulate as a condition for the permissibility of taqleed, that the matter is not from the fundamentals of the deen - those matters which must be held as aqueedah - since matters of aqueedah require certainty, whereas taqleed only amounts to dhann (knowledge which is not certain).

Types of Taqleed:
Taqleed is of two types: general and specific.
1) The general type: that a person sticks to a particular madhhab (school of thought), accepting it's concessions and non-concessions, in all matters of the deen.
The scholars have differed about such a state. So some amongst the late-comers have reported that this is obligatory upon him, due to his inability to perform ijtihaad. Others report it as being forbidden for him, due to its being a case of necessitating unrestricted following of other than the Prophet (SAW).
Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said,
"The saying that it is obligatory, causes obedience to other than the Prophet (SAW) in every matter of command and pohibition, and this is in opposition to the ijmaa'. And the allowance of it contains what it contains."
He (RH) also said,
"He who sticks to a particular madhhab, and then acts in opposition to it - without making taqleed of another scholar who has given him a ruling, nor does he use an evidence as a proof which necessitates acting in opposition to his madhhab, nor does he have an acceptable Sharee'ah excuse which allows him to do what he has done - then such a person is a follower of his desires, doing what is haraam - without a Sharee'ah excuse - and this is evil and sinful."

However, if there becomes clear to him, something which necessitates preference to one saying to another - either due to detailed proofs if he knows and understands them, or because he holds one of two people to be more knowledgeable about this matter and having more piety with regards to what he says - and so he leaves the saying of that one for the saying of the other one, then this is permissible, rather, it is obligatory. And there is a text from Imaam Ahmad about this."
2) The particular type of taqleed is that he accepts a saying about a particular matter. This is permissible if such a person is unable to arrive at knowledge of the by ijtihaad - whether he is unable to in reality, or he is able, but with great difficulty.


Fatwaa of a Muqallid:
Allaah - the Most High - said, "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." And the Ahludh Dhikr are the Ahlul Ilm (the people of knowledge), whereas the muqallid is not a person of knowledge who is followed - rather he himself is a follower of someone else.
ibn Abdul Barr (d.463) and others have said,
"the people are united in ijmaa that the muqallid is not counted as being from the Ahlul Ilm, and that knowledge is the realisation of guidance along with it's proof."
ibn al-Qayyim said,
" And it is as Abu Umar (ibn Abdul Barr) said: Indeed, the people do not differ about the fact that knowledge is the realisation attained from proof, but without proof, it is only taqleed."

Ibn al-Qayyim then quotes,
"There are three sayings about the permissibility of giving fatwaa based upon taqleed:
1) It is not permissible to give fatwaa based upon taqleed, because it is not knowledge; since issuing a fatwaa without knowledge is forbidden. This is the saying of most of the Hanbalee scholars and the majority of the Shaafi'iyyah.
2) That it is permissible with regards to himself, but it is not permissible to give a fatwaa to others based upon taqleed.
3) That it is permissible when there is a need for it, and there is no mujtahid scholar. And this is the most correct of the sayings and is what is acted upon."'

Shaykhul-Islam Muhammad Naasiru-Deen al-Albaanee says in his, 'The Hadeeth is a Proof in itself' after mentioning the statements of the Imaams on Taqleed as found in the introduction to 'The Prophets Prayer Described' brings a chapter heading, "Taqleed for whoever cannot search for proofs by himself" (pp94+),

'"Some may ask: "Not everyone has the ability to be a Person of Knowledge, as explained before?" We say: yes indeed. No one disputes this fact. Allaah said, "So ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know." (16:43) and, "ask the knowledgeable about it" (25:59). The Prophet (SAW), for those who issued fatwa without knowledge: "Could not they have asked if they did know? The cure for the confused one is to ask." However, we did not mention all of the above evidence to show who can and who cannot be a scholar. Our research is with regards to those few who are considered to be People of Knowledge....Taqleed is upon the common person and the ignorant one. The scholars, who can search for the evidence, are excluded from this group. They are the ones whose responsibility is not to do Taqleed. Rather, their responsibility is to perform Ijtihaad.
The following saying by ibn Abdul Barr explains this matter further, "All these rules are for the common folk, they are the ones who have to perform Taqleed of their scholars when needed. They are not capable of understanding or comprehending evidence or knowledge. Knowledge has grades, one cannot attain the topmost grade unless he goes via the base...Scholars do not differ with regards to the common folk having to follow their scholars..."
However, I believe that to generalise about the common folk by saying that they all must perform taqleed is invalid. Taqleed is to follow others without evidence. Many intelligent people can clearly understand evidence if it is presented to them. Who can deny that a common person can understand the evidence contained in the hadeeth, "Tayammum is one strike (of the hands on the dust) for the face and hands"? Even people lacking intelligence can understand this hadeeth.
Therefore, the truth is that we must say that Taqleed is allowed for whosoever cannot search for or understand the evidence, ibn al-Qayyim also was of this opinion. Even scholars are forced to do Taqleed sometimes, when a scholar cannot find a text from Allaah or His Messenger, but only sayings of more knowledgeable scholars."

It becomes clear form the above that taqleed, the mother part of it or the most part of it, is condemned and forbidden point blank. Now, the specific case is that in certain cases, there is no case but to perform taqleed, and upon this there have been a couple stipulations in this regard. Please note anything I may have missed or points that I did not highlight here for clarity from the above statements of the salafee scholars of the past and the present.

Due to all that has occured then I will admit my intentions and my mistake in this regard to the topic by which clarity could be acheived.

As for my intention, I had intended to bring some statements regarding the validity of the issue of taqleed in certain instances, but due to me having to handle some business this morning, I failed in my fullfillment of this. So pelase do not take my delaying of this information is "misinforming the people".

As for my fault in the matter, and Im willing to accept this as I have acted without full knowledge of the matter, is that just as Imaam al-Uthaymeen spoke above, he labeled the following of the ayaah "And ask the people of knowledge if you do not know" to be taqleed. I have called it ittib'aa. In either case, I have learned to accept that the ayaah could be both (taqleed and ittib'aa) depending on the situation of the beleiver and the jama'ah in certain places and times wallahu alim.

now as for the replies
lumumba said

What else would this mean but taqlid? What else would you call recourse and submission? Ittib'aa? Following someone and submitting to their authority are two entirely different things and in the context of law, how else can it be understood but to submit to the ijtihad of those of greater authority? If you cannot admit that this is taqlid, there is no point in continuing.

You replied to this for a statement I did not make. In fact I beleive this was what you quoted from Ibn Hajar (I think).

They claimed (and still do) the Malikis had no proof for sadl, so I asked them and they explained it to me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed the Hanafis had no proof for praying with their hands below their belly button, so I asked them and they told me and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed the Shafi'is had no proof for stating that touching the opposite sex breaks wudu absolutely. So I asked them and they told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed that none of the four schools had any proof for praying tawarih as a 20 raka' prayer, so I asked them all and they all told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. They claimed that no one had proof for stating that bid'a hasan was an acceptable categorization. So I asked, they told me, and the Salafis couldn't respond. This happened again and again and again. Until they finally claimed that tawassul was shirk and the people who did so by means of the deceased or absent had no proof. So I asked and they told me, and the Salafis couldn't reply. At that point I realized and then I was called a kafir for praying with my arms to my side and carrying Reliance of the Traveler with me to the masjid.

In most cases in human life, usually when someone wishes to honestly learn a matter, they would ask those qualified regarding whatever it is they wish to learn, or even a student of knowledge at best. So I dont think it was the right road that you took to ask some jahl about the issue. Im sorry that you had to encounter this, and Im really sorry that you have used the case of someone's jahl to justify the validity of the arguement of the people who have not conformed themselves to the following of the authentic sunnah.

So if you wante to have a decent, knowledgeable understanding of these topics you have raised with a jahl, then raise them here inshallah.

All the scholars from the beginning to the end have stated that taqlid is obligatory for the one who cannot perform ijtihad, according to the definition that Aasem so eloquently gave. If you ask a Muslim, "Do you make put your imam over the Prophet?" of course they will deny it. That understanding of taqlid was something that was borrowed from the Orientalist by the historical Salafi modernist, by whom I mean Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad 'Abdu and Rashid Rida.

Incorrect according to the statements of the Imaams above.
As for that understanding of taqleed, there are over a handful of greater scholars then the ones you quoted centuries before them who have deemed taqleed to be as such which was brouhgt by me above. So I dont know where in Islam did you aquire such a claim.

Prior to them, the only people of this ummah who condemned taqlid were the Dhahiri school of al-Andalus. Hussein quoted Ibn Taymiyya and I find it odd that you seemed to completely ignore what he translated. No where will you find the phrase taqlid 'ama in the books of usul, not even in the writings of Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn al-Qayyim. Translating taqlid as "blind" following, is an interpolation into the text. I know many "madhhabis" far more learned that any Salafi I have ever met and they all admit that they make taqlid and do not deem it to be a bad thing

Now the only people were not just the dhahiriyyah.
I did not ignore Hussein's post. If you would have read correctly in my post, I had to go which disabled me from replying to him.
Well, Im glad for your meeting with madhaabui's far more knowledgeable than any salafi.

[Sidi Abdullah Ould Hajj Ibrahim] has said in his Maraqi as-Sa’ud:

“[taqlid] is necessary for other than the one who has achieved the rank of absolute ijtihad. Even if he is a limited [mujtahid] who is unable [to perform absolute ijtihad].

And this book that he quoted is studed in Medina University.

Tayyib, I accept that

If you are claiming that Hamza Yusuf has lied, then you need to prove it before you accuse him of mistranslating or interpolating.

1. I did not claim anything about lying for anyone
2. I do not accept hamza yussif, nor his likes as anything to be relied upon in the religion as they are not qualified nor even classed to be tulaabu-ilm.

Usman can speak for himself and I assume he will, but I did not gather that he had a problem with taqlid, what I gathered is that he did not understand what I meant when I referred to people such as yourself equating taqlid to "blind following."

According to his own words, he signified if what he was doing was talqeed, according to what you provided of evidence, and due to the way he questioned, it was as if he was shocked that he may have fallen to taqleed, again dyue to the material you provided in your arguement.

I did not mean that the majority of the English speaking or Arab world is Salafi. The majority of African-Americans are Salafi however, but alhumdulillah, that is starting to change. The vast majority of the Middle-East is either Shafi'i or Hanafi. The stronghold of the Salafi movement is Egypt and Saudi. But even in those places, I imagine that they are a minority. However, they get the vast majority of the funding, which is the reason why the vast majority of African-Americans are Salafi.

Imaam an-Nawawee had one of the strongest positions towards backbiting, even to the point that even a bad thought about your brother consititutes gheebah by which seeking forgiveness of him is waajib. I dont know if you have realized or not, that you have just accused the intentions of the people who have submitted to the sunnah of the prophet according to how the salafu-saalih interpreted it, to have only become what they have become due to the funding wa iyaadhu billahi min adh-dhaalika. I would not have thouhgt that such thinking was a part of your thought pattern and most suspicion is from false.

As I know from person experience, the vast majority of people who claim to be on the da'wat al-Salafiyya do not actually know what their "leaders" believe. As far as the traditional scholars go, both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim were Sufis in the traditional sense of the word

I cannot find another description to this except that this could only be labeled as an outrageous claim. if you wish to accept the "traditional" sense fot he term "sufi" then Im a sufi, every true salafee is a sufi in that sense".

If you told most of them that, they would call you a liar. Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Ansari, who they both referred to as "our shayh" was a Naqsbandi

I remeber a qutoe from one of the students of knowledge. So I say as he said, This represent the power and magnitude between the people of truth and salafiyyah from the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and those who opposed someone of his likes, in that this magnitude is witnessed by the mere fact that even his passionate enemies (the extreme sufis) cannot escape using him in order to gain a following upon their way. Do to the aqeedah between Shaykhul-Islam and the one youi quoted being lightyears away from eachother, makes one to question the motive of the one praising Ibn Taymiyyah, especially while knowing the relaity that ibn Taymiyyah would never give an inkling of praise to the people of vain desires and shirk form the naqshbandiyyah. Nevertheless, even thouhg I have more ground to have suspicion about his intentions than of your suspicion of the salafees, I will refrain from claiming a matter about the intention of the shaykh you quoted.

bn Taymiyya wrote a commentary on the Futuh al-Ghayba of 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and Ibn al-Qayyim wrote several works on tasawwuf.

It is kown throuhgout the world of the salafee Imah that Ibnu-Qayyim, in his life before his making ibn Taymiyyah as his shaykh, was a misguided sufi. So all of his works before this event in his life have been abandoned and left by ahlu-sunnah and only those works by him in which he became a follower of the sunnah were accetped from him by ahlu-sunnah. So it depends in which time period you are refering to in this case you brought. before or after his being guided.

The Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya is full of things that if the Salafis knew, they would have no choice but to abadon the vast majority of their hostilities or turn against Ibn Taymiyya, which some authors had.

Due to the situations you have encountered, it seems that you have encountered a group of people, known to actual salafees as "al-Haddadiyyah" or "Jama'atu-Tabdi'e". This is because they are masakeen juhaal cand false claiments to salafiyyah. I say you may have not, ever met a real salafee, a follower of the salaf at all.

They don't know that Ibn Taymiyya declared tawassul to be bid'a, not shirk. They don't know that Ibn Taymiyya stated that the laymen will be rewarded for participating in the mawalid

this was the slander fo the misguided sufis, and Im gald you have pointed this out so as to repell the opression against him form the fabricators of the establishers of bida.

This is Ibn Taymiyyah's actual stance

Ibn Taymiyyah says, "because the Eeds are legislated laws from amongst the laws, so it is necessary to follow them, and not to innovate them, and the Prophet had many lectures, treaties, and great events that happened on a number of (documented) days such as the Day of Badr, Hunain, al-Khandaq, the Conquest of Mecca, the occurrence of his hijrah, his entry to Madeenah and none of this necessitated that these days be taken as days of Eed. Rather this sort of thing was done by the Christians who took the days in which great events happened to Jesus as Eeds, or by the Jews. Indeed the Eed is a legislated law, so what Allaah legislates is followed, otherwise do not innovate in this religion that which is not part of it. And like this is what some of the people have innovated, either in opposition to the Christian celebration of the birthday of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet and in honour of him. And Allaah will reward them for this love and ijtihaad, but NOT FOR THE BID'AH of taking the day of the birth of the Prophet as an Eed - this along with the difference of the people as to when he was born. For indeed this (celebration) was not done by the salaf, despite the existence of factors that would necessitate it and the lack of any factors that would prevent them from doing so if it were indeed good. And if this was genuinely good or preferable then the salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, would have more right to doing so then us, for they had more severe love and honour of the Prophet in following him, obeying him, and following his command, and reviving his sunnah inwardly and outwardly, and spreading that which he was sent with, and performing jihaad for this in the heart, with the hand and upon the tongue. So indeed this was the way of the Saabiqeen al-Awwaleen from the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar, and those that followed them in good.
And you will find the majority of these (who celebrate the birthday) in ardent desire of these sort of innovations - along with what they have of good intention and ijtihaad for which reward is hoped for - but you would find them feeble in following the command of the Messenger, that which they have been commanded to be eager and vigorous in, indeed they are of the position of one who adorns the Mushaf but does not read what is in it or reads what is in it but does not follow it. Or the position of one who decorates the mosques but does not pray in them, or prays in them rarely...
And know that from the actions are those that have some good in them, due to their including types of good actions and including evil actions such as innovation etc. So this action would be good with respect to what it includes of good and evil with respect to what it contains of turning away from the religion in it's totality, as is the state of the hypocrites and faasiqeen. This has what has afflicted the majority of the ummah in the later times. So upon you is two manners (of rectification):
•That your desire be to follow the sunnah inwardly and outwardly, with respect to yourself specifically and those that follow you, and you enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
•That you call the people to the sunnah in accordance to ability, so if you were to see someone doing this (celebration) and he were to not leave it except for an evil greater than it, then do not call him to leaving the evil so that he may perform something more evil than this [a page omitted in which he explains this well established principle of Shariah]
So honouring the mawlid, and taking it as a festive season (mawsam) which some of the people have done, there is a great reward in it due to the good intention and the honouring of the Messenger because of what I have previously stated to you - that it is possible that something be good for some of the people and be denounced/considered to be ugly by the strict believer. This is why it was said to Imaam Ahmad about some of the leaders, that he spent 1000 dirhams upon the mushaf or similar to this. So he replied, "leave them, for this is better than them spending it on gold (jewelry)." This despite the fact that the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad was that it is abhorrent to decorate the mushafs, and some of the companions (of Ahmad) interpreted this to mean that the money was spent in renewing the pages and writing. But this is not the intent of Ahmad here, his intention here was that this action had a benefit in it, and it also contained corruption due to which it became abhorrent. But these people, if they did not do this, would have substituted this for a corruption that contained no good whatsoever, for example spending upon one of the books of evil" [Iqtidaa Siraat al-Mustaqeem 2/618+ with the tahqeeq of Shaykh Naasir al-Aql]
He says in another place of the same book, "there is no doubt that the one who practices these - i.e. the innovated festive seasons - either the mujtahid or muqallid will have the reward for his good intention and the what the action contains of legislated actions, and will be forgiven for what it contains of innovation if his ijtihaad or taqleed contains one of the excuses (that would lift this sin from him)."
He continues:" But this does not prevent one from detesting and prohibiting it and to replace it with a legislated action containing no bid'ah.... Just as the Jews and Christians may find benefit in their worship because it is possible that their worship includes an aspect of what is legislated but this does not necessitate that you perform their actions of worship or you report their words because all of the innovations contain evil that outweighs their good, this due to the fact that if their good outweighed the evil then why would the Sharee'ah have disregarded it? So we depend upon the fact that it's sin is greater than it's benefit and this necessitates forbiddance."
He continues:" And I say: it's sin is removed from some of the people due to the reason of ijtihaad or other than it, as the sin of usury and alcohol (from dates) which has been differed about (by the salaf) is removed from the salaf (who allowed it), then despite this it is necessary to explain it's condition and not to follow those that considered it permissible.... So this is sufficient evidence in explaining that these innovations include corruptions of belief or condition contradicting what the Messenger (SAW) came with, and that what benefit they contain is marjooh (not to be relied upon) and it not correct to use for objection"
He continues:" As for what they contain - i.e. these innovated festive seasons such as the Mawlid - of benefit then they are opposed by what they contain of the corruption of innovations that outweigh the benefit, alongwith with what has preceded of the corruptions of belief and state - that the hearts become content with it at the expense of a large number of Sunnahs to the extent that you find that the elite and the general masses preserve this in a way that they do not preserve the Taraaweeh's or the five prayers...." mentioning many more cases [al-Qawl al-Fasl (pg. 102) of Shaykh Ismaa’eel al-Ansaaree]
A number of points can be seen here:
1.ibn Taymiyyah regards the mawlid as a bid’ah which the strict believer is not allowed to follow.
2.he allows it only for those who would leave this bid’ah for a greater bid’ah.
3.he states that those practicing this, either out of taqleed or ijtihaad, will get reward for their good intentions, but they will get no reward for their practicing it.
4.that they will not get the burden of the sin of the innovation if their taqleed of ijtihaad contains the excuses that would life this from them.
[al-Qawl al-Fasl (pg. 102) of Shaykh Ismaa'eel al-Ansaaree]

You said

They don't know that Ibn Taymiyyah spoke with the uptmost approbation of Imam al-Junayd, Sari al-Saqati, Hasan al-Basri, Fudayl ibn 'Iyad, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah al-Tustari and those like them. Most won't even admit that these people were Sufis.

aiyna daleel.

as for them being sufi, this is an utmost deception (intentionally or not and husn adhaan is in unintentional) because the formulation of this pantheistic beleif of the sufis did not come into place until after the first three generations of muslims. This is why the ulema have classified sufiyyah into categories and the sufiyyah of these men is the sufiyyah of the salafu saalih, the salafees, not the sufiyyah practice by the people of bidatun-dhalaah

Ibn Rajab even more so, who the most staunch anti-tasawwuf Salafi have admitted that he was a Sufi. And let us not even mention Imam Shawkani, who despite his views on taqlid, agreed with one of the four madhhabs in nearly everything, including tawassul through the Prophet and the number of raka's for tarawih. Even much of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's opinions in fiqh appeared to be distorted. He was a full-fledged Hanbali in the recesnion of Ibn Taymiyyah.

again all proofs to rebut your ouwn claims throuhg your own words.

This is even more ample proof, after my other posts regarding the statements of the salafee scholars in the acceptance of adopting one of the four madhaahib. So I dont see where people get thisclaim that salafees call for total abandonement of adopting of the madhaahib.

Bin Baz claimed the rank of ijtihad. Ibn 'Uthaymin admits to being a follower of the Hanbali madhhab, but deviates from the school on issues that he disagrees with, i.e. he claimed the rank of al-tarjih. Nasrideen al-Albaani never had a madhhab. His father was Hanafi, not he, and it is not true that he was Shafi'i. He studied hadith on his own and extracted his fiqh from what he undesrtood.

So did uthaymeen, which was why he was accetped in al-hayaatul-kibaar fi lajnahti-da'imah as no one enters into the lajnaa accept that he is a mujtahid Imaam.
Naasiru-Deen was originally hanafi. And then he was shafi'ee. How was he not shafi'ee.

as for his studies

Of course his first teacher was his father, the hanfee scholar, al-Hajj Nuh, and he also studied with Sa'eed al-Burhanee

Shaikh Muhammad Raaghib At-Tabbaakh, the historian and Muhaddith of Halab (Aleppo), authorized him with an Ijaazah (certification) to teach his collection of narrations on trustworthy reporters, called "Al-Anwaar Al-Jaliyyah fee Mukhtasar Al-Athbaat Al-Halabiyyah." This happened when he saw the Shaikh's intelligence and extraordinary abilities and his brightness in comprehending and understanding, as well as his strong desire to learn the Islamic sciences and the knowledge of Hadeeth.

All of the greatest of the ulema that have existed in our time all devoted to the mere and open fact that he was the mujadid, the reviver of the sunnah of our times, by whom no one has reached or attained a level near his in knowledge.

I do not wish to get into a discussion about Shaykh Nasrideen, but suffice it to say that not all people consider him to be a mujaddid. I know people who have sat with him and studied under scholars who were intimate friends with his family in Jordan. Muqbil likewise did not follow a madhhab, but the vast majority of Salafis only know of him by name. Enough of this.

If the greatests ones of our time considered him to be so, then who is other than those who are less than the ulema that have spoken on this.

As for Muqbil I will find out what was his madhaab, as basically all the salafee ulema had one.

inshallah I end with this for now

asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

[Al-Boriqi]

I have to clarify more on this matter

Muhaddith is not Synonymous with Mujtahid

Memorization of hadith alone is not enough to permit ijtihad. Even so, the amount of hadith necessary for one to know is far beyond what one would need to memorize to be considered a muhaddith. When Imam Ahmad was asked, “How many hadiths does one need to have memorized before he is considered a faqih [i.e. mujtahid]?” He indicated that at least 400,000. One is considered a muhaddith/hafidh if one has memorized only 100,000. Hence, the scholars state that one of the biggest mistakes that have been made in this age, is that people have begun to take hadith scholars as faqihs. Sidi Ahmad al-Zarruq states in his Qawa’id at-Tasawwuf (Principles of Sufism) that the hadith scholar is not consulted in fiqh, unless he is known to be established in that field. Nor is the faqih consulted about a hadith, unless he is established there in. It is one thing to have memorized a hadith, and it is quite another to be able to use it proficiently. All sahih hadith are not acted upon, as I hope I have demonstrated above. Imam Shafi’i once said, “You [the scholars of hadith] are the pharmacists but we [the jurists] are the physicians.” Imam Ahmad himself stated, “How rare is fiqh among those who know hadith!” Sufyan Ibn ‘Uyana, another of the mujtahids of the Salaf said, “Hadith are a source of misguidance for everyone but the fuqaha.” And more importantly, as in narrated by Imams al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad from the Prophet in a mashhur hadith (nearly mutawatir), “It may be one carries understanding (fiqh) without being a person of understanding (faqîh).” And what is it that the one who carries understanding carries? It is quite clear from this hadith that the assertion that a muhaddith is necessarily a mujtahid, or faqih for that matter, is false. It is also clear from the aspect of common sense. As Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller has written,

This explaination serves as a misconstruence of affairs

1. Memorization of hadeeth is not synonymous to being a muhadith. So while I may learn 100 thousand ahadeeth, does not make me a muhadith. Rather what is accompanied into being a muhadith along with the memorzation of this are the essential and detialed sciences of azbaabul-nuzool, an-nasikh wa mansookh, to know the cases of hukaam to vary such as takhsees or taqyeed, skilled in usoolu-fiqh, and also the isnaad of those hadeeth, and also the statements of the fuqaha of the salaf and the ability to assess all the related statements by whcih comparisen could be brouhgt forth in order to arrive at what is most probable. This is the definition of what the muhadith is

So I have noticed how people get confused that by stating that Albanee memorised hadeeth, that that was merely his status wallahul-musta'an. In any sense, those who were mujtahids of this time aknowledges of him being the muhadith of the era, beyond their rank.
2. Another issue is that you stated based on the words fo the scholar, that the muhadith is one who memorises at least a 100 thousand hadeeth. First of all, this statemnt originated by Albanee, sorry to break your buble. On top of this the ulema have differed in regards to what actually consitutes a muhadith. Some of the ulema have considered a muhadith to be 40 thousand ahadeeths, some say 60 thousand. And Albanee held the harshest position of all the Imaams from the past and present, because he held it to be a hundred thousand, and he had accomplished this.

Likewise, they differed at what consituted a hafidh who is greater than the muhadith.

3. The faqih is the least of them. Every muhadith is a faqeeh by not vice versa. Every haafidh is a muhaith but not vice versa. But now it depends at the conditions of a faqih. Ahmad held the strongest position at what a faqih is. This does not mean that what they said is absolute or wahy from Allah. To prove this point, al-Albanee mentioned that no one is a muhadith unless he memorised at least 100 thousand ahadeeth. Yet Muqbil bin Hadee was one, Hamaad al-Ansaare was one, Badiu-Deen Shah as-Sindhi was one, Zubair Ali az-Za'ee is one, Ihsaan ilahi Dhaheer, Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd, S'ad al-Humayd by which all of them are from the contemporaries of Albanee.

and then to show you the descrepency in your actual words that you posted, ten above in the earlier post, you yourself posted that he claimed the rank of mujtahid. Of course he was due to his ijazaah from those over him (Muhammad ibn Ibraheem ali-Shaykh) from the mashaykh of the past and those of the mujtahid Imaams now who have affirmed this for him. Yet if he is a mujtahid Imaam, he did not have the amount of ahadeeth on par compared to al-Albanee.

as for the hadeth narrated by the uimaams regarding fiqh. I dont see how did you arrive at this understanding of this hadeeth due to it's wording. Especially amazing is that those whom you consider (and I) as mujtahid Imaams like Ibn Uyaina, did not have the knowledge of 400 thousand ahadeeeth. So according to Ahmad trhey were not mujtahid Imaams. This is why their generalizing on the issue is not absolute.
Likewise bukahree is not a mujtahid Imaam as he had known 300 thousand ahadeeth

These facts speak eloquently as to the role of hadith in the sharia in the eyes of these Imams, for whom it was not a matter of practicing either fiqh or hadith, as some Muslims seriously suggest today, but rather, the fiqh of hadith embodied in the traditional madhhabs which they followed. There would seem to be room for many of us to benefit from their example.

True, very true, but just like Ahmad ibn Hanbal said plainly if anyone deserved to have been followed, then it should have been Hasan al-Basri, Awza'ee, (I forgot the other one). So in the eyse of Ahmad, it is a degradement of ilm that the muslims would ascribe to thsoe after the greatest of the salaf form the likes of Sa'eed ibnu-Mussayyib, Ibn Jubair, an-Nakha'i, az-Zuhri, Ibn Sireen and their likes for those after them.

In other words, had knowledge of hadith alone been sufficient for ijtihad, why did the likes of these men bother following the fiqh methodology and/or rulings of another?

Like I said before, because you were on a incorrect assumptin that a muhadith is one who just memorises ahadeeth alone without the other qualifying tools that actually make one a muhadith. And to answer that, they felt that their fiqh was superior to theirs even though they were well enugh qualified of their own schools.

The idea was not used until Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad ‘Abdu began expounding their innovative philosophy.

yet we have

Imaam at-Tahawee rahimahullah said
"ONLY THE DISOBEDIENT AND MISGUIDED DOES TAQLEED." (Leesaan ul-Meezaan (1/280) Of Imaam Ibn Hajr al Asqalaanee.

SO according to your understanding, al-Afghanee went back into time and misguided Imaam at-Tahawee on his "innovative philosophy" so that the many other centuries of muslim Imaams before afghanee could propagte what he "innovated" Or that he went back into time to make ibn hajr write this in his bookl to relay it to the people that Tahawee said. I guess it would make some sense to one who is majnoon.

As for those who negate taqlid, whether in whole or in part; if they mean so in reference to the scholars, there is no disagreement, according to what I have related previously regarding the different classifications of ijtihad. Every scholar has the right, if not obligation,

Now we are briging a gap.

So yes, the mujtahid or scholar is free form the following of the madhaahib in arriving at a hukm. And the ignorant commoner, the miskeen juhaal like myself as the number one, then if you wish to call it taqleed then this is fine as I must submit to those who have preceded me on any given issue. However, The only reason why this is called following rather than taqleed, is because according to he definitions fo the Imaams above that taqleed means to follow without the proofs, then I say follwoing is mroe correct because the Imams like Shafi'ee, Ahmad, And others have stated, it is obligatory that the one who uses their stance on an issue know why or where he has gained such a hukm from, and seeking this knowlege does not require scholastic skil. You do not need to be a mujtahid to find out why Shafi'ee made a ruling on something. In fact at the very least, all you would really need is knowledge of the language. So inquiring into how or why they ruled on a matter brigns about certianty into follwoing by whcih removes the attribute of taqleed, since taqleed as classified by the imaams was to follow without proofs.

The taqlid that is unlawful is the taqlid in 'aqida.

Jumping jahosaphant, I cant beleive you made this statement. Finally I am agreed with in one matter.

(and I find this ironic coming from a people who support the Saudi regime, a group who locks up nearly any and every scholar that has the audacity to disagree or criticize them publically)

It is the right of the ruler to punish the khawarij like those takfeeris and the irhabiyeen. In fact the prophet actually commanded to seek them out and kill them. So in reality they have opposed Allah and His messneger in this ruling over killing the khawarij. And according to the aimah, those who speak out publicly are nothing but the khawarij

I find it odd that the same people who blamed the the Maliki and Hanafi schools for enjoying the favor of the politicians, have absolutely nothing to say about the Taymiyyan retention of the Hanbali madhhab being made the official state school of the Saudi Arabian kingdom.

All groups enjoyed the favor of certian governors or sultans. How in the world could you find this weird that a person merely aknowledges this fact of history. So what if I say that the third phase of the abbassi dynasty was enjoyed most by the shia, and of course he mamlukiyyah fatimiyyah. The sufis enjoyed a great deal of their golden age due to the deviation of the Uthmani khulafa. So what if one aknowledges this. How is this odd.And sicne you say, I haver two things to say about what you have escribed.

1. no scholar, no person of knowledge, no student of knowledge, not even the enemies of the sunnah have aknowledged, actyually no one, until know has ever classified what is in saudi as "taymiyyan retention of the hanbali madhaab". I almost fell out of my chair in utter laghter due to such a claim. The offical madhaab of the state is the madhaab of the salaf. So all four schools already enter into this.

2. This would mark the first time since Haroon Rasheed, that the power of the state actually strengthened the sunnah and its people and laid waste to the enemies of the sunnah. This is one major reason why so much of the dhalaa is so rampant in the muslim world today as they had left the manhajul-anbiyyah.

So you will find similarities between the madhhab of Sufyan al-Thawri, Hasan al-Basri, Imam al-'Awzai and Tabari with what has been established from Imam Ahmad's school.

This is a twist of reality.
Hasan al-basri haddied before the birth of Ahmad. Likewise Sufyaan ath-Thawriand al-Awza'ee had died before ahmad was even born. This is the problem with speaking without the knowledge fo the affairs
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, born in 164 hijrah and died in 241 hijrah
Thawri died in 161 hijrah, three years before the birth of Ahmad
basri, died years before the death of Thawri.
Likewise al-Awza'ee dies in 157 hijrah, 7 years before Ahmad was born. So how on earth did they follow the madhaab of Ahmad.

usman

Assalamualaykum bro al-Izaaree,

I going more confuse. i dun wan offense my bro in Islam, but taqleed is teached by my ustaz. I am born in Kelantan, malaysia, but studying engineering in new place. Our state is Islamic state in Malaysia. Do it mean my ustaz, my friend, my mother, my father, all is 'blind follower'?

I am fear for my religion.

No, allahu alim. Im not a faqeeh, but learning from a shaykh is not taqleed akhee

asalamu alaikum

[Al-Boriqi]

.

[lumumba_s]

As'salamu 'alaykum,

I regret writing beyond my original two posts. It was my hope that my replies to would not be a cause of distraction, but it seems that they have. So very briefly.

I don't know what that tangent was for. You quoted several scholars condemned taqlid and then had an entire section on the necessity of taqlid for the one who is unable to make ijtihad.

"However, I believe that to generalise about the common folk by saying that they all must perform taqleed is invalid. Taqleed is to follow others without evidence. Many intelligent people can clearly understand evidence if it is presented to them. Who can deny that a common person can understand the evidence contained in the hadeeth, "Tayammum is one strike (of the hands on the dust) for the face and hands"? Even people lacking intelligence can understand this hadeeth."

I agree whole heartedly, but one point must be made that I don't believe you have understood from me correctly. The establishment of that soundness of that hadith for all but the scholars of hadith is by way of taqlid. Hence, the muqallid makes taqlid to the school and he makes taqlid to the evidence. What I am referring to the the differences of opinion, not things established by tawatir or ijma'. Imam Zaid mentioned in the lecture I linked that in one of the books of tafsir includes an eight pages discussion on the meaning and implications of a single word. The commoner is unable to approach that. Hence, even if the muqallid becomes aware of the proofs, it does not have the capability to make tarjih and discern between the "weak" and the "strong", as the vast majority of the time, especially in 'ibada the differences that the schools have retained are the differences established from the Companions. Is it your assertion that a layman has the capability to state that Aisha was wrong, but Ibn Masud was correct?

Regarding the muhaddith, it is another case of differing definitions. And to suggest that there is an agreement upon Nasrideen al-Albaani as being a mujtahid is fanatacism. Go to Syria, make that statement and see for yourself.

Ibn Taymiyya stated, in his opinion, that tasawwuf began in the circles of al-Hasan al-Basri. Obviously, he considered him a Sufi. If you don't consider Imam al-Junayd, who has the offical title as Imam al-Sufiyya, his uncle, Sari al-Saqati, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah and the others of the Salaf as being Sufis, you are in denial.

Do you not see how blatantly you contradict yourself whe you state, in response to my statement that taqlid is obligatory for the one who cannot make ijtihad:

Incorrect according to the statements of the Imaams above.
As for that understanding of taqleed, there are over a handful of greater scholars then the ones you quoted centuries before them who have deemed taqleed to be as such which was brouhgt by me above. So I dont know where in Islam did you aquire such a claim.

But then quote yourself,

l-Alamaah al-Imaamu-Zaahid al-Faqeeh, Muhammad ibnu-Saalih al-Uthaymeen rahimahullahsaid concering this issue as to its permissibility is that
Taqleed is done in two cases:
1) when the muqallid is an 'aamee (a common person) who does not have the ability to aquire knowledge of the sharee'ah ruling by himself. So taqleed is obligatory upon him, due to the saying of Allaah - The Most High, "ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." So he does taqleed of one whom he considers to be a person of knowledge and piety. If there are two such people who are equal in his view, then he chooses any one of them.

There is more I could say, but what is the point? My position is the original two post. I feared the discussion would get side tracked indeed it has. It hasn't even been a day yet and we are already arguing. My explanation of the rationale and understanding of following qualified scholarship are my first two original post and the fatwa from Murbat al-Hajj in its totality. Please refer to them. I am fully content with my taqlid.

I have said all that I have wanted to say. I defer to what I quoted from Abu Hamid al-Ghazali previously.

As'salamu 'alaykum rahmatulllahi wa barakatu.