> All about following a Madhab and taqleed

[salman]

:

Purpose of this discussion is to educate ourselves about the correct methodology of following a madhab or making taqleed of a madhab. Some say it is fard/wajib (obligatory) on everyone to follow a madhab; whereas others may say we should follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) and shouldn't blindly follow any of the four madahab. So, we need to learn about the correct view and adhere to it, insha'Allah.

There are four categories of people among the Muslim 'ummah.

1 - An a'alim (scholar) who has reached the level of ijtihad
2 - An a'alim who is knowledgable but not yet have reached the level of ijtihad
3 - A talib a'ilm (student of knowldge)
4 - An a'ami (layman)

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan (May Allah bless him) said:

People fall into four categories:

The first category is those who are able to made ijtihad in absolute terms, by referring directly to the Qur'an and Sunnah and deriving rulings from them, and they do not follow any other scholars (taqleed).

This is the highest status, but this only applies to the one who fulfils the known conditions of ijtihaad, by having knowledge of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and by having knowledge of Arabic in which the Qur'an was revealed, and by having knowledge of al-muhkam and al-mutashaabih (clear, unambiguous texts and ambiguous texts), al-naasikh wa'l-mansookh (texts which abrogate others and texts which are abrogated), al-mutlaq wa'l-muqayyad (texts with absolute meanings and texts with limited meanings), al-khaas wa'l-'aam (texts with specific meanings and texts with general meanings). He should also have knowledge of how to derive rulings, meaning that he should be qualified. Such a person may engage in ijtihaad. This category includes people like the four imams � Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafa'i and Ahmad � as well as Sufyaan al-Thawri and al-Awzaa'i. To these people Allah gave the ability to engage in ijtihaad.

The second category is those who cannot engage in ijtihaad in absolute terms, but they are able to weigh up the opinions of scholars and determine which is more correct, because of their knowledge of which opinions are based on evidence and which are not.

Such a person must follow that for which there is evidence, and shun that which goes against the evidence. This action is called tarjeeh (weighing up what is more correct) and is also known as al-ijtihaad al-madhhabi (ijtihaad based on the study of different views).

The third category is those who cannot engage in tarjeeh. Such a person is regarded as one of the muqallideen (those who follow other scholars), but if he knows that some opinion has no supporting evidence then he does not follow it. But so long as he does not know and it is not clear to him that it is contrary to the evidence, there is nothing wrong with him imitating and following the opinions of the trustworthy scholars.

The fourth category is the one who is unable to do any of the above; neither ijtihaad in an absolute sense nor weighing what is more correct nor following a specific madhhab, such as the ordinary Muslim, for example.

Such a person has to ask the people of knowledge, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): "So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not" [al-Nahl 16:43]. So he should ask the one who be believes is most trustworthy and the scholar in whom he has the greatest confidence, of those whose knowledge and actions he trusts, and follow his fatwa.

Most of the confusions arises for the people who fall under the fourth category, the layman. For them it is clear that they should ask the people of knowledge, the 'ulama. It is obligatory upon them to ask a trustworthy imam or mufti, who is upon the correct 'aqeedah. They can ask multiple muftis or imams, who they consider trustworthy. There're three different views regarding layman following a particular madhab:

1 - A layman has no madhab (view of the majority of the 'ulama)

2 - It is obligatory upon a layman to follow a madhab (view of the minority of the 'ulama)

3 - It is obligatory upon layman to make ijtihad or directly follow Sunnah (view of the minority of the 'ulama)

Articles on our stance towards the differences amongst the scholars can be found here and here

Article on whether it is obligatory to follow one of the four madhaahib can be found here

Article on difference between groups and fiqhi madhaahib can be found here

Detail explanation regarding this issue to common questions can be found here

One may also refer to Who are Ahle al-Hadith and the saved Sect?

wAllahu A'lam (and Allah knows best)

[salman]

The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman has No Madhab

Brother Abuz Zubair of Islamic-Awakening has shared very useful notes:

Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair

This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi'i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi'i - said: "The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi'i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him"

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: "What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes."

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi'i says in his al-Tahqiqat, "The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu' al-rukhas)."

Mulla 'Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma'sumi): "It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi'i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr."

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma'sumi): "Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab."

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as 'Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that this is the correct opinion. He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: "It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it."

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu', mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi'is, saying: "It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion". Al-Mardawi comments: "And this is the correct opinion".

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: "A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab�"

Ibn al-Qayyim says: "This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others."

Ibn Taymiyah says: "If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah's and His Messenger's Shari'ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says" - to his words - "For one to follow someone's Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar'i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar' through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited."

He also says: "There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi'i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed."

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as 'the migrant for Umm Qais', who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet said: "Indeed actions are based on intentions�". As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger.

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah's ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:

By 'devising opinions' (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi'i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi'is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi'is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini's book "'Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq".

Following allowances (Tatabbu' al-Rukhas) is for a person to "pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself", as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi'i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: "If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut'ah), he would be considered a Fasiq". Sulayman al-Taimi said: "If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you".

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi'is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: "Ibn 'Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma') on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others". Although the consensus mentioned by ibn 'Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: "Tatabbu' al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara'i) which would absolve one of their Shar'i responsibility."

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu' al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu'ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu' 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I'lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam� 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

Source

[salman]

The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Follow a Madhab

continuing with brother Abuz Zubair's notes:

Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair

This is a minority opinion from the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and a weak opinion, unworthy of being followed, due to the following reasons:

a) There is absolutely no evidence from the sources of Islam - the Qur'an, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma') and analogy (qiyas) - nor a statement from one of the four Imams in support of this position.

Ibn al-Qayyim says: "This is an ugly innovation, which was never claimed by anyone of the Imams of Islam, while they are the most high in ranking, and most respected, and the most knowledgeable of Allah and His Messenger to oblige the people with that."

b) The only argument used by these scholars is the principle of 'blocking the means' (Sadd al-Dhara'i) for the layman to pick and choose whatever he likes from opinions, and thereby, freeing himself from Shari' responsibilities, resulting in chaos. However, the one who looks at this issue justly, realises that this is merely a case of extending Sadd al-Dhara'i beyond that which is necessary, like for one to prohibit the growing of grapes, in case people use it to make wine. Moreover, the Hanafis and Shafi'is - if they do not deny its use altogether - are extremely lenient in applying this principle, so how can they use this as a support for their position. On the other hand, most of those who do not oblige the layman, with that which Allah did not oblige him, explicitly forbid a layman from seeking and following allowances. Moreover, following allowances is as much applicable to a Mujtahid as it is to a layman, as is apparent from the opinion of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (see footnote #52) and therefore, obliging the layman alone with adherence to a Madhab is not a solution to the problem.

c) This opinion necessitates that a person may only ask a Mufti of his own Madhab, even if the Mufti of a different Madhab is more knowledgeable and pious, and the truth lies with him. This also makes unnecessary restrictions on the Mustafti and causes him unnecessary hardship.

Ibn Taymiyah says: "Sticking to a Madhab necessitates obedience of other than the Prophet in all that he commands and forbids, and that is opposed to consensus (Ijma')."

Ibn al-Qayyim says: "This opinion necessitates the prohibition of asking the scholars of Madhabs different to his, as it equally necessitates the prohibition of adhering to a Madhab similar to, or better than, that of his Imam, as well as other things that this approach entails, the invalidity of which points to the invalidity of the opinion itself. In fact, it necessitates that if he sees a text from the Messenger of Allah or an opinion of the four Caliphs, aiding someone other than his Imam, that he should abandon the text and the opinions of the Companions, and give precedence to the one to whom he attributes himself."

d) Those who oblige the layman with Taqleed of a Madhab say that he must make Ijtihad in choosing a Madhab and then follow it. Moreover, Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi from the Shafi'is and Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbalis say that the layman should not simply pick and choose a Madhab as he wishes, nor should he incline to the Madhab of his fore fathers. Undoubtedly, this opinion obliges something on a layman which he is unable to accomplish, since, for a layman to be capable of comparing between Madhabs requires him to possess knowledge of the principles of each Madhab, as well as some background information on its founder, his companions, some of the major books, and generally how close each of the Madhabs are to the revelation, and this, as is apparent, is obliging the Muqallid with that which is far beyond his capacity. Moreover, a layman must also look at the Madhab predominantly followed in his land; for if a layman decides to make Taqleed of the Hanbali Madhab, because he believes it closest to the truth, whilst he is a resident in a country which is predominantly Hanafi, then his 'Ijtihad' in finding the most suitable Madhab will be pointless. Surely, the difficulty and inappropriateness of this methodology is only too obvious, as well as it being a divergence from what the layman is required to learn from the basics of the five pillars, to that which is of no benefit to him in this world or the next.

e) From the evil consequences of obliging the layman to compare between Madhabs is the spread of sectarianism and fanaticism in adherence to a Madhab. One cannot but notice sectarianism amongst the scholars who oblige the layman to make Taqleed of one of the Madhabs. Hence, Ibn al-Salah al-Shafi'i, while discussing this issue, claims to simplify the process of choosing the right Madhab, by arguing that because al-Shafi'i came after the great Imams like Abu Hanifah, Malik and others, he was able to look into their opinions, compare and evaluate, nor was he followed by someone else of his calibre; therefore, it follows that his Madhab is more worthy of being followed. Then came al-Nawawi, who summarised the work of Ibn al-Salah and included it in his Majmu', using Ibn al-Salah's argument in preferring the Shafi'i Madhab. Then came Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali, who relied much on Ibn al-Salah and al-Nawawi's work, except that he replaced 'al-Shafi'i' with 'Ahmad ibn Hanbal', and further refuted the Shafi'is in their preference of the Shafi'i Madhab over other Madhabs, arguing that since Ahmad was the last of the Imams, he was able to investigate into the opinions of Abu Hanifah, Malik as well as al-Shafi'i, and then compare and evaluate them; and since there is none after Ahmad of his calibre, it follows that Ahmad's Madhab is the most worthy of being followed!

Whereas the truth, as Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiya said, is that: "Most of the people speak out of conjecture and what the hearts desire, for they do not know the reality of the levels of Imams and Sheikhs, nor do they intend to follow the truth completely; rather, everyone's heart desires that he favours the one he follows, and so he prefers him (over other Imams) based on conjecture, even if he has no proof for that. Sometimes, it may even lead to quarrelling, fighting and disunity, which is something Allah and His Messenger prohibited."

Indeed, it led to wars amongst the Hanafis and the Shafi'is in Asfahan that resulted in the burning and destruction of the city as reported in Mu'jam al-Buldan 1/209. Hanafis and Shafi'is are known for their rivalry throughout Islamic history. It was their fanaticism, which lead some of Hanafis to say: "It is allowed for a Hanafi to marry a Shafi'i woman, but it is not allowed for a Shafi'i to marry a Hanafi woman. We regard them to be like the people of the Book". Another fanatic, who was a Hanafi, saw in a dream that the Shafi'is will enter paradise before the Hanafis, so he became a Shafi'i. Even Imams such as al-Juwaini, wrote a book insulting the Hanafi Madhab and obliging everyone to follow the Shafi'i Madhab, which al-Kawthari - the "Abu Hanifah fanatic" � rebutted, insulting the Shafi'i Madhab; indeed, in some books, he went further than that and would even cast doubt on his lineage (as he did in his Ta'neeb), while the Prophet explicitly considered such behaviour to be from the acts of Jahiliyah!

Amongst the examples Hanafi fanaticism is what Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506) said: "If I had the authority, I would have charged Jizya on the Shafi'is". Some Hanafis fanatics even claimed that 'Isa - peace be upon him - would rule according to the Hanafi Madhab upon his return. Another one of them claimed that al-Khidr would attend the lessons of Abu Hanifah in the mornings, and after his death, he would go to Abu Hanifah's grave to continue his lessons. Another one of them claimed that Allah called out to Abu Hanifah and said: "You and all those adhering to your Madhab are forgiven"!

Amongst the signs of such fanaticism in the ranks of the Shafi'is is what al-Nawawi reported from al-Isfara'ini, that a Shafi'i may not pray behind a Hanafi, due to the Hanafis not fulfilling the conditions of Wudu as affirmed by the Shafi'is. Another Shafi'i, al-Subki, claims that Allah told him to adhere to the Madhab of al-Shafi'i in his dream.

Indeed, it was due to obliging every layman to adhere to a Madhab that once a Sunni Iran, was turned into a Shiite Iran, when the Iranian ruler, Kharabandah ordered the Iranians to adhere to the Shiite Madhab.

If this is the condition of the learned men amongst the jurists, then what is expected of the layman? Therefore, if the principle of Sadd al-Dhara'i is to be applied, then surely it is more worthy of being applied here, in order to prevent internal conflicts between Madhabs and for the promotion of unity.

f) A layman cannot be attributed to a Madhab, because a person's attribution to the Madhab must be based on reasonable links between a person and the Madhab. However, in reality, it is quite common for the layman to not even know the founder of the Madhab he might be attributing himself to, and therefore, such attribution is deemed senseless. Adherence to a Madhab is for those who take up the path of education by gradually learning the books of a Madhab, knowing the evidences and the methodology of deducing rulings according to the principles of a Madhab. As for attributing an ignorant layman to a Madhab, then that is nothing but oppression on that Madhab; for in how many instances, a person who claims to be following certain Madhab, is clueless about the opinions of the Madhab with regards to the basics of ritual purification (Taharah) and prayer. Furthermore, many laymen are, in fact, following their culture, while believing they are following their Madhab. Indeed, many of those who may attribute themselves to a Madhab, might not even be Muslims, if they are those who are drowned in sins that amount to Kufr or Shirk! So from what angle or perspective, or from what justice should a layman be regarded an adherent to any Madhab?

Ibn al-Humam says in his Tahrir (as reported by al-Ma'sumi): "�majority of the Muqallids say: I am a Hanafi, or a Shafi'i, while having no knowledge about the path of his Imam, hence, he does not become so by merely a claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or an author; he does not become as such, by merely a claim, whilst he is far distant from the life of his Imam. Therefore, how can such attribution be valid, by merely a claim, and futile speech without any meaning?!"

Ibn al-Qayyim says: "A layman cannot have a Madhab even if he adheres to one, for the layman has no Madhab. This is because the Madhab is only for the one who has some insight and a way of deducing rulings, who also has insight into Madhabs befitting his level, or the one who studies a book in the applied Fiqh of that Madhab, and knows the verdicts of his Imam and his sayings. As for the one who has not accomplished any of that, yet says: I am a Shafi'i or a Hanbali, or other than that, then he does not become that merely by his claim. This is as if he were to say: I am a jurist, or a grammarian, or an author, he does not become one merely by a claim.

What makes it clearer is that the one, who says he is Shafi'i or a Maliki, or a Hanafi, actually claims that he is the follower of that Imam, adhering to his way. This can only be true for him if he were to tread his path in knowledge, understanding and deduction. As for one who is ignorant and distant from the life of the Imam, his knowledge and his path, how can his attribution to him be correct, with merely a claim, and futile speech in every sense?"

Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab's Position:

There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book 'al-Radd 'ala Man Ittaba'a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba'ah' (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion.

Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a "Mujtahid" in his Dha'il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion.

(See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu'ah 20/161, Mawsu'at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I'lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)

Source

[salman]

The Opinion of the Minority: The Layman is Obliged to Make Ijtihad

continuing with brother Abuz Zubari's notes

Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair

Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: "It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it"; or that of Malik: "I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it"; or that of al-Shafi'i: "If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah and leave what I said"; or that of Ahmad: "Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi'i, nor al-Awza'i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took".

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: "[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu 'Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus'ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), 'Uthman ibn Sa'id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur'ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah."

Source

[salman]

Our Stance Towards the Differences Amongst the Scholars

by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Uthaymeen

As I mentioned in the beginning, due to the many forms of media: audio, visual and written material and due to the differences amongst the scholars or those who speak across this media, the general masses have become dubious, and question: "Who do we follow?"

'The gazelles have gathered in great numbers around Khirash to the extent that Khirash no longer knows which to hunt.' [1]

I say therefore, our stance towards this differing, and I mean the differing between the scholars who are well trusted for their knowledge and religion, not those who have been classified as being upon knowledge but are not in fact from the people of knowledge. As we do not regard the likes of such as scholars, nor do we hold that their statements are to be known and recorded like the statements of the people of knowledge.

But who we mean, are the scholars who are well known for their sincere advise to the ummah, for their Islaam and knowledge; our stance towards them is from two angles.

The first: How did these scholars go against what the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger instruct?

The answer to this question can be known in part by what has preceded of the causes for differing and also by the other many causes not mentioned, which the student of knowledge will come across and come to realize even if he is not very knowledgeable.[2]

The second: What is our stance towards following them? Whom do we follow from amongst these scholars? Does one follows a particular Imaam and never leave his saying? Even if the correct opinion is with another scholar, as is the norm with the blind followers of the madhhabs. Or does one follow the opinion which he believes is the most accurate, even if it is against the opinions of the madhhab which he attributes himself to?
The correct answer is the second, as it is compulsory upon the one who is aware of the evidence to follow it, even if it goes against whomsoever of the scholars, so long as it does not go against a consensus of the ummah.

Whoever believers that it is obligatory to follow the sayings of someone other than the Messenger of Allaah, acting by what he orders and refraining from what the prohibits, at all times and places, has indeed affirmed for this person qualities unique and solely for the bearer of the Message, because no one's statement can posses this unequivocal right except that of the Messenger of Allaah's. Everyone's opinions is either accepted or rejected, except that of the Messenger of Allaah.

But the issue still remains unresolved, because we still question: "Who has the capability to extract the rulings from the texts?" Here, lies a problem, because everyone is now stating: "I am capable of that!" This, in reality, is not correct nor befitting. Indeed, in terms of the objective and basis, it is a good thing for one's guiding principle to be the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger; but to open the door for anyone who can mention the evidence, even if he does not understand its meaning or implication, and to say: "You are a mujtahid, say what you desire"; this will cause the ruin of the Sharee'ah, people and society.

In this respect, people are placed in one of three categories:
(i) The scholar whom Allaah has given the knowledge and understanding.
(ii) The student of knowledge who has some knowledge, but has not yet reached the level of the scholar.
(iii) The layman who does not know anything.

As for the first, then he has the right to perform ijtihaad and to give his opinion. In fact, it is compulsory for him to express that which he believes the texts indicate regardless of whom he opposes, because he has been ordered to do so. Allaah says,
"...those amongst them who have the ability to extract it's ruling who have understood it directly from them..." [3]

The person in his category is from those who are able to extract rulings, who know the intended meaning behind the Speech of Allaah and His Messenger.

As for the second, who Allah has given knowledge but has not yet reached the level of the first. Then there is no harm on him to act by the general evidences, their apparent meanings and by that which he becomes aware of [4]. However, he must be very careful in this and he should never fall short in asking those more knowledgeable than him from amongst the people of knowledge. As he can fall into error and his knowledge may not embody a particular evidence which makes specific what seems to be a general text, or which restricts what seems to be an unrestricted text, or which abrogates a text that he regards to be valid.

As for the third, he is the one who does not have any knowledge; it is compulsory upon him to ask the people of knowledge as Allaah says,

"...so ask the people of the scriptures if you do not know." [5]
and in another verse He says,

"...so ask the people of the scriptures if you do not know, of the clear signs and books..." [6]

So his duty is to ask, but who does he ask? In the land are many scholars and everyone says 'So and so is a scholar' or it is said about everyone: 'He is a scholar'. So, who does he ask?

Do we say: "It is obligatory on this person to search and investigate in order to find the one closest to the correct opinion, so that he asks him and acts by his ruling." or do we say: "He is to ask anyone whom he believes to be from the people of knowledge, since, the scholar who is less knowledgeable may arrive to the correct decision in a specific issue and the scholar who is better and more knowledgeable than the former may not" - the scholars differed on this:

A group of the scholars are of the opinion that it is compulsory for the layman to ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in this knowledge from amongst the scholars in his country; because, just as the person who is sick, looks for the most competent person in the field of medicine, then the same applies here, as knowledge is the remedy for the hearts. Accordingly, you must choose the most competent i knowledge as there is no difference.

Other scholars hold the view that it is not compulsory because the one who is the most knowledgeable may not be so in every single issue and this opinion is supported by the fact that at the time of the Companions people would ask one who was less knowledgeable than others who were also present.

My view is that he should ask the one whom he believes to be the most competent in his religion and knowledge. Not because it is compulsory, due to the possibility of this scholar making an error in a specific issue and the possibility of the one who is less knowledgeable to be correct, but because it is preferable and should be the person's first choice.

Source

[salman]

I was going over youtube video on this issue and totally forgot that I left this thread half way, so insha'Allah, I will add some beneficial material. Here is another good post by brother Abuz Zubair

Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair

He should chose a madhab to study, not due to usul, but due to fiqh itself. Usul, you can pretty much study from any madhabs.

There are some opinions that not only the scholars criticised, but actually fiercely attacked, such as those who allow the drinking of wine, riba al-fadhl, music, etc. These are the opinions a person should stay away from. These are called the genuine errors, or slips of the scholars.

Depends. If the issue is of difference of opinion, and you do not know which of the opinion is or is not right, then yes, you can conveniently say to the brother: ‘thank you’, and move on.

But if you know of no difference over an opinion, but it is in fact something very new to you; for instance, you do not know whether or not to drink while standing up, and someone tells you of a hadeeth, then you should act on the hadeeth.

Your excuse for not acting on the hadeeth is only when you know that there exists another opinion, and therefore, the issue involves more than just a hadeeth.

Don’t forget the golden rule of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam: Ask your heart, even if they give you fatwa after a fatwa.

If you feel in your heart that the scholar who quoted to you the hadeeth has a stronger argument, then you should follow his fatwa. If, for some reason, you do not trust him with respect to his knowledge of hadeeth and fiqh, then you should simply put your trust in the scholar you think is more knowledge and has more taqwa.

Yes, fatwa is not binding upon a person, so you can easily go to the other Shaykh and mention to him the hadeeth.

If the Shaykh thinks you are intellectually able to handle a fiqhi discussion, then he may decide to discuss with you. Otherwise, he is under no obligation to give you a detailed response, and likewise, you are under no obligation to follow all of his fatwas. You follow the fatwa of them one you feel your heart is settled on.

The bottom line is, so long as you have done your job – i.e. asked a qualified mufti, you are free in the sight of Allah. (meaning, in Allah’s judgement, not that Allah does NOT have a sight!)

There is nothing wrong with that, but you will make your life difficult for no reason. Imagine, if you are travelling from city to city, and you have decided to stick to the hanbali madhab, what if you cannot locate a Hanbali mufti? What would you do? Why go down that wrote anyway, when your obligation is simpler, just ask any mufti.

So following Hanafi opinion with respect to touching a woman, and shafi’i opinion with respect to placing the hands between your chest and the navel (and not on the chest), would cause catastrophe? How is that?

Source and more clarification here and here and an answer to blind taqleed in issues of tawheed here

[salman]

Is it obligatory to follow a particular madhhab?

Originally Posted by Islamqa

Question: Is it mandatory for a muslim to follow a specific madhab (maliki, hanafi, hanbali,etc)? If it is so, what madhab is the best? Is it true that Abou Hanifa's madhab is the most followed in the muslim world?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

It is not obligatory for a Muslim to follow any particular madhhab among these four. People vary in their level of understanding and ability to derive rulings from the evidence. There are some for whom it is permissible to follow (taqleed), and indeed it may be obligatory in their case. There are others who can only follow the shar’i evidence. In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah this question was answered in a detailed manner, which is worth quoting here in full.

Question:

What is the ruling on following one of the four madhhabs in all cases and situations?

The Committee replied:

Praise be to Allaah, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

Firstly: the four madhhabs are named after the four imams – Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik, Imam al-Shaafa’i and Imam Ahmad.

Secondly: These imams learned fiqh (jurisprudence) from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they are mujtahideen in this regard. The mujtahid either gets it right, in which case he will have two rewards, the reward for his ijtihaad and the reward for getting it right, or he will get it wrong, in which case he will be rewarded for his ijtihaad and will be forgiven for his mistake.

Thirdly: the one who is able to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah should take from them like those who came before him; it is not right for him to follow blindly (taqleed) when he is believes that the truth lies elsewhere. Rather he should follow that which he believes is the truth. It is permissible for him to follow in matters in which he is unable to come to a conclusion based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah and he needs guidelines concerning a particular issue.

Fourthly: Whoever does not have the ability to derive rulings himself is permitted to follow one whom he feels comfortable following. If he is not comfortable following him then he should ask until he finds someone with whom he is comfortable.

Fifthly: From the above it is clear that we should not follow their opinions in all situations and at all times, because they may make mistakes, but we may follow their views that are sound and are based on the evidence.

Fataawa al-Lajnah, 5/28

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah, no. 3323:

Whoever is qualified to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and has strong knowledge in that regard, even if that is with the help of the legacy of fiqh that we have inherited from earlier scholars of Islam, has the right to do that, so he can act upon it himself and explain it in disputes and issue fatwas to those who consult him. Whoever is not qualified to do that has to ask trustworthy people who so that he may learn the rulings from their books and act upon that, without limiting his asking or his reading to one of the scholars of the four madhhabs. Rather people refer to the four imams because they are so well known and their books are well written and widely available.

Whoever says that it is obligatory for the learned people to follow the scholars blindly in all cases is making a mistake and being inflexible, and is thinking that these learned people are inadequate, and he is restricting something that is broad in scope.

Whoever says that we should limit following to the four madhhabs is also mistaken, because he is restricting something that is broad in scope with no evidence for doing so. With regard to the common (i.e., uneducated) man there is no difference between the four imams and others such as al-Layth ibn Sa’d, al-Awzaa’i and other fuqaha’.

Fataawa al-Lajnah, 5/41

It says in Fatwa no. 1591:

None of them called people to follow his madhhab, or was partisan in following it, or obliged anyone else to act in accordance with it or with a specific madhhab. Rather they used to call people to follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they would comment on the texts of Islam, and explain its basic principles and discuss minor issues according to general guidelines, and issue fatwas concerning what people asked about, without obliging any of their students or anyone else to follow their views. Rather they criticized those who did that and said that their opinions should be cast aside if they went against a saheeh hadeeth. One of them said: “If the hadeeth is saheeh then that is my madhhab.” May Allaah have mercy on them all.

It is not obligatory for anyone to follow a particular madhhab, rather we should strive to learn the truth if possible, or to seek the help of Allaah in doing so, then to rely on the legacy that the earlier Muslim scholars left behind for those who came after them, thus making it easier for them to understand and apply the texts. Whoever cannot derive rulings from the texts etc for some reason that prevents him from doing so should ask trustworthy scholars for whatever rulings of sharee’ah he needs, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So ask the people of the Reminder [Scriptures — the Tawraat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel)] if you do not know”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:7]

So he has to strive to ask one whom he trusts among those who are well known for their knowledge, virtue, piety and righteousness.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/56

The madhhab of Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) is the most widespread madhhab among the Muslims, and perhaps one of the reasons for that is that the Ottoman caliphs followed this madhhab and they ruled the Muslim lands for more than six centuries. That does not mean that the madhhab of Abu Haneefah is the most sound madhhab or that every ijtihaad in it is correct, rather like other madhhabs it contains some things that are correct and some that are incorrect. What the believer must do is to follow the truth and what is correct, regardless of who says it.

And Allaah knows best.

Source and another one: Should every country be obliged to follow a particular madhhab (school of thought)?

[salman]

Our attitude towards differences among the scholars

By Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid

Praise be to Allaah.

Before answering this important question, we must first describe the conditions that must be met by the mufti so that he may be regarded as one of the people of knowledge whose words count and if he expresses a different view we may then say that there is indeed a difference of opinion among the scholars. There are many such conditions, which ultimately boil down to two:

1 – Knowledge, because the mufti will be telling people about the rulings of Allaah, and he cannot speak of the rulings of Allaah if he is ignorant of them.

2 – Soundness of character, i.e., he is righteous in all his affairs, he fears Allaah and he keeps away from anything that may undermine his credibility. The scholars are agreed that a fatwa cannot be accepted from one who is immoral, even if he is knowledgeable. This was clearly stated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi.

Whoever meets these two conditions is a scholar whose words may be accepted, but whoever does not meet these conditions is not one of the people of knowledge whose words may be accepted. The words of one who is known to be ignorant or who is known not to be of good character cannot be accepted.

Al-Khilaaf bayna al-‘Ulama’ Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu, by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p. 23

What is the Muslim’s attitude towards the differences of the scholars described above?

If the Muslim has enough knowledge to enable him to compare the views of the scholars based on the evidence and to decide which is more likely to be correct, and he can tell what is more correct and more likely to be correct, then he must do that, because Allaah has commanded us to refer disputed matters to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination”[al-Nisa’ 4:59]

So he should refer the disputed matter to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and whatever appears to him to be more correct, based on the evidence, is what he should follow, because what is obligatory is to follow the evidence, and he may refer to the words of the scholars to help him understand the evidence.

But if the Muslim does not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to decide which of the scholarly opinions is more likely to be correct, then he should ask the people of knowledge whose knowledge and religious commitment he trusts and then follow the advice or fatwas they give. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:43]

The scholars have stated that the madhhab of the common man is the madhhab of his mufti.

If their opinions differ, then he should follow the one who is most trustworthy and most knowledgeable. This is like when a person falls sick – may Allaah give us all good health – and he looks for the most trustworthy and knowledgeable doctor so that he can go to him, because he is most likely to give him the right treatment than anyone else. It is more important to be on the safe side in religious matters than in worldly ones.

It is not permissible for the Muslim to follow whatever scholarly opinion suits his desires if it goes against the evidence, or to seek fatwas from those who he thinks are going to be lenient in their fatwas.

Rather he has to be on the safe side when it comes to his religion, and ask the scholars who have the most knowledge and are most fearing of Allaah.

Al-Khilaaf bayna al-‘Ulama’ by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 26; Liqa’ Munawwa’ ma’a Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, p. 25, 26

Is it befitting for a wise man to take precautions for his physical health and go to the most skilled doctors no matter how far away they are, and spend a great deal of money on that, then take the matter of his religion lightly and not to care about it unless it coincides with his whims and desires, and to take the easiest fatwa even if it is contrary to the truth? Indeed, there are even people who – Allaah forbid – ask a scholar a question, and if his fatwa does not suit their whims and desires, they will ask another, and another, until they find a person who will give them the fatwa they want!

There is no scholar who does not have some issues in which he strove to make a decision on the basis of ijtihaad but failed to reach the right answer, but he is excused for that and he will have a reward for his ijtihaad, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “If a judge passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge and gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge but gets it wrong, he will have one reward.” (al-Bukhaari, 7352; Muslim, 1716).

It is not permissible for the Muslim to follow the errors and mistakes of the scholars, for that combines all kinds of evil. Hence the scholars said: whoever follows that concerning which the scholars differed, and takes the easiest of their fatwas, becomes a heretic, or close enough. Ighaathat al-Lahfaan, 1/228. Heresy means hypocrisy.

We ask Allaah to give us understanding and to help us to acquire beneficial knowledge and to do righteous deeds.

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and grant him peace.

Source

[salman]

The difference between different ideological groups and the fiqhi madhhabs

Originally Posted by Islamqa

Question: What is the difference between Ahli Sunnah Wal Jammah & other mazhab[ shafeei, Maliki, etc? and can a girl from Ahli Sunnah Wal Jammah marry a man without mazhab?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah are not to be regarded as opposition to the Maalikis, Shaafa’is, Hanbalis and the like, rather they are opposed to the followers of innovated and misguided beliefs and ways such as the Ash’aris, Mu’tazilis, Murji’is, Sufis and so on. The Hanafis, Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis are schools of fiqh, whose imams are among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and indeed are among the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. But unfortunately the followers of most of those madhhabs and schools of fiqh have begun to follow the people of innovation and misguidance in their beliefs, so many of the Shaafa’is and Maalikis have become Ash’aris, and many of the Hanafis have become Maatireedis. But with regard to ‘aqeedah, the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

The basic principle concerning the Muslim is that he adheres to the Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and those who followed them in guidance. As for following one of these four madhhabs or any other, that is not obligatory or recommended, and the Muslim does not have to adhere to any one of them in particular. Rather the one who adheres to a particular madhhab in every issue is being a partisan who is guilty of blind following. End quote.

Hal al-Muslim mulzim bi Ittibaa’ Madhhab mu’ayyin min al-Madhhab al-Arba’ah? By al-Ma’soomi, p. 38.

There is nothing wrong with following the four schools of fiqh if a Muslim does not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah himself, but if it becomes clear to him that the correct view is other than that of his madhhab, then he must follow the correct view and not his madhhab.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

In the Qur’aan, Allaah condemns the one who turns away from following the Messengers and follows instead the religion invented by his forefathers. This is imitation (taqleed) which is forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger, i.e., following someone other than the Messenger in matters that go against the Messenger. This is haraam for everyone according to the consensus of the Muslims, for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator. Obedience to the Messenger is obligatory for every one, elite and common folk alike, at all times and in all places, both inwardly and outwardly, and in all situations… Allaah has enjoined obedience to the Messenger upon all people, in approximately forty places in the Qur’aan.

It is permissible for one who is unable to derive rulings to follow a scholar, according to the majority of scholars… the kind of imitation or following that is forbidden by the texts and according to scholarly consensus is that which goes against the words of Allaah and His Messenger. end quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 19/260-266

The followers of the salaf are those who adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah in their beliefs, fiqh and conduct and do not go against what is proven in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and what is agreed upon by the salaf of this ummah.

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

What is meant by the salafi madhhab is the way of the salaf (early generations) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and prominent imams with regard to issues of ‘aqeedah, sound method, sincere faith and adherence to the beliefs, laws, etiquette and conduct of Islam, unlike the innovators, deviants and those who are confused.

Among the most prominent of those who advocated the madhhab or way of the salaf were the four imams, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his students, Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and his students, and other reformers and renewers; there is no era when there was not someone who is establishing evidence for the right way.

There is nothing wrong with calling them Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, so as to differentiate between them and the followers of deviant groups. This is not praising oneself, rather it is distinguishing between the people of truth and the people of falsehood. End quote.

Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh al-Fawzaan, 1/question no. 206.

Based on this, if a man whose religious commitment and character are good proposes marriage to a Muslim woman, then she should accept him even if he does not belong to one of these madhhabs, but if the one who proposes to her is a member of one of the misguided and deviant groups, then she should not accept him.

And Allaah knows best.

Source

[salman]

I will post more later insha'Allah if I find more beneficial work on this topic. For saved sect, one may refer to Who are Ahle al-Hadith and the saved Sect?

there was also a very good idea by Ustad abu Tawbah (forgot which one), maybe akh boriqee can add that if he knows which one I am talking about, insha'Allah

Allahu A'lam