The Methodology of the Salaf Concerning Ijtihad and Taqlid

[Harris Hammam]

Completely off the topic but very relevant,

What is the role of the layman in asking the imam to discuss certain topics in a kuthba that are pertinent to the congregation? Is that not a good place to start?

He just goes up to the Imam and requests him to speak on the topic.

Or have I missed something?

 

[Aapa]

Assalaam alaikum,

Yes, you did.


The dismissal of women in the day to day life of a masjid. Older men from the subcontinent are unaware that they no longer live in Desi world.

 

[muslimshabs]

Asalamu alaikum....

jazakallahu khair for your patience and efforts you have put in here...

I must say that I have learnt a lot as all others have... I have some questions.

a) What do you say about the scholar of a particular madhab being by another madhab scholar?

b) And what do you say about the layman whose scholar is being refuted by some other scholar. what should a layman do in that respect. I mean should he change his scholar / madhab, he is following or he is not in a position to decide and should follow what he is following?

 

[Harris Hammam]

Assalaam alaikum,

Yes, you did.

The dismissal of women in the day to day life of a masjid. Older men from the subcontinent are unaware that they no longer live in Desi world.

You can't do anything. All we can do is make Dua, and make sure we educate influential people about the religious harms sisters face by not being allowed in the mosques.

 

[Harris Hammam]

a) What do you say about the scholar of a particular madhab being by another madhab scholar?

You mean that he switches Madhhabs? No problem. Bakr Abu Zayd wrote a book, التحول المذهبي, listing all the scholars who changed from one Madhhab to another:
http://www.4shared.com/office/nh6HziTb/____-_--____.html

b) And what do you say about the layman whose scholar is being refuted by some other scholar. what should a layman do in that respect. I mean should he change his scholar / madhab, he is following or he is not in a position to decide and should follow what he is following?

The layman is not responsible whatsoever. He can follow any trustworthy scholar he likes.

The only problem is when a scholar refutes the trustworthiness of a scholar. That is when the layman should get concerned and should investigate about the credibility of the scholar.

If he is unable to do even this, or was never taught about the necessity of referring to a trustworthy scholar, then he is excused. Responsibility of sin falls on the shoulders of people who were supposed to educate such laymen about this.

 

[muslimshabs]

The only problem is when a scholar refutes the trustworthiness of a scholar. That is when the layman should get concerned and should investigate about the credibility of the scholar.

If he is unable to do even this, or was never taught about the necessity of referring to a trustworthy scholar, then he is excused. Responsibility of sin falls on the shoulders of people who were supposed to educate such laymen about this.

It is not about the trustworthiness but the claim of a particular scholar that his view is correct and somebody refutes that view of a scholar.



As the scholars say that rulings of a particular madhab can be both correct and incorrect. They say it is based upon their understanding of the particular text differently or the basis can be the difference in authenticity of narrations. If you agree with this viewpoint. That means a layman encounters two possibilities:

1. Either he has to be confident that only the scholars he is following are correct in all respects and rest of the views are on weak narrations or the evidence did not reach to them.

2. Or he has to believe that his scholars are more closer to Quran and Sunnah as compared to other views which can be correct also.

what advice do you give to the people who face these situations.?

 

[ditta]

Yes you can ask him, broadly speaking, as long as:

a) there is no conflict of interest for him with his Bid`ah (i.e. the matter in question doesn't support his Bid`ah),

b) his innovation is a mistake due to some honest doubt he may have, and he is not militantly stubborn on his Bid`ah despite being explained clearly (in which case he would become a standard Fasiq and normal sinner, who cannot be asked for a fatwa in any circumstance)

That's clear.

This permissibility of asking someone with mistakes in Aqeedah is based on another issue: the opinion of a Mujtahid who is a Mubtadi` must be taken into consideration for the building of consensus, i.e. as long as he doesn't agree with all other Mujtahids, Ijma` cannot not occur in that issue.

To confirm if I understood this correctly: for example, where there is consensus regarding a specific jurisprudential issue, the Aqeedah of all those scholars was/is correct (i.e., this is a condition for achieving consensus on an issue, that's I how understood it)? I just feel a little confused about this portion.

Many authentic narrators in the books of Hadith had some major flaws in Aqeedah, believe it or not. The recurring themes in some narrators are Qadari (denier of destiny), Khariji, Shi`ite (not like the Rafidis of today but a lighter form). Yet their Hadith is present in the Saheeh.

I'm aware of this although could you possible demonstrate an example, i.e., a well-known narration while one of its narrators possessed a flaw in Aqeedah. (And, despite this, we accept the narration because the narrator was known for his reliability despite his/her flaw in Aqeedah?).

 

[Harris Hammam]

Got a PM, thought I'd share it publicly.

'The layman has no madhab'

^ What is meant by that statement?

So I have no madhab anyway, even if I went and got myself fiqh al islami by nadwi and started following it to the letter, I wouldn't be hanafi?

Conversely, why would a scholar follow a particular madhab?

Im having difficulty gaging what position the madhaaib hold in the grand scheme of things, even in the most simplistic sense, positive or negative?

Layman has no Madhhab i.e. the real technical legal definition of a Madhhab does not consume the layman, but only advanced students and scholars.

Ibn 'l-Humam (not Ibn Hammam, as Azioboy blindly copied) had a student who wrote a commentary on his teacher's book on Usool. His name was Ibn Ameer 'l-Haajj. He said:
لأن المذهب إنما يكون لمن له نوع نظر واستدلال وبصر بالمذاهب على حسبه أو لمن قرأ كتابا في فروع ذلك المذهب وعرف فتاوى إمامه وأقواله
Because a Madhhab is only for the one who has a level of insight, evidentiary ability and coverage of the schools according to his ability [i.e. a scholar], or the one who has read a book in the Furoo` [i.e. Fiqh] of that Madhhab and has learned of its Imam's fatwas and statements [i.e. a student]

It is therefore clear that a layman cannot possibly have a Madhhab of himself, because he doesn't fall under its definition.


What are the practical ramifications of this? None. It's just a technical thing. Ibn Ameer 'l-Haajj also said:وأما من لم يتأهل لذلك ألبتة بل قال أنا حنفي أو شافعي أو غير ذلك لم يصر كذلك بمجرد القول كما لو قال: أنا فقيه أو نحوي أو كاتب لم يصر كذلك بمجرد قوله يوضحه أن قائله يزعم أنه متبع لذلك الإمام سالك طريقه في العلم والمعرفة والاستدلال فأما مع جهله وبعده جدا عن سيرة الإمام وعلمه بطريقه فكيف يصح له الانتساب إليه إلا بالدعوى المجردة والقول الفارغ من المعنى
As for one who is not qualified for carrying out the characteristics of a Madhab, but rather claims to be a Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or anything else, he would not become a Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or whatever by merely claiming so. He would be like one who says 'I am a jurist or grammarian or author' - he would not become so by merely claiming so. This can be explained by the fact that this claimant of a Madhab thinks that he is following so and so Imam and is on his path in knowledge, understading and expounding legal rulings. Therefore, insofar as he is ignorant and far removed from the conduct of the Imam and from knowing his modus operandi, how can he ever ascribe to that Madhab. It would be nothing apart from an empty, meaningless claim.


However, one shouldn't get too hung up on this. Laymen call themselves Hanafi Maliki etc. because they are practically practising on the rulings of that Madhhab for whatever reason. In that sense, they are Hanafi etc. However, in the strictest legal sense, there are nothing.

These Hanafi Maliki are legal titles. Understand it this way: a common English person walking the street of London - one wouldn't ever say that this is an 'English barrister or solicitor' walking, would you? But you would say that he is living under English law.


A scholar doesn't really 'follow' a Madhhab. It's just that he has adopted the general legal methodology of that Madhhab and is affiliated to it.


The benefit of a Madhhabs is that they give you the whole, coherent interpretation of the Shariah on a plate, from which you can eat (i.e. study). You don't want to be all over the place when you begin your study; otherwise you'll just become confused. S. al-`Uthaymeen said something like this, that a beginner student must adhere to a Madhhab for study purposes; otherwise he'll get lost in the sea of opinions. Madhhabs helped in the codification of the rulings of the Deen; without Madhhab, each scholar would have had his own books and stuff, and we would have a million Madhhabs out there. These Madhhabs really saved the day.

Once you are inside a Madhhab for study, you'll definitely progress and when you are advanced enough, you can learn about what other Madhhabs have to say. An advanced student and scholar are free then to prefer whatever opinion they like based on research and self-study, though they would still be affiliated to their original Madhhab. At least they would have a firm grounding.

 

[Harris Hammam]

As the scholars say that rulings of a particular madhab can be both correct and incorrect. They say it is based upon their understanding of the particular text differently or the basis can be the difference in authenticity of narrations. If you agree with this viewpoint. That means a layman encounters two possibilities:

1. Either he has to be confident that only the scholars he is following are correct in all respects and rest of the views are on weak narrations or the evidence did not reach to them.

2. Or he has to believe that his scholars are more closer to Quran and Sunnah as compared to other views which can be correct also.

what advice do you give to the people who face these situations.?

A layman doesn't need to 'believe' in anything. All he needs to believe in is that his the obligation for him is to ask a trustworthy scholar. What the Haqq is in the eyes of Allah is not his responsibility to find out or guess.

He is like the person in the desert who doesn't know which way the Qiblah is. Now the ruling for this person is to pray according to his person best estimate, and that is the law of Allah for him in this world. Such a person is not legally obliged to get the Qiblah bang on target. He is also not obliged to repeat prayer if he finds out he was wrong.

I repeat: any person who claims layman are responsible for anything more than asking a scholar must bring real evidence for that, not empty slogans of 'following Quran and Sunnah'. As far as we're concerned, this layman who follows the scholars IS following the Quran and Sunnah, as the verse of the People of Dhikr suggests in the Quran, on top of the the verse at the end of Baqarah that proves that Allah does not oblige that which is beyond the capability of man.

Also, a layman has no business in getting involved with what other people do. If he thinks there is a problem, he should consult a scholar first.

 

[Harris Hammam]

To confirm if I understood this correctly: for example, where there is consensus regarding a specific jurisprudential issue, the Aqeedah of all those scholars was/is correct (i.e., this is a condition for achieving consensus on an issue, that's I how understood it)? I just feel a little confused about this portion.

What was said was if the opinion of a Mujtahid Mubtadi` must be taken into account for Ijma` (consensus) to count; otherwise there is no consensus if he is discounted or disagrees with the majority opinion. This is as long as his opinion has nothing to do with his innovation.

I was only using this as proof to show that a person can take Fiqh from such scholars.

I'm aware of this although could you possible demonstrate an example, i.e., a well-known narration while one of its narrators possessed a flaw in Aqeedah. (And, despite this, we accept the narration because the narrator was known for his reliability despite his/her flaw in Aqeedah?).

رمي بالنصب - Accused of having enmity (against Ali bin Abi Talib, i.e. a sign of the Kharijis)
رمي بالإرجاء - Accused of Irja' (i.e. not giving importance to actions in relation to Iman)
رمي بالقدر - Accused of denying Qadr (destiny)
رمي بالرفض - Accused of being a Shi`i

These are the basic allegations against some narrators you can find in the basic book written on the topic of narrators by the great Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Taqreeb 'l-Tahdheeb. Such narrators can be authentic, and can even be found in the Saheehayn.

As a footnote, the Hadith of a Khariji, no matter how deviant he was, is many a time gold dust. This is because any sin makes a person a Kafir in his creed, therefore lying in Hadith is not an option for a Khariji. A Khariji can only be weakened through poor memory, but never in terms of his religiosity.

 

[Seeking Allah's Mercy]

Assalam Alaykum sister Seeking Allah's mercy,

Wasalamo`Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Baraakaatuh,
Pleased to see you here again, but I wish you would have been back with your old account and different views brother Asif.

I too came to know that I was Hanafi just when I left following a particular madhab [one out of four] which is a typical form of Taqleed and is not permissible [as per the defination of Taqleed].

I haven't left any madhab, As a layperson, I just don't really know which one I follow most. Hanafi or Hanbali? If I only had a teacher, I would like to have them studied and be able to answer this question myself. Anway. . .

Where as when I got out to seek knowledge I came to know there is a lot of things which are confusing. But one thing is there, if you heard from a trusted Scholar giving you ruling on a particular issue and you followed it just because you have no knowledge about it that It should be ok and unless you came to know that whatever you have followed was not according to the Sunnah from another scholar with examples and Daleels that I guess you should adopt that. I am just a normal Muslim with limited knowledge.

So if I'm presented with Daleel by all of those who differ in their opinions and end up in a confused mess, what then? It's no challenge, it's a genuin question I have. I've got this big curious mind which isn't satified till I have everything clearly explained. But when I'm told all I want to know, and I find I don't understand what's presented because I lack knowledge, what do you reckon I do, if not taqleed?

For Example: Brother Thariq introduced us to a hadeeth terminology, "shaadh" while we were playing a game. Searching on this word I found the following contradictory opinion of one and the same issue of moving the finger in tashahhud:

We have the narration that is narrated by Al-Nasaa'ee, Ibn Khuzaymah and others- on the authority of Waa'il Ibn Hujr:

I will certainly watch how the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prays. So I watched him and he stood up and said takbeer (“Allaahu akbar”), and raised his hands until they were level with his ears. Then he placed his right hand on his left hand, wrist and lower forearm. When he wanted to bow, he raised his hands likewise, and put his hands on his knees, and when he raised his head he raised his hands likewise. Then he prostrated and put his hands level with his ears, then he sat with his left foot tucked underneath him and put his left hand on his left thigh and knee, and he put the edge of his right elbow on his right thigh. Then he held two of his fingers and made a circle, then he raised his forefinger and moved it, making du’aa’ with it.

The Isnaad of this hadeeth is as follows:

Waa'il ibn Hujr (Sahaabi) > Kulayb (narrates from Waa'il)> `Aasim ibn Kulayb (narrates from his father- Kulayb)

From `Aasim about 13 people narrate the same kind of hadeeth. This specific hadeeth with the wording "I saw him moving it" was narrated from `Aasim by a narrator called Zaa'idah ibn Qudaamah. Zaa'idah is a trusthworthy narrator- but one should note that there are more trustworthy narrators than Zaa'idah who narrate this narration from `Aasim- from them is the likes of Sufyaan al-Thawri, Sufyaan ibn `Uyaynah, Shu`bah ibn Hujaaj (all three are to be considered to be from the Kibaar al-Huffaadh!) and many more. None of the other 12 narrators narrated this addition- "I saw him moving it". And we clearly see that Zaa'idah has opposed 12 trustworthy narrators. Thus, scholars mentioned that this addition about moving the finger is "Shaadhdh" (Odd) and so that specific addition is to be rejected. This was the opinion of Shaykh Muqbil, Shaykh `Abdullaah al-Fawzaan- who mentioned that the moving of the finger was not mentioned by any of the salaf in their Fiqh books.

But then I read in Sheikh Albaani's book that this narration is authentic and that Az Zubair's narration where it says "didnot move his finger" is shaadh.

As for the hadeeth of Abdullah ibn az-Zubair(ra)-where in is mentioned that the prophet (sallallahu aleihi wa sallam) used to point with his finger when he made duaa and not move it. It is reported by Abu Dawood(no.989); its isnaad is not authentic since it contains Muhammad ibn 'Ajalah, about whom adh-Dhabee says, "of average memory," The ahadeeth of the like of him are not acceptable if they contradict anyone who is more reliable than him and his narration becomes shaadh. Even if this hadeeth were established, then it is a denial and the hadeeth of Waail ibn Hujr is affirming.That which affirms is taken over that which denies, since the one who affirms something has an increase in knowledge and he knows is a proof against he who does not.

I neither have the knowledge of Shakykh Albaani, nor anything as close as knowledge worth the toe nail of Imaam bukhari. How do I know which one is Shaadh and which to follow. I mean I'm presented with Daleel, no? By your formula, I should be able to find my way out now.

Who do I follow? And why? Can you even imagine me making up my mind after having knowledge these great shuyookh had? Of course not! So I follow one of them, WITHOUT understanding their work i.e do their TAQLEED with a captial "T". I hope you see my problem of not being a scholar?

JazaakAllaahu khayraa for replying anyway.

 

[Seeking Allah's Mercy]

Wassalam

Look the application and implementation of Taqleed rules is even more important than the theory of Taqleed itself, so your questions are not out of place

BaraakAllaahu feek, it feels good to ask and get an answer.

Well it's simple: follow a scholar you trust.

I guess I didn't explain myself well. I don't know a scholar I trust IRL. Suppose, I trust IslamQA or Shaykh Muhammad Salah or Shaykh Assim L. Hakeem. I'm not sure so suppose they are not hanafi. That puts me in an odd position at home. I'm the odd one out with the odd opinions that I find trustworthy. It's sometimes problematic for my family. For example: I'm the only one who believes I am not allowed to travel alone, so my father has to find time and take me around to see my family. He travels twice the distance because of me and it's hard for him. So I get all these "cute telling offs" sometimes for being an ignorant extremist and going against the madhab we follow i.e The hanafi madhab [Provided I and them don't even know the hanafi view of a lady's travels]. In a situation such as this, where I may not be able to follow a trusted ruling, what do I do? Is it sin for me to go against such rulings. Or is the doubt that I "may" be allowed enough to act against it?

1. Wiping the back of the neck is not from the original Hanafi Madhhab, but rather was created later on by some later Hanafi scholars. They based this on a Hadith they found, however, its authenticity is severely disputed. Best to leave it out. In addition, in matters as big as Wudu, we should tend to stick to the big things i.e. the clear narrations. Finding something not as famously reported in a matter like Wudu that is very famous in the religion casts doubt on its authenticity according to scholars of Hadith.

I understand now. I have another related question. In your reply to br. Ershad you said Wudhu and prayers etc are fundamental matters of fiqh. So, is layman obliged to correct if he's sees someone doing it wrong. Wrong as in, wiping the neck sort of wrong?

2. The original Sajdat 'l-Shaw procedure of the Hanafi School is to do two Salams, do Sajdat 'l-Sahw, come back and do two Salams. A combination of a couple of Hadith in Saheeh Muslim would prove this procedure, so no problem with this opinion. Also, Sajdat 'l-Sahw should be done for what there is proof for Sajdat 'l-Sahw. It is correct that you don't do Sahw for any type of mistake. Details of this can be found in Fiqh.

Please clarify Which one of these three methods agrees with the Hanafi procedure of Sajdat 'l-sahw [I notice you spell it differently]:

What I was taught was this way [starting from Tashahhud]:

A) Tashahhud > salam to the right> two prostrations > tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplications > tasleem

or in case we forget and go straight into sending prayers upon the prophet and do it this way:

B)Tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplications > tasleem > two prostrations > Tashahhud >>> and everything repeated again.

Is any of those ^ the Hanafi method? Or is it C) method that I learned here after having a long discussion with a brother.

C) Tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplication > two prostrations before or after tasleem depending upon the mistake.

This method was all I got, after having read and discussed fatwas from IslamQA and a booklet by Shaykh Saleh al Uthaymin.

3. It appears that the stronger narration of the original Hanafi Madhhab does not mention anything about a woman doing I`tikaf in her house. However, in another narration, it does mention that she can do I`tikaf in her dedicated place of prayer house, based on the Hadith 'The earth and been made a place of prayer (Masjid) and means of purification [via Tayammum]', and coupled with the idea that Salah for a lady is best in her house, they ruling is deduced that a lady should also best perform I`tikaf in her house. However, it seems to me that the silence of the stronger narration of the Hanafi Madhhab indicates that this ruling is weak.

JazaakAllaahu khayraa for explaining this bit.

And by the way that is not Talfeeq Batil brother. Talfeeq Batil means mixing various rulings up in one place to come up with a new form of action that is not endorsed by anybody. The classic example given is that a man touches a lady and bleeds due to a wound, claiming his Wudu is still intact. This is Talfeeq Batil, because all the scholars who said that bleeding doesn't break Wudu say that it does break when a man touches a woman, and all scholars who say touching a woman doesn't break Wudu say that it does break when one bleeds. In other words, your Wudu is broken in all opinions, so you can't mix it up and say that your whole Wudu is still intact.

And if one mixes opinion without knowing. Taking your example. If I were to follow that touching a woman for a male doesn't break wudhu and sometime later find a fatwa stating that bleeding from a wound doesn't break wudhu either. Without knowing this scholar's view on a woman's touch. Is that an (unintentional) talfeeq batil?

This is a matter that has legitimate difference of opinion, so no worries. If you find out that your action is in accordance to one of the Madhhabs, or a scholar says you were fine in doing so, then you don't need to repeat anything.

And until I'm able to do that, can I follow any opinion in any situation? Taking my traveling problem for an example again. I travel with a mahram but if I'm late for classes or have to drop my aunty who can't walk I can travel without one? [I apologise if this is starting to bug you, but I can't really think of anything else right now]

Again, JazaakAllaahu khayraa.

 

[Harris Hammam]

I guess I didn't explain myself well. I don't know a scholar I trust IRL. Suppose, I trust IslamQA or Shaykh Muhammad Salah or Shaykh Assim L. Hakeem. I'm not sure so suppose they are not hanafi. That puts me in an odd position at home. I'm the odd one out with the odd opinions that I find trustworthy. It's sometimes problematic for my family. For example: I'm the only one who believes I am not allowed to travel alone, so my father has to find time and take me around to see my family. He travels twice the distance because of me and it's hard for him. So I get all these "cute telling offs" sometimes for being an ignorant extremist and going against the madhab we follow i.e The hanafi madhab [Provided I and them don't even know the hanafi view of a lady's travels]. In a situation such as this, where I may not be able to follow a trusted ruling, what do I do? Is it sin for me to go against such rulings. Or is the doubt that I "may" be allowed enough to act against it?

1. Even though you are a layperson, it seems you just need some ammo. Just try to explain to them that the many many Hanafi scholars allowed for a layperson to take any fatwa from any scholar. See: http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=8566&page=3. I caution you, however, that ammo in the hands of laypeople may not achieve the desired results.

2. I don't understand about your travel situation. Hanafis (and Malikis and Hanbalis) say a lady can't go a travel distance without husband or Mahram. Is your father not a Hanafi? Only Shafi`is differed with this in the context of Hajj I believe, provided that a lady is in a big safe group.

I have another related question. In your reply to br. Ershad you said Wudhu and prayers etc are fundamental matters of fiqh. So, is layman obliged to correct if he's sees someone doing it wrong. Wrong as in, wiping the neck sort of wrong?

Yes laymen should do so. However, and once again I see, the example given (wipign back of neck) is wrong. This is a matter of difference. If someone does it, leave them. You can discuss it and advise them as a one-off perhaps, but don't condemn them for this.

A good example would be if you see someone wasting water, esp. when washing feet, or wiping the throat, or reading those fabricated Duas when washing each limb. These have no basis whatsoever.

Please clarify Which one of these three methods agrees with the Hanafi procedure of Sajdat 'l-sahw [I notice you spell it differently]:

What I was taught was this way [starting from Tashahhud]:

A) Tashahhud > salam to the right> two prostrations > tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplications > tasleem

or in case we forget and go straight into sending prayers upon the prophet and do it this way:

B)Tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplications > tasleem > two prostrations > Tashahhud >>> and everything repeated again.

Is any of those ^ the Hanafi method? Or is it C) method that I learned here after having a long discussion with a brother.

C) Tashahhud > As-Salaah'alaa an-Nabiyy > Seeking refuge from four things > supplication > two prostrations before or after tasleem depending upon the mistake.

This method was all I got, after having read and discussed fatwas from IslamQA and a booklet by Shaykh Saleh al Uthaymin.

Look there are many ways of Sajdat 'l-Sahw. It really is not a big issue. In fact, the differences between the Madhhabs on this matter is one of 'the preferred method', not one of Halal and Haram.

I cannot stress how petit of a matter this is. For the Hanafi preferred way, see: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=11394

And if one mixes opinion without knowing. Taking your example. If I were to follow that touching a woman for a male doesn't break wudhu and sometime later find a fatwa stating that bleeding from a wound doesn't break wudhu either. Without knowing this scholar's view on a woman's touch. Is that an (unintentional) talfeeq batil?

And until I'm able to do that, can I follow any opinion in any situation?

Yes that is Talfeeq Batil; however, you are not responsible for anything until you are actually educated that you are committing Talfeeq Batil.

Those people who oblige Taqleed Madhhabi say that there is a fear of Talfeeq Batil hence they oblige one Madhhab only. Whereas this is a valid argument, the response to this is that had this been a concern, Taqleed Shakhsi (Madhhabi) would have been an obligation from the era of the Sahabah! So people asking Ibn `Abbas would never have asked Ibn `Umar or Zayd bin Thabit, etc.

I would argue that until there is evidence that you have actually done Talfeeq Batil, you are fine. And this is more in line with precedent.

Taking my traveling problem for an example again. I travel with a mahram but if I'm late for classes or have to drop my aunty who can't walk I can travel without one? [I apologise if this is starting to bug you, but I can't really think of anything else right now]

How far do you travel anyway?

 

[Seeking Allah's Mercy]

BaraakAllahu feek, it's all clear now Inshaa`Allaah.

2. I don't understand about your travel situation. Hanafis (and Malikis and Hanbalis) say a lady can't go a travel distance without husband or Mahram. Is your father not a Hanafi? Only Shafi`is differed with this in the context of Hajj I believe, provided that a lady is in a big safe group.

No, everyone down here believes they are hanafi. My father doesn't complain [to me atleast], knowing I'm right, but those who see him getting through all this 'unusual' trouble feel obliged to teach me to "think and care for my father too". So, I feel bad everytime he asks me to come home and I have to ask to 'pick n drop me'. Sometimes I'm picked, but they 'try' or let's say 'wish' to leave the "dropping" part to someone else.

Yes laymen should do so. However, and once again I see, the example given (wipign back of neck) is wrong. This is a matter of difference. If someone does it, leave them. You can discuss it and advise them as a one-off perhaps, but don't condemn them for this.

Look there are many ways of Sajdat 'l-Sahw. It really is not a big issue. In fact, the differences between the Madhhabs on this matter is one of 'the preferred method', not one of Halal and Haram.

I cannot stress how petit of a matter this is. For the Hanafi preferred way, see: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=11394

I just wanted to confirm that there is a difference of opinion on these things because IslamQA label them as "bid'ah". So now I know I don't have to correct anyone Alhumdulillah.

Yes that is Talfeeq Batil; . . . . . that you have actually done Talfeeq Batil, you are fine. And this is more in line with precedent.

JazaakAllaahu khayraa for explaining it furthur.

How far do you travel anyway?

110 miles at least. And if we include it in 'travel' then, 200 to 300 meters.

 

[ditta]

What was said was if the opinion of a Mujtahid Mubtadi` must be taken into account for Ijma` (consensus) to count; otherwise there is no consensus if he is discounted or disagrees with the majority opinion. This is as long as his opinion has nothing to do with his innovation.

I was only using this as proof to show that a person can take Fiqh from such scholars.

رمي بالنصب - Accused of having enmity (against Ali bin Abi Talib, i.e. a sign of the Kharijis)
رمي بالإرجاء - Accused of Irja' (i.e. not giving importance to actions in relation to Iman)
رمي بالقدر - Accused of denying Qadr (destiny)
رمي بالرفض - Accused of being a Shi`i

These are the basic allegations against some narrators you can find in the basic book written on the topic of narrators by the great Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Taqreeb 'l-Tahdheeb. Such narrators can be authentic, and can even be found in the Saheehayn.

As a footnote, the Hadith of a Khariji, no matter how deviant he was, is many a time gold dust. This is because any sin makes a person a Kafir in his creed, therefore lying in Hadith is not an option for a Khariji. A Khariji can only be weakened through poor memory, but never in terms of his religiosity.

May Allah reward you with good. That's clear. (If I'm honest I was hoping you would use an actual hadeeth, citing its narrators to demonstrate this however never mind if it is an unreasonable request).

I would add a general comment although my points have been expressed in other previous posts.

 

[Harris Hammam]

No, everyone down here believes they are hanafi. My father doesn't complain [to me atleast], knowing I'm right, but those who see him getting through all this 'unusual' trouble feel obliged to teach me to "think and care for my father too". So, I feel bad everytime he asks me to come home and I have to ask to 'pick n drop me'. Sometimes I'm picked, but they 'try' or let's say 'wish' to leave the "dropping" part to someone else.

110 miles at least. And if we include it in 'travel' then, 200 to 300 meters.

You need to ask a scholar then and get a fatwa off him. All I can say to you is to be clever about who you ask.

I just wanted to confirm that there is a difference of opinion on these things because IslamQA label them as "bid'ah". So now I know I don't have to correct anyone Alhumdulillah.

I would like to learn where he used the term Bid`ah in this matter. Thanks

 

[muslimshabs]

I repeat: any person who claims layman are responsible for anything more than asking a scholar must bring real evidence for that, not empty slogans of 'following Quran and Sunnah'. As far as we're concerned, this layman who follows the scholars IS following the Quran and Sunnah, as the verse of the People of Dhikr suggests in the Quran, on top of the the verse at the end of Baqarah that proves that Allah does not oblige that which is beyond the capability of man.

Also, a layman has no business in getting involved with what other people do. If he thinks there is a problem, he should consult a scholar first.

jazakallahu khair brother.

But I wanted to ask this with regard to offering of witr prayer in ramadhan with the Imam. As I have been told by the scholars that the there are only two ways of offering the witr prayer (more than 3 rakahs) proven.

a) All rakahs continuous with only one tasleem and only one tashhud.

b) saying tasleem after every two rakahs and then praying one last rakah separately.

But then we see and happen to offer it behind hanafi imam during ramadhan and he offers 3 rakahs with two tashhuds and one tasleem. Is it the proven way and is it the correct way of offering witr prayer according to hanafi madhab? and should I be following my scholar or Imam?

 

[Harris Hammam]

jazakallahu khair brother.

But I wanted to ask this with regard to offering of witr prayer in ramadhan with the Imam. As I have been told by the scholars that the there are only two ways of offering the witr prayer (more than 3 rakahs) proven.

a) All rakahs continuous with only one tasleem and only one tashhud.

b) saying tasleem after every two rakahs and then praying one last rakah separately.

But then we see and happen to offer it behind hanafi imam during ramadhan and he offers 3 rakahs with two tashhuds and one tasleem. Is it the proven way and is it the correct way of offering witr prayer according to hanafi madhab? and should I be following my scholar or Imam?

The Hanafi legal method of Witr is valid based on valid evidences.

Follow the Imam if you are praying behind such an Imam. No need to go off to read your own Witr.

 

[Mazhara]

Long debate that will carry no one to any where. A simple principle and practice was laid down through the Great Leader of the Humanity, the Elevated Last Messenger Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam.

اِئْتُونِي بِكِتَابٍ مِّن قَبْلِ هَذَا أَوْ أَثَارَةٍ مِّنْ عِلْمٍ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

You people come to me with a book sent earlier in time before this Grand Qur'aan.
Or you people bring to me tangible evidences-traces of knowledge; if you are truthful in what you people have said/keep saying". [46:04]

Any statement notwithstanding who said this, a scholar or a person of the stature of Imam like learned Bukhari or learned Abu Hanifa, if it does not meet the above criteria set by Allah the Exalted and His Last Messenger, it has zero value and liable to be straight rejected as conjecture and gossip.

Who can be a greater Iman than Ibrahim alaihissalam? After mentioning him and few others highly elevated sincere Allegiants of Allah the Exalted, the command is

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُم مَّا كَسَبْتُمْ وَلاَ تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ
That was a generation that has passed away. That which they had earned is in stock for them. And that which you people have earned is in account for you.*!And you people will not be questioned regarding the acts they [earlier generations] used to keep performing. [2:134] Replioca 2:141

The Last Day and all its happenings are available to us videoed in the Grand Qur'aan. See there that none who is being dragged or arrives at the gates of Hell-Prison is asked why he did not follow Bukhar or so and so . The only verification is that whether a Messenger and Book of Allah had come to him.

And people should find time to listen what the Mercy Personified-the Elevated Last Messenger Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam is saying and complaining to the Sustainer Lord of the worlds.

 

[Harris Hammam]

Long debate that will carry no one to any where.

It's not a debate; it's a discussion. Only a blind, hardcore anti-Taqleed extremist would conclude this has been a debate for the past few pages. Debate finished when Aziboy and Hammy left.

A simple principle and practice was laid down through the Great Leader of the Humanity, the Elevated Last Messenger Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam.

اِئْتُونِي بِكِتَابٍ مِّن قَبْلِ هَذَا أَوْ أَثَارَةٍ مِّنْ عِلْمٍ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

You people come to me with a book sent earlier in time before this Grand Qur'aan.
Or you people bring to me tangible evidences-traces of knowledge; if you are truthful in what you people have said/keep saying". [46:04]

You missed the other two verses of the Quran which I haven't ever heard you quote:

"Ask the People of Dhikr if you don't know" (Anbiya)
"Allah does not burden a soul except what it's capable of" (Baqarah)

In the context of the hundreds of discussions on Taqleed undertaken by laymen in the text by all the scholars of Islam, bring me one example where they even ever thought of mentioning the verse you brought up. Were they all ignorant of this verse and you have appointed yourself to point out their mistake that they failed to discuss the importance of this verse in the context of Taqleed?

I put it to you that your own understanding of the verse is faulty. I say this as a sense of duty to fellow readers of this thread. May I also add that countless scholars used the two verses I quoted in support of the concept of Taqleed.

Ma` Salaamah