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.