As-salaamu `alaykum
Very confusing.
1. Women cannot go to the mosque for jummah but they can go any other day of the week for any other prayer. (His evidence was that the Hanafi madhab says this - do they really? He was not talking about the hadith that says women get more reward for praying in their homes.)
I'm not sure exactly what the Hanafis say, although I've noticed over here that they almost totally prohibit women from the masjid. Regardless, we have the following hadeeth which has been used by the scholars to counter this view,
From ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, who said: "I heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace be upon him) say: ‘Do not prevent your women from going to the mosque if they ask your permission.’" Bilaal ibn ‘Abdullah said, "By Allaah, we will prevent them." (Ibn ‘Umar) turned to him and told him off in an unprecedented fashion, saying: "I tell you what the Messenger of Allaah (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said, and you say ‘By Allaah, we will prevent them’!!" (reported by Muslim, 667)
2. It is obligatory to blindly follow a madhab. You don't need to know the evidence from Qur'an or sunnah because as long as scholars agree, that's good enough. (again, he says Hanafis say this)
If it were obligatory then there would be no ijtihaad. On following a madhhab, Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan (member of the
Standing Committee for Research and Fatwa) said:
"The issue of sticking to a madhhab has in it some detail. If a person has the ability to know the ruling from its proof, and to deduce the ruling from its proof, then it is not permitted for him to cling to a madhhab. rather, it is upon him to take the ruling from the evidence - if he has the ability to do so. However, this is rare amongst the people, since this is a quality of the mujtahideen from the people of knowledge; those that have reaced the levels of ijtihaad. As for one who is not like that, then he cannot take the rulings directly from the evidences. And this is the predominant case amongst the people, especially in these latter times. So [in such a case] there is no harm in adopting one of the four madhhabs and making taqleed of one of them. However, he should not make blind taqleed such that he takes all that is in the madhhab; whether it is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is upon him to take from the madhhab that which - in his view - does not clearly oppose the evidence. As for those views in the madhhab which clearly oppose the evidence, then it is not permissible for the Muslim to take it. Rather it is upon him to adopt what is established by the proof, even if it is in another madhhab So his leaving the madhhab for another madhhab in order to follow the evidence is something good; this is a matter which is good - rather it is obligatory;since following the evidence is an madhhab in order to follow the evidence is something good; this is a matter which is good - rather it is obligatory;since following the evidence is an obligation."
see:
http://fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=22
3. It is haram to pray behind Hanafis because they don't say "bismillah..." before reciting al Fatiha during prayer and this can make them kafirs though he wouldn't say they were.
False. The differences between the madh'habs are only jurisprudential! They do not lead to kufr!
4. It is haram to pray with people who are of a different methodology or madhab than you and they shouldn't even enter your mosque. He doesn't mean Sunni/Shia, he means differences in madhabs
And what is his proof? This is what the disease of excessive blind-following leads to. There was a time where in Masjid Al-Haraam, Makkah, there were four prayer courts, one for each madh'hab! This is how far the condition of the Muslims went some couple hundred years ago. When the Saudis took control, they abolished this foolish system and every prays behind one Imaam now.
5. Salafi is a madhab and you can't be a Sunni unless you're a Salafi
Regarding this whole subject matter, there is a excellent article by Shaykh Yusuf Al-Ghafees (former member of the Standing Committee for Research and Fatwa) which should inshaa' Allaah clear up many of the doubts concerning madhhabs, blind following, salafism etc.
"...If a person were to say: The way of the salaf is that they approved of following a madh-hab. No one would be able to object to this. Thus there is a difference between saying the way of the salaf is that they approved of following a madh-hab and saying the way of the salaf is that they made it an end goal and highly encouraged it. We are only speaking about it from the angle of their approval.
The reality of following a madh-hab is that it is something that is done from the point organizing one's approach to seeking knowledge and not as an act of worship. So whoever ascribes himself to Imaam Ahmad as an act of worship, for example as some of the Shi'ah and some of the Sufis do when they ascribe themselves to particular individuals, then no doubt this is an innovation. However, the one who ascribes himself to Imaam Ahmad because this is whom he took his knowledge from and not Imaam as-Shaafi'ee per se, or he read his books but he did not read the books of the Shaafi'ee madh-hab, or he believes that Imaam Ahmad is more knowledgeable about the sunnah. Or the one who knows from the life of Imaam as-Shaafi'ee that he took his knowledge from both the fuqahaa and the muhaditheen, that he had a vast understanding of the Arabic language, and he sees that his principles of fiqh are closer to the evidences, thus he becomes a Shaafi'ee. Likewise the one who becomes a Hanafi because he follows the fiqh of Imaam Abu Haneefah. Therefore the issue is one of properly structuring one's approach to 'ilm. As with the statement of the Messenger (عليه الصلاة والسلام), “If you obey Abu Bakr and Umar you will be guided.” Why should we obey Abu Bakr and Umar? Is it because they have the ability to legislate (in the religion)? No, but this is in order for one to properly structuring his approach to 'ilm; that the one who has less 'ilm follows the one with more 'ilm.
However, whenever a person blindly adheres to the opinion of Imaam Ahmad or Imaam as-Shaafi'ee, we say he is wrong. But to say that a salafi is someone who does not follow a madh-hab, this is not correct. Therefore when it comes to following a madh-hab there are the two extremes and middle path. Thus whenever those who follow a madh-hab and become fanatical in their adherence to their madh-hab to the point that they refuse to look at the evidences and their main concern is only to defend their madh-hab, then no doubt this is a bidah that took place amongst the latter generation of some of the fuqahaa.
The shaykh then finalized his comment on this particular issue by stating, “The truth is that the eminent scholars from the salaf such ibn 'Abdul-Bar, Shaykhul-Islaam, those before them and those who came after them from the contemporary scholars of recent times such as shaykh Muhammad 'Abdul-Wahaab and the shuyookh of the da'wah, they all followed a madh-hab6, but very distant from diehard madh-hab fanaticism. Indeed what they did was choose the fiqh principles of Ahmad, or as-Shaafi'ee, or Abu Hanifah. The point is that when speaking about following a madh-hab it must be a balanced statement. It is not permissible to support a madh-hab based on partisanship, nor is it permissible to object to (the concept of following) a madh-hab. This does not mean that following a madh-hab is a sunnah that the Muslims must adhere to, rather there must be ijtihaad because the ummah is in need of ijtihaad for there are issue that have occurred that the fuqahaa of the past have never discussed. What is meant is that these issue should be approached in the correct manner. Thus making ijtihaad does not negate following a madh-hab, and likewise being salafi does not contradict following a madh-hab. For indeed the imaams of those madhaahib are the imaams of the salaf and many of their prominent followers were upon the aqeedah of the salaf.”
see:
http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=6153
,
