On the topic of laymen ending up following strange opinions:
Brother HH, I had a question. After broaching this topic with some sisters, who also seem to be allergic to this word, they also began voicing similar concerns, somewhere along the lines of:
So if it's okay to take from any scholar (such as Hanafi ones) - then the way the women pray in the sub-continentals you're going to say is okay?! The way they pray like dogs and stick their arms to the ground and their rukoo' is not complete, and we know all of this is against the Qur'an and Sunnah but because they are following a scholar you are going to say it's okay?
Or what about if some person decides they want to do taqleed of Ibn Hazm's opinion on music?? You're going to say this is legitimate?
And they won't get past that point. That if you allow a layman to follow whichever person they find trustworthy and do taqleed of them, people will take 'strange opinions' from the scholars and follow them. I've replied to this in my own way, and I've read some of your threads before. But I thought I would ask personally. Ibn Hazm's can be said to be an odd opinion yes, but what about the prayer?
And some of this is the same rhetoric it seems Hammy and Aziboy are repeating. I don't know why this becomes such a big issue - but what's the best response to these?
Few points:
1. Laymen's job is to find a trustworthy and pious scholar upon the Sunnah. His evidence his fatwa itself.
2. His job is not an investigation into what evidences he is using. If that was his job, then there would be no difference between the layman and the scholar. Verification is not the job of the layman. The texts of Usool are pretty clear on this - if everybody was forced to look for evidences in every thing they did, that would destroy the worldly affairs of the Ummah. If Aziboy and Hammy were asked about their whole Salah procedure, they perhaps would not even be able to cite three Hadith!
3. If a scholar makes a mistake, the layman is not at all responsible. The layman is unable to assess if the scholar is right or wrong. Even if the scholar gives him evidence, it does not make him right as their could be flaws in the provided evidence. All what this means is that the layman is not burdened with any of this. The last verse of Baqarah proves this, as well as the third-to-last verse in Taghabun.
4. All this means is that no matter how wrong or weak the fatwa is, the layman cannot be held to account. His job was to identify a scholar. Only the Mu`tazilites of Baghdad obliged him to look into evidences.
5. On the topic of the Salah of a woman being different from a man's Salah, that doesn't even fall into isolated minority opinion. There are so many scholarly precedents from the Salaf for the opinion of differentiation. See for example:
http://www.feqhweb.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6046&p=39145&viewfull=1#post39145
A person who condemns this opinion, or a person who condemns the other opinion, should be educated about the etiquette differing, or Adab 'l-Khilaf. Both opinions exist. It's no different from any other issue.
6. On the topic of Ibn Hazm and music, yes it is perhaps an isolated opinion. But if a scholar today says that music is Halal and a layman honestly believes him to be trustworthy, then he is not liable. If somebody claims the layman is liable, they should bring proof. Do they have any proof? Saying that 'evidences say that music is Haram' is not proof to establish liability upon the layman.
What I will say, however, is that if the layman is told by other scholars - and I mean scholars, not just ordinary people - that the opinion (of music for example) is totally wrong, or is severely weak, then it is preferable that he exercises Tarjeeh between the scholars on this issue, or reassesses whether he should be following the scholar who allows music in the topic of music itself. He may ask for evidences and see which are more clearer. Nothing more - you just can't force the layman to change opinion by giving evidences. He should then follow his heart in this matter as is the guidance of the Hadith.
By heart, we don't mean his Nafs and desire, but rather we mean the same heart that gets him out of bed for Fajr. That is the standard. So if a person does not have that much Taqwa to get up for even a basic obligation like Fajr, then the opinion of music would be become petty in the bigger scheme of things and we would say that this layman has greater issues to be concerned about.
7. Overall, the existence strange opinions is not something new. However, you cannot dismantle the laws of Usool 'l-Fiqh based on hypothetical questions like 'oh the layman would end up listening to music or drinking beer etc. etc.'. Real-life case studies should be presented and they should be assessed on their individual merits.
8. Since these people have such an obsession against Hanafi Fiqh in particular, I would say just one thing: Commercial vinegar is only allowed to be consumed in Hanafi Fiqh - nobody else really said that vinegar is allowed unless alcohol accidentally becomes wine. Do these detractors of Hanafi Fiqh never consume vinegar or what? If so, do they base it on evidence, or the mere fact that Hanafi Fiqh allows it?
In a nutshell, the layman is not responsible. Any claims that oblige evidence-responsibility is outright wrong and/or severely weak. People who babble on about 'oh the layman must follow the evidence' are only reviving the Baghdadi Mu`tazili opinion, and have to this day failed to outline a proper procedure as to how the layman is supposed to arrive at the correct conclusion. There are so many legal flaws in obliging the investigation of evidences on layman that is is difficult to count them. There is a thread on IA where there are serious questions against the notion of laymen being forced to look into evidences - I'll list a few:
- Prove there is Ijmaa` that a scholar must provide evidence to the layman.
- If there is such a Daleel, which Daleel obliges the Mufti that he shouldn't provide you conflicting pieces of evidence and rulings? After then tell us what Daleel obliges either you or the Mufti to reconcile between the conflict, or provide Tarjeeh between the conflicting rulings or evidences.
- Which Daleel obliges the Mufti to provide you evidence in English, since evidences are only in Arabic? I submit to you that learning evidences in English makes you a Muqallid of only the translator!
- Which Daleel do you have that, even if the Mufti gives you a translation of evidence, that you are obliged to understand it, or that the Mufti is obliged to make you understand it?
Furthermore, these women in the subcontinental areas who have learned like this, the sisters feel a 'duty' to bring them out of their 'blindness' into Qur'an and Sunnah - but how much responsibility would you say is on the layman to contradict opinions they don't feel are correct towards other laymen - or what is the method in doing so?
I hope those make sense? I'd like to ask to clear the air, as I truly appreciate your presence here and would like to gain myself.
Hmm. I feel it is our duty to educate these sisters about the aforementioned points. If they are not willing to listen, then you can grill them on the bolded questions above.
Suffice to say for now that the Usooli scholars have understood any such obligation on the layman!
The famous Khateeb Baghdadi said in his al-Faqeeh Wa-'l-Mutafaqqih:
"ليس ينبغي للعامي أن يطالب المفتي بالحجة فيما أجابه به، ولا يقول لم ولا كيف؟ قال الله سبحانه وتعالى "فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمون، وفرق تبارك وتعالى بين العامة وبين أهل العلم فقال "قل هل يستوي الذين يعلمون والذين لايعلمون". فإن أحب أن تسكن نفسه بسماع الحجة في ذلك سأل عنها في زمان آخر ومجلس ثان أو بعد قبول الفتوى من المفتي مجردة
It is not appropriate for the layman to ask the Mufti for evidence for his answer, and should not say 'why' or 'how'. Allah says "Ask the People of Dhikr if you do not know". Allah draws a line between the laymen and the scholars and said "Can the knowledgeable and those who do not have knowledge be equal?". If he really wants to hear the evidence, he should ask him at another time in another sitting, or on the back of wholeheartedly accepting the Mufti's fatwa [i.e. the layman won't change opinion his opinion regardless of what evidence he gives].
and before that he said:
وحكي عن بعض المعتزلة انه قال : لا يجوز للعامي العمل بقول العالم حتى يعرف علة الحكم ، وإذا سأل العالم فإنما يسأله أن يعرفه طريق الحكم فإذا عرفه وقف عليه وعمل به . وهذا غلط لأنه لا سبيل للعامي إلى الوقوف على ذلك إلا بعد أن يتفقه سنين كثيرة ويخالط الفقهاء المدة الطويلة ، ويتحقق طرق القياس ويعلم ما يصححه ويفسده ، وما يجب تقديمه على غيره من الأدلة . وفي تكليف العامة بذلك تكليف ما لا يطيقونه ولا سبيل لهم إليه
It has been reported from some Mu`tazilites that it is not permissible for a layman to practise on the opinion of a scholar until he learns the reason of the ruling...
This [Mu`tazilite opinion] is totally wrong because a layman has no way in understanding that unless he learns Fiqh for many years and sits by the jurists for a long period
, learns of the ways of analogy and learns of what validates and invalidates [analogy], and [he learns] of what evidences have priority over others. Obliging the layman to do this is obliging them with that which they are unable of, and they have no chance in doing so.
Al-Subki said in his Usooli base text Jam` 'l-Jawaami`:
وللعامي سؤاله عن مأخذه استرشادا ثم عليه بيانه إن لم يخف
A layman may ask [the Mufti] for his source [from which he took the ruling] as a matter of guidance, and then [the Mufti] should explain it [to him] if it is not unclear.
The great scholar and Usooli al-Sam`ani in his Qawati` 'l-Adillah mentions two points:
1. That if the evidence is clear-cut and does not require Ijtihad, then he must present it to the layman if he asks for it; otherwise he doesn't have to if the layman is not up for comprehending the evidence
فإن قال قائل هل يجوز للعامى أن يطالب العالم بدليل؟ الجواب قلنا لا يمنعه أن يطالب به لأجل احتياطه لنفسه ويلزم العالم أن يذكر الدليل إن كان مقطوعا به لإشرافه على العلم بصحته ولا يلزمه أن يذكر له الدليل إن لم يكن مقطوعا به لافتقاره إلى الاجتهاد ويقصر عنه العامى
2. The Mu`tazilah who prohibited Taqleed in Furoo` made Qiyas upon Usool (i.e. Aqeedah), in which there is mutual agreement that Taqleed is not allowed
وقاسوا أيضا التقليد فى الفروع على التقليد فى الأصول وقالوا إذا لم يجز فى أحدهما لا يجوز فى الآخر
And lastly brother, do you feel translating taqleed as 'blind following' is the best choice? Sometimes I feel it doesn't do justice to the word, but confuses people instead and makes them adverse to being called 'blind' - even though in some senses it is true.
Taqleed is a necessity. Yes it is following, but what else is it? Every following is blind, laymen are blind. But there is no point rubbing it in by mentioning 'blind following' as if it was some sort of insult. What do you expect the layman to do anyway? Get some eyes?
ok, im going through all four pages today InshAllah...
