NOT FOLLOWING ONE PARTICULAR MAZHAB

Not Following one particular Madhab out of the Four

Quote:

one who doesnt follow any particular imam and gets bits and bats from the four madhabs and mix’s them up which would be against the rules of all four, For example, A person with Wudhu touched his wife which according to the Shafi Mazhab nullifies Wudhu: Now when he is told to make Wudhu, he replies: “I follow Imaam Abu Hanifah and it is not a breaker of Wudhu according to his Mazhab, therefore my Salaat will be valid.” Now this person vomits, which according to Hanafi Mazhab, breaks Wudhu. He is now told to make Wudhu. He replies: ‘I follow Imam Shafii; it is not a nullifier of Wudhu, therefore my Salaat is valid’. If this person (who has on the one hand, touched his spouse, and on the other hand, vomited) has to perform his Salaat with such a Wudhu, it would neither be correct by Imaam Abu Hanifah nor by Imam Shafii. In terminology this is known as Talfiq which is agreed upon unanimously to be void and not permitted. This is not Taqlid but following one’s passions and desires for one’s personal convenience which lead one astray. The necessity of following a Mazhab, Imam or Mujtahid is that one would not fall into the temptations of following one’s own desires. The Holy Qurãn states:

‘And do not follow desires. You would be led astray from the path of Allah.” Thus the need of following only one Imam.

All the four madhahib are right, and following any one of them is permissible in order to follow the Shari’ah. However, a layman who lacks the ability analyse and distinguish the arguments of each madhhab cannot be allowed to pick and choose between different views only to satisfy his personal desires. The reason for this approach is twofold:

Firsty, the Holy Qur’an in a number of verses has emphatically ordered us to follow the Shari’ah, and has made it strictly prohibited to follow the personal desires vis a vis the rules of Shari’ah. The Muslim jurists, while interpreting the sources of Shari’ah never intend to satisfy their personal desires. They actually undertake an honest effort to discover the intention of Shari’ah and base their madhhab on the force of evidence, not on the search for convenience. They do not choose an interpretation from among the various ones on the basis of its suitability to their personal fancies. They choose it only because the strength of proof leads them to do so.

Now, if a layman who cannot judge between the arguments of different madhahib is allowed to choose any of the juristic views without going into the arguments they have advanced, he will be at liberty to select only those views which seem to him more fulfilling to his personal requirements, and this attitude will lead him to follow the ‘desires’ and not the ‘guidance’ — a practice totally condemned by the Holy Qur’an.
that the selection of different views in different cases is not based on the force of arguments underlying them but on the facility provided by each. Obviously this practice is tantamount to ‘following the desires’ which is totally prohibited by the Holy Qur’an.

If such an attitude is allowed, it will render the Shari’ah a plaything in the hands of the ignorant, and no rule of the Shari’ah will remain immune from distortion. That is why the policy of ‘pick and choose’ has been condemned by all the renowned scholars of Shari’ah. Imam Ibn Tamiyyah, the famous muhaddib and jurist, says in his ‘Fatawa’:

“Some people follow at one time an imam who holds the marriage invalid, and at another time they follow a jurist who holds it valid. They do so only to serve their individual purpose and satisfy their desires. Such a practice is impermissible according to the consensus of all the imams.”

He further elaborates the point by several examples when he says:

“For example if a person wants to pre-empt a sale he adopts the view of those who give the right of pre-emption to a contingent neighbour, but if they are the seller of a property, they refuse to accept the right of pre-emption for the neighbour of the seller (on the basis of Shafi’i view) . . . and if the relevant person claims that he did not know before (that Imam Shafi’i does not give the right of pre-emption to the neighbour) and has come to know it only then, and he wants to follow that view as from today, he will not be allowed to do so, because such a practice opens the door for playing with the rules of Shari’ah, and paves the path for deciding the halal and haram in accordance with one’s desires.”
(Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah Syrian ed. 2:285,286)

That was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists who made it necessary for the common people to adopt a particular madhhab in its totality. If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah, he should adopt it in all matters and with all its details, and if he prefers another madhhab, he should adopt it in full in the same way and he should not ‘pick and choose’ between different views for his individual benefit.

The consequence of the correctness of all the madhahib, is that one can elect to follow any one of them, but once he adopts a particular madhhab, he should not follow another madhhab in a particular matter in order to satisfy his personal choice based on his desire, not on the force of argument.

There is a stark difference between the rulings of The A’imma-e-Mujtahideen and a fatwa. The A’imma-e-Mujtahideen i.e. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shaafi,Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal, and Imam Maalik (Rahmatullaahi Alaihim) were all Mujtahids. Their knowledge in the tafsir of the Noble Qurãn and Ahaadith of Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) was so vast that they had the ability to independently arrive at a decision on any one issue. Hence the difference of opinion among the Imams are differences stemming from Mujtahideen and their different Principles of Ijtihaad. On the other hand,the Úlama of Azhar, Deoband, etc. are not Mujtahideen. They are very far away from the shores of Ijtihaad.

Jalaaluddeen Suyuti (Rahmatullaahi Alaihi), a great and renowned scholar who has contributed in almost every field, viz. Tafseer, Hadith, Usul (Principles of) Tafseer, Usul-ul-Hadith (Principles of Hadith), Fiqh,Principles of Fiqh, etc. was not accepted as a Mujtahid by his
contemporaries. The Úlama of today do not qualify to be Mujtahids, hence they are followers of their respective Imams. Their differences of opinion do not stem from differences of opinion in the “Principles of Ijtihaad”. They are rightly Muqallideen (followers) of their respective Imams. The differences of opinion may be categorised as: i) following a different Mazhab; or ii) following the same Mazhab, with variational differences, e.g. misinterpretation of the Imam’s view.

In the first case the difference among the Úlama is in fact the difference of opinion among the A’imma-e-Mujtahideen and, therefore unobjectionable. Every individual should follow the opinion of the Imam he follows.

In the second case if the differences are due to misinterpretation or ignorance of the Imam’s principles or opinion then it will be objectionable.Such views cannot be tolerated as the views of the different Imams. The views of the different Imams stem from their Ijtihaad whereas the views of the Úlama ought to stem from the principles set out by their Imams. Therefore the differences among the Úlama are very far from the differences of the Imams.

Reverting to your first question, the Úlama of Azhar are not Mujtahideen,and as a result they are not in a position to be Imams. Furthermore, a non-Aalim may follow a learned Muqallid of his Mazhab as a guide in order to make proper Taqleed of his respective Imam.When following a learned Muqallid, it is important to know his source of knowledge. It should be noted that the source of education has an influence on an individual’s future and direction in life.

The Aalim must also be firmly adhering to and practising on the Noble Qurãn and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) i.e. The Shariáh.One should avoid following the Azhari Ulama in the belief of making their Taqleed.

“Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain understanding of the religion, and to admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning” (Qur’an 9:122)

—where the expression li yatafaqqahu fi al-din, “to gain understanding of the religion,” is derived from precisely the same root (f-q-h) as the word fiqh or “jurisprudence,” and is what Western students of Arabic would call a “fifth-form verb” (tafa‘‘ala), which indicates that the meaning contained in the root, understanding, is accomplished through careful, sustained effort.

This Qur’anic verse establishes that there should be a category of people who have learned the religion so as to be qualified in turn to teach it. And Allah has commanded those who do not know a ruling in Sacred Law to ask those who do, by saying in surat al-Nahl,

“Ask those who recall if you know not” (Qur’an 16:43),

in which the words “those who recall,” ahl al-dhikri, indicate those with knowledge of the Qur’an and sunna, at their forefront the mujtahid Imams of this Umma.

Taqleed – A Qur’aanic Command

The basis for Taqleed is a Qur’aanic command.

“And, ask the People of Knowledge if you do not know.”

Thus the general principle of Taqleed is enshrined in the Qur’aan Majeed. Denial of this principle is, therefore, an act of kufr which expels the denier from the fold of Islam.

Everybody makes claims of giving opinions but only that ruling is accepted which is in accordance with Shariah and of a Mujtahid. The verdict of a Muqallid will not be accepted. The Mujtahid makes Ijtihad while the Muqallid makes Taqlid. Even if the Mujtahid makes a mistake he is rewarded as mentioned in Bukhari, Vol. 1 p. I1092.

The Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) sent Hadrat Muadh ibn Jabal (Radhiyallaahu Ánhu) as a Governor and Qaadhi to Yemen. The Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) gave to Hadrat Muadh many instructions and advices even while he held the reins and led the horse with Hadrat Muadh mounted on it. The Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) also asked: “By which law would you dispense justice.” He replied: “By the Law of the Holy Qurãn.”

“And if you do not find it (i.e. what you seek) in the Holy Qurãn.”

He replied: “By the Prophetic Traditions.”

“And if you do not find it in there also, then!”

He replied: “Then I would make Ijtihad.” The Holy Prophet, (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) expressed his happiness with his reply and fully endorsed and supported his stand and thanked Allah for it. (Abu Daawud Vol 2. p. 149)

the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said, in the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim: “When a judge gives judgement and strives to know a ruling (ijtahada) and is correct, he has two rewards. If he gives judgement and strives to know a ruling, but is wrong, he has one reward” (Bukhari, 9.133).

The Qur’an clearly distinguishes between these two levels—the nonspecialists whose way is taqlid or “following the results of scholar without knowing the detailed evidence”; and those whose task is to know and evaluate the evidence—by Allah Most High saying in surat al-Nisa’:

“If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter” (Qur’an 4:83)

—where alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum, “those of them whose task it is to find it out,” refers to those possessing the capacity to infer legal rulings directly from evidence, which is called in Arabic precisely istinbat, showing, as Qur’anic exegete al-Razi says, that “Allah has commanded those morally responsible to refer actual facts to someone who can infer (yastanbitu) the legal ruling concerning them” (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi, 10.205).

the term ijtihad or “striving to know a ruling” in this hadith does not mean just any person’s efforts to understand and operationalize an Islamic ruling, but rather the person with sound knowledge of everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) taught that relates to the question. Whoever makes ijtihad without this qualification is a criminal. The proof of this is the hadith that the Companion Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah said:

We went on a journey, and a stone struck one of us and opened a gash in his head. When he later had a wet-dream in his sleep, he then asked his companions, “Do you find any dispensation for me to perform dry ablution (tayammum)?” [Meaning instead of a full purificatory bath (ghusl).] They told him, “We don’t find any dispensation for you if you can use water.”

So he performed the purificatory bath and his wound opened and he died. When we came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), he was told of this and he said: “They have killed him, may Allah kill them. Why did they not ask?—for they didn’t know. The only cure for someone who does not know what to say is to ask” (Abu Dawud, 1.93).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, is well authenticated (hasan), and every Muslim who has any taqwa should reflect on it carefully, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) indicated in it—in the strongest language possible—that to judge on a rule of Islam on the basis of insufficient knowledge is a crime. And like it is the well authenticated hadith “Whoever is given a legal opinion (fatwa) without knowledge, his sin is but upon the person who gave him the opinion” (Abu Dawud, 3.321).

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also said:

Judges are three: two of them in hell, and one in paradise. A man who knows the truth and judges accordingly, he shall go to paradise. A man who judges for people while ignorant, he shall go to hell. And a man who knows the truth but rules unjustly, he shall go to hell (Sharh al-sunna, 10.94).

This hadith, which was related by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and others, is rigorously authenticated (sahih), and any Muslim who would like to avoid the hellfire should soberly consider the fate of whoever, in the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), “judges for people while ignorant.”

It is not permissible to leave making taqleed of one Imam and follow another Imam when one wishes. When this is done without permission from the Shariat it leads to Talfeeq, it also causes one to follow one’s desires resulting in going far away from the truth and being lead astray.There is ijma and consensus of opinion that talfeeq is ba’til and impermissible Talfeeq And Changing Madhabs Is Not Permissible, to leave taqleed made upon one Imaam and follow another Imaam when one wishes involves probing in matters of Shari’ah without possessing the authority to do so. When this is done without permission from the Shariah it leads to talfeeq, it also causes one to follow one’s desires resulting in going far away from the truth and being led astray.In reality by doing this a person does not make taqleed of Imaam Shaaf’i Rahmatullahi alaihe or Imaam Abu Hanifa Rahmatullahi alaihe, but he is following his desires, and the Shariah has prohibited us from following our desires.

Its result is going astray from the path of Allah Taa’la.

Allah Taa’la says in Surah Hud Ayaat 26:

‘And do not follow your desires (in future too) for it will lead you astray from the path of Allah.’

Therefore it is Necessary to make Taqleed of one Imaam only.

THIS FATWAH OF IBN TAYMIYAH (RA) WHO QUOTES IMAM AHMAD ( RA)

 

http://www.ahmadonline.tk

 

THE QUR’AN AND TAQLEED

THE QUR’AN AND TAQLEED

The guiding principles of taqleed are mentioned in the Qur’an.

The First Verse

{O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.} (4:59)

The ulul amr (those in authority) are said by some to be the Muslim rulers and governors and by others to be the jurists. The second explanation is by Sayyidina Jabir ibn Abdullah (rad) Abdullah ibn Abbas (rad) ( This tafseer of Abdullah ibn Abbas is reported by Mu’amiyah ibn Salih from Ali ibn Abu Talhah. (Ibn Jarir v5 p88). This is the strongest line of transmissiori of his report (AI-ltqan # 80), Mujahid (ra), Ata ibn Abu Rabah (ra), Ata ibn as-Sa’ib (ra), Hasan Basri (ra), Abu al-Aaliyah (ra) and many others. lmam Razi (ra) has preferred this explanation citing many. arguments. He said:
It is preferable to apply the meaning ulama to ulul amr in this verse

(Tafseer Kabeer v3 p334.)

Imam Abu Bakr Jassas (ra) found no contra­diction in both the Ahadith. Rather both meanings are valid. The rulers need to be. obeyed in political matters
while the ulama must be obeyed in issues pertaining to

Shari’ah(Ahkam ul Qur’an; Jassas v2 p256). Allamah ibn al-Qayyim said that obedience to the rulers leads finally to obedience to the scholars of religion because the rulers obey the ulama in matters of Shari’ah

(ilam ul-Muqi’een, Ibn Qayyim vI p7)

Anyway, the verse asks ‘the Muslims to obey Allah and His Messenger. and the ulama and jurists who explain the words of Allah and His Messenger. and this (last) obedience is taqleed.
The next portion of this verse is:

{Then if you quarrel on anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day.}
(11 :59)
According to the above explanation, it is a continuous sentence in which the mujtahideen are addressed. Abu Bakr Jassas (ra)wrote in support of ulama as ‘those in aurhority’.

That Allah’s words, if you quarrel follow

immediately His statement about ulul amr (those in authority) is evidence that ulul amr are the jurists, because Allah has commanded all men to obey them. Then, after saying, if you quarrel…””, He commanded the ulul amr that they should refer back to Allah’s Book and His Messenger’s sunnah that in which they differ. This command could be directed only to the jurists because the mass s and the unknowledgeable cannot be of that standard and they do not know how they have to refer back any matter to Allah’s Book and the sunnah. And they do not know how to derive evidence for new issues. So, it is the ulama who are addressed here.)
The famous scholar of Ahl Hadith, Allamah Nawwab Siddiq Hasan Khan (ra) has also confirmed in his exegesis that the words of the Qur’an in this verse are addressed to the Mujtahadeen.

And obviously this is an address by itself and it is directed to the Mujtahids.
So, it is not correct to conclude that those who are not competent to make ijtihad may refer to the Qur’an and
. Hadith directly in connection with disputed issues and derive their conclusions. Rather, the first sentence of the verse addresses those people who cannot derive commands directly from the Qur’an and sunnah. It is their duty to obey Allah and His Messenger .A by asking for rulings’ and explanations from the ulul amr and conducting themselves on it. The second sentence addresses the mujtahideen. They are directed to turn to Allah’s Book and the Messenger’s .A sunnah and deduce comm nds. So, in the first sentence the muqallid is commanded to make taqleed and in the second mujtahid to make ijtihad.

The Second Verse

{And when there comes to them any tiding, whether of peace or of fear (or war), they spread it abroad. If they had only reffered it to the Messenger. and to those in authority among them, then those among them who can search the truth about it, would have known (how to dispose of) the matter}. (4:83)

The hypocrites in Madinah spread rumours concerning war and peace. Some simple Muslims fell into their trap and passed on to others whatever they heard. This created an atmosphere of uncertainty. The verse instructs Muslims not to do so but inform the ulul amr of whatever they learn. The qualified among them would investigage and let them know the truth.Though this verse was revealed about a particular situation, yet the principles of exegesis and principles of jurisprudence rely on to the- general words of the verse drawcommani1s and rulings. Accordingly, this verse guides us to contact the people specialised in investigation and act according to their deduction. This is taqleed. Imam ‘Razi (ra) has written about this’verse.

So to draw conclusions is evidence, and qiyas (analogical deduction) is the same thing or part of it, and is proof, too. Given that, this verse is evidence of some matters.

(Tafseer Kabeer, v3 p272)

Some of the new issues that grow are not understood by the text, but one has to draw conclusion to find out their meaning.

(TahreekAzadi-e-Fikr, Mawlana Muhammad isma’il, p31)

istinbat (to draw conclusion, to arrive at the truth) is proof.

(Tafseer Kabeer, v3 p273)

It is obligatory for the masses to make taqleed of the scholars concerning issues and commands that they face.”]

Some people have demurred that this verse was revealed concerning war and so is specific about such situations and cannot be applied to times of peace.2 However, we have stated already that reliance is placed on the text not on the background of specific situation. Imam Razi (ra) has answered this objection.

Allah’s saying And when comes to them any tiding, whether of peace or of fear….very general. It
encompasses war situations and all legal questions too. War and ,peace are such that no chapter of Shari’ah excludes them. There is no word in the verse that might make it specific to war.3
Imam Abu Bakr Jassas Razi has given the same answer in much detail and rejected incidental doubts.l This is why the well-known scholar of Ahl-Hadith has. written while citing this verse in support of qiyas:

If we do not get from the verse guidance for the times of peace than how do we cite it for validity of qiyas. 2

1 Ahkam Qur’an, Jassas v2 p263. Chapter: ‘Obedience to the Messenger

2 Tafseer Fath-ul Bayan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, v2 p33.

The Third Verse

{Why, then, should not of every section of them, a party go forth, that they may become learned in (the knowledge of) religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, that they may be aware.} (9:122)

This verse confirms that all members of Muslims must not occupy themselves in works like Jihad and so on. Rather there should be a party of them who occupy themselves day and night to acquire perfect understandIng of faith. They may thus teach the commands of Shari’ah to those who cannot find time to acquire knowledge.This verse binds the section devoting itself to learning to acquaint other people to the laws of Shari’ah. And, it binds these other people to conduct themselves on the teachings imparted to them by the learned section and thus keep themselves away from disobedience to Allah. This is taqleed. Imam Jassas (ra) has said:

In this verse, Allah has made it obligatory for the masses that when the ulama acqaint them (with commands of Shari’ah) then they must preserve themselves (from disobedience to Allah) and obey the ulama.1

1 Ahkam ul Qur’an, Jassas, v2 p262 e Ruhul Ma’ani v 14 P 148

The Fourth Verse

{SO, ask the people (having the knowledge) of the Message, if you do not know.} (16:43)(21 :7)

This verse outlines the principle of guidance that those people who are not experts in knowledge and sciences may ask the specialists in this field and act accordingly. This is known as taqleed. Allamah Aalusi (ra) wrote:

This verse is cited to prove that it is wajib to refer to the ulama for such th ings in wh ich one lacks knowledge. Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti (ra) wrote in lkleel that it is deduced from this verse that taqleed is allowed to the common men for branch issues.

( Ruhul Ma’ani v 14 P 148)

Some people argue that this verse is specific to a particular situation. The idolators of Makkah used to ask why an angel was not sent to them as a Messenger. In answer, this particular verse was revealed and all its words are:
And We sent not (Messengers) before you (0 Prophet) but men to whom We sent revelation – ask the people (having the knowledge) of the Message, if you do not know.(I 6:43)

Some exegetes say that the words Ahl uz-Zikr (people­having the knowledge – of the message) are the scholars of the People of the Book, but some others hold that they are those of them who became Muslims in the Prophet’s (saw) times. Yet others contend that they are the people of
the Qur’an, Muslims. The verse implies that everyone knows that all the past Prophets (as) were mortal and none of them was an angel. So – those who disavow taqleed argue – that the context of the verse does not embrace the subject of taqleed and ijtihad.

Our answer is that from the point of view of the text the verse is evidence of taqleed. We may take whatever meanig of ahl uz-Zir (people havig knowledge of the message), but we are instructed to turn to them because of our personal lack of knowledge. This can be correct only when we concede that ‘every unaware should refer to the aware.’ It is to this principle that the verse guides us and it is on this basis that we know that taqleed is valid. We have made it clear earlier that:

(Reliance is placed on the general words of the verse, not on the specific condition for which it is relvealed.)
Therefore, we deduce from the verse the principle that those people who lack knowledge must refer to the knowledgeable.

This is taqleed. Khateeb Baghdadi (ra ) wrote:

As for the question who may make taqleed, it is the masses who do not know the methods of Shari’ah commands. It is allowed to them to make taqleed of a scholar and conduct themselves on this directions because Allah says (Ask the people of the message).l
He has then reported on his chain of transmission that Amr ibn Qays (ra ) said that Ahl uz-Zikr the foregoing verse means people of knowledge (scholars).

1 Al-Faqeeh wal Mutataqqih, Khateeb Baghdadi, v2 p68. Dar-ul-Ifta, Riyadh.

Mufti Taqi Usmani