Between all these ''sects'', where am I ?

salaam Abu Zaynab, not exactly sure what you are after on this thread.  Are you looking for evidences on why we should follow a madhab or why we shouldn't follow one?

A madhab is not a "sect" rather it is a jurisprudential framework which has been tried and tested over centuries to allow us to follow the deen.  The different mujtahid imaams gave different weight to matters which one would learn in usul al fiqh i.e. the actions of the people of madinah or the actions of sahabah in general etc (I am not that well versed at all in usul).

I hope this is a start, and if this is not where you wanted the thread to go then forgive me.

Not evidences but regarding that notion of 'wanting proofs and stop blind following scholars' etc,.

I want to know how to counter such frivilous arguments we see each day because advising such people is not helping much by saying 'The Imams and scholars know the proof so you are not blind following'.

Well give them a copy of sahih bukhari and muslim in arabic and say - show me how to pray by using these...

In reality everyone follows someone unless they travelled back in time and spent time with Rasulullah, the difference I suppose is that some people are more forward with showing the evidences why they put their hands where they do etc.  Traditionally the adillah come afterwards but perhaps now there is an argument when studying fiqh to have the evidences at an earlier stage for the very reason you say.

To Abu Zaynab,

Regarding Taqlid(blind following) This is a problem that is less severe now then it was before. It is a disease that even the prophet spoke about in ahdaith about scholars and following them into hellfire.  I do not call myself Salafi. Some people try to force you to sayy it by asking questions, dont you follow the salaf? dont you follow the prophet? then your salafi man just admit it!, that is what we have to deal with sometimes. However Ibn Uthaymeen said do not call yourself salafi. Because there is dangers in this. The word itself means followers of the richeous predesseors. There is nothing wrong to say i follow the salaf, or i follow salafi dawah or salafiyyah. But when you join the salafi movement thats a different issue. As Ibn Uthaymeen said, these people who call themselve salafi are no diffferent then the ikhwaniyyun, and so on, why? Because all they do is point fingers at eachother. If you believe in jihad the salafis will say you khawarij, then those brothers will say you are munafiq, then they will call the ikhwaniyyun misguided then the ikhwaniyuun will say no u r, and its a circle of backbiting pointing and non sense. And that is why Ibn Uthaymeen said do not join this group even if they are the ones closest to the correct path, i hope that makes sense because the prophet told us DO NOT FORM GROUPS, and we see the dangers of this everyday but yet everyone says no we are closer on the sunnah then you all thinking they are right but in the end, none of them are.

I love the Hanbali madhab, i love it because there is no qiyas in it, there is no intpretation and no what ifs. After studying all 4 madhahibs i now know this one falls in more accordance with me and what i believe. Is there a danger for calling yourself Hanbali or Maliki, no, Because when you call yourself salafi or anythign else you are dealing with aqeedah and what manjhaj you are on. While Hanbali is just a school of thought which teaches rules and the ways of islam in accordance with the prophets teachings. So there is no dangers, because when people ask me, what are you i say muslim, but i have seen hundreds of salafis in my day when people ask them what are you they say oh im a salafi. some of them dont bother saying muslim anymore and it is becoming a problem. So i dont mind saying hanafi or maliki cause that is not a big deal, because all of the scholars have added something to there name, Ibn rajab al hanbali, to show this is the fiqh he followed, or Ibn Qudama al maqdisi, to show he was from al quds, or Sufyan ath thawri to show he was from the tribe of thawr, or Hasan al Basri to show he was from al Basrah. Most all scholars have added something to there name wether its what they follow or where they are from. But these people said im muslim, while today alot of people are sayign im salafi or im tablighi and so on.

Also people who follow one madhab do not blindly follow. When i was learning Umdat al fiqh they were taking the correct opinion with whoever had it, if the shafi'is were right he said the shafis r right, if the ahnaf were right he said they are correct. So just because you follow a madhab doesnt mean you only follow that madhab. because that is taqlid. Every scholar who walked this earth learned from 1 madhab, Because that sets your feet in the ground. If you learn them all at once you will never find the correct opinion because they disagree sometimes. So once you learned the basics, then you moved to another book. For example umdat al fiqh you learn 1 opinion of Imam Ahmad, then you move to al muqni and you have 2 opinions of imam ahmad, then you go to al kafi and you learn the dissagreements in the madhab then you go to al mughni and mughni gives all the scholars opinions and then says what opinion is correct regardless of what madhab  said it or scholar who said it.  But following one is so you learn principles and basics and then when you learned those basics you can move on  until you get to the point where they explain whos right and whos wrong, this takes sabr. Extemism in following a madhab is over. This is something that happened along time ago for example. When Imam Ash Shafi'i went to Egypt they thought wow we are getting a maliki scholar because we are Malikis. But shafi started his own madhab and they beat up ash shafi, and they say this is how he died, because when he was beat up his illness he had years before that went away came back as a result of that beating and he then  died, And i believe he was 54 or so and he was young. Also people would protest of a shafi'i was appointed to a hanafi country and vice versa, those days are over now. But people who dont know the rules and basics think that you need to follow everything the madhab says and that is incorrect.

Wa alaykum salam wr wb,

Sometimes things get lost in translation. Sect is an English word coming from Latin origins. From my little reading into the topic, the Latin word is secta derived from sequi, meaning to follow. Thus, the Latin word secta means a beaten path; from there a school of thought. Often in English the word sect comes to imply a group who in the Christian tradition has deviating beliefs. There is also a similar word from the Latin secare, which means to cut, and from that the above notion from the Christian tradition is found.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sect&allowed_in_frame=0.

Having such a derogatory underpinning, the word is not a suitable equivalent for ‘Madhhab.’ While perhaps the Latin word secta as derived from sequi has some sort of parallel. Insha’Allah, rather than risking being lost in translation, it would be better to stick to Arabic words; one cannot translated istilahat.

The tread does so far seem involved in the discussion of taqlid, etc., being discussions had in the discourses of ‘ilm al-fiqh and its usul. Thus, one who does not even have a basic knowledge of either would perhaps start with learning both subjects from the ground up; specifically, the subject of usul al-fiqh.

Regarding one’s asking a scholar for a ruling’s evidence, in al-Bahr al-Muhit v. 6, p. 310, Zarkashi related from Ibn al-Sam’ani,

ويجوز للعامي أن يطالب العالم بدليل الجواب، لأجل احتياطه لنفسه. ويلزم العالم أن يذكر له الدليل إن كان مقطوعا به، لإشرافه على العلم بصحته. ولا يلزمه إن لم يكن مقطوعا به، لافتقاره إلى اجتهاد يقصر عنه فهم العامي اه

Allah knows best.

JazakumAllah Khayra,

Brothers Abu Murdiyah and Mollbllm,
This thread is not so much with the validity of following a Madhhab or not or to label oneself or not etc,.

I don't know how to touch upon this but maybe I shall mention some 'comments' of people that want to know adillah even before stepping on usool.

I have read two Salah books. One says to do Tasmiyyah out loud, one says not. Other says hands are below navel, other says above it. If I don't choose one opinion, I am following my whims?

if a scholar [I don't want to mention his name], claims that it's halaal to celebrate christmas, should I just blindly follow him without asking for proofs? A layman like me wants proof when asking scholars [be they of a Hanafi background or some other]. Is it really wrong to ask for proofs without studying usool or knowing 'arabic? Isnt this blindfollowing such that you are dismissed from asking for proofs?

I am not making up my own Islam nor doing my own Ijtihad nor disregarding any scholars.
Many of these so called madhhab followers do not even follow the Usool of Abu Hanifah and his students, rather they can't even trace their scholarship of today back to the Mujtahid. They finish their isnad when they come to Ibn Abidin or al-Marghinani etc,.
Why is that when a ruling is mentioned only Radd al-Muhtar is mentioned as a primary source?

Why is that when we read a book like Sahih al-Bukhari we are told to not use our intellect, as such we might lose our minds? Where is our intellect?

I am not against following madhhab or anything but such that I am wanting to know proofs of what I follow or what the Mu'tamad is.

Sorry for the lengthy post but the above is to just signify some of the arguments.

wa alaykum salam wr wb,

The request to be informed of a ruling's evidence may be welcome, while perhaps some of our ulama reading the above snippet might not understand it as simply one's eager desire to learn. "Many of these so called..." An uncouth wielding of the pen may well waste ink as "so called" invades an innocent page. The way in which we approach the turath, and its living inheritors, accounts for a lot of the learning process.

SubhanAllah, Imam Abu Hanifah is such a great scholar, that not only do the Hanafis trace their scholarship through him, the Shafi's do too. Thereby, the Hanbalis as well. Ahmad b. Hanbal < Imam Shafi'i < Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybani < Imam Abu Hanifah < Hammad < Ibrahim < Alqamah < Abd Allah < RasulAllah (SallAllahu alayhie wa sallam). This legacy continuing up to today is well known. In fact, it is for this very reason that we find figures like 'Ibn 'Abidin, Ibn Hajar, Ramli, etc. We have tried to demonstrate in the fiqh classes the transmission of fiqh, specific to the Shafi'i Madhhab, by way of scholars and books from Imam Shafi'i to our times. The fact of the matter is that generation after generation the connection is intact.

Bringing up the intellect in this discussion summons to mind a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, "An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."

Yes, exactly.

How to approach such examples mentioned in the quote? What's the answer to them?

In the name of Allah

I am aware of the arguments you have mentioned and the mentality of those who use them.  There may be many who are keen to learn and there may be some who want to cause trouble.  The realm of the niyyah is not our business.  

I think that studying usul-al-fiqh will eradicate the confusion you allude to and equip you with the ability to explain the correct approach to Fiqh and the foundational principles that the scholars have developed in extracting the rulings of the Sacred Law from their source texts. 

I will add here a brief introduction that may shed some light on the matter.  The information is taken from the explanation of Sh. M. Hasan ad-Dadu ash-Shinqiti in his book Usul al-Fiqh wal Qawaa’id al-Fiqhiyyah. It is in Arabic.  I will translate, summarize, and try to simplify as much as possible.

First of all, the Quran and Sunnah are approached from two facets: Wurood (transmission) and Dilaalah (understanding of the content of those transmissions).

The matter of wurood is associated with the ascription of the Quran to Allah and the ascription of the Sunnah to the Prophet (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him).  This occurs though riwaayah (reporting) and isnaad (chain of transmission).

The matter of dilaalah is associated with the intended meaning (of the Lawgiver) behind the content of the transmission. In other words, it is the field in which the scholars explore what Allah wants from His servants and what the Prophet (s) wants from his Ummah through the words of that transmission. 

The generation of the Companions (may Allah be well pleased with them all) had no need to investigate either of these two facets.  This is because they lived with the Prophet (s) and witnessed the coming of the revelation.  Thay had no problem in the area of wurood. They took the Quran and Sunnah directly from the Prophet (s).  Additionally, they were the most skilled in the knowledge of the Arabic language and therefore were most aware of the meanings and intents of the revelation. Hence, they also had no problems with determining dilaalah.

As for the next generation, the Followers (at-Tabi’een), they also had no need to investigate these two facets.  They met and transmitted directly from the Companions who were all trustworthy (‘udool), and they were also knowledgeable about Arabic and carried on the understanding of the Companions. 

The true necessity to investigate these two facets, wurood and dilaalah, appeared in the third generation, the Followers of the Followers.  On the one hand, from the perspective of dilaalah, the Muslim territories had expanded greatly and many non-Arabs entered the fold of Islam.  The Arabic language no longer remained in its pure and original form.  On the other hand, from the perspective of wurood, this generation did not meet the Prophet (s) nor his Companions.  They only had access to the transmitters of the generation before them, the Followers, and among them were the trustworthy and precise (thiqah) and those who were not.  Hence the investigation of both these aspects became necessary from that time on.

This was the period in which the schools of thought emerged (al-madhaahib al-fiqhiyyah). 

Let us simply ponder the fact that there are 6,234 verses in the Quran in accordance to the Madani count (6,214 by the Kuffan count). The verses related to legal ruling (ahkaam) are no more than 500. 

The ahadeeth of the Prophet (s) that have been transmitted to us do not exceed 300,000 reports.  Among them, no more than 11,000 ahadeeth are related to legal rulings. 

This is why Sh. ash-Shinqiti called usul al fiqh “ilm iqtisaad ash-shari’ah”, or the knowledge of the economics of the Sacred Law.  In the realm of worldly knowledge, economics is the field that explores how to cover the unlimited needs of people with the limited resources available.  In the realm of Deen, usul al fiqh is the field that explores how to deal with the unlimited cases of human activity with the limited resources of the revelation.

Simply put, through the knowledge of usul al fiqh, all situations that would arise in the history of humanity would be dealt with in light of Divine Guidance, despite the fact that it cannot be exhaustive in its immediate scope.

And Allah knows best.

I pray that it is of benefit.

Iman

So, if a layperson thinks that he/she has reached the level of those who have mastered the facets of wurood and dilaalah by simply asking for the daleel on several issues of fiqh, then it would not be too far from that same mind to claim that by simply owning the brush of a masterful artist that one can create a masterpiece. 

Shukran for your post sister Iman.

Can you tackle the statements mentioned in the quote, as such, ''Am I not allowed to ask for evidences or should I blindfollow etc,.?'' and other statements.

This thread of mine is to educate myself [and others] regarding all these arguments and where the answers lie to them and to help educate others that are confused, insha'Allah.

بسم الله و لا حول و لا قوة الا به

Consider this, brother.  Not every following (taqleed) is blind...

Why do we accept the words of Allah unconditionally and without question?  Is it not because we have acknowledged the proofs of His existence, His Lordship, and right of be worshipped alone without partner? That is the first aspect.  The second is that we have proof that the Quran is, in fact, the word of Allah.  Hence, we submissively follow/obey Allah.  سمعنا و اطعنا

An atheist would consider this "blind" following because he denies the proofs of Allah's existence in the first place. تعالى الله عما يصفون

Likewise, if blind following were allowed in this magnificent religion of ours, then why would Allah have sent the Prophets with miracles as a sign of their being Divine Messengers?  These are the proofs that lead the Believer to submit entirely to the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم Those who, for their own wretchedness, deny the Prophethood of our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم would call this "blind" following because they are blind to the proofs of his Messengership.  

Taqleed means the following of one who is not authoritative (hujjah). In other words, their words are not a source of law.  So you see there is a praiseworthy taqleed and a blameworthy taqleed. 

The praisworthy taqleed is that which is based on knowledge of the اهلية capacity of the one being followed.  Is he worthy to be followed or not? 

Allah says, فاسألوا اهل الذكر ان كنتم لا تعلمون which means, "Ask the people of knowledge when you do not know."  

Hence, if a Muslim layperson can ascertain that the one he intends to follow is from اهل العل the people of knowledge, then, by following him he would be in compliance with the command of Allah and far removed from blind following.


If, however, due to fanatical devotion, stubborn rebelliousness, partisan bias or inclination to one's caprice هوى, one chooses to follow someone who is not from the people of knowledge as they have been defined by the shari'ah, then, that IS blind following, and it is most blameworthy.  

For what prevented the people from worshipping Allah alone and shunning away the idols except their adherance to the ways of their forefathers,  ما انزل الله به من سلصان  In their utter stupidity and stubborn devotion, they followed their ignorant forefathers over the best of creation, Sayyiduna Muhammad, عليه افضل الصلاة و السلام


Islam is the religion of the intellect.  There is no other religion on the face of the Earth that addresses the intellect the way Islam does سبحان الله  At the very same time, Islam disciplines the intellect and ties it's reins to the truth so that it does not gallop on to its own destruction.


الحمد الله الذي هدانا لهذا و ما كن لنهتدي لو لا ان هدان الله


I hope that I hit your question on the mark and did not diverge too far. 

Iman

JazakumAllah Khayra,Brothers Abu Murdiyah and Mollbllm,This thread is not so much with the validity of following a Madhhab or not or to label oneself or not etc,.I don't know how to touch upon this but maybe I shall mention some 'comments' of people that want to know adillah even before stepping on usool.Sorry for the lengthy post but the above is to just signify some of the arguments.

-abuzaynab

idk how  to comment on this bro, dont worry about what people say, people say the darnest things and you cant explain things to people most of the time. as i was just listening to shaykh taha Karan which is Yaqubs shaykh, very good speaker, he said usool is access ability and understand ability, most people dont understand usool, so therefore will not understand anything else, 

Shukran sister Iman,
Your answers are beneficial.

It is a fact that most of the Muslims will not learn under a scholar and thus didn't the 'Ulama say that it's wajib for them to follow a Madhhab since they do not have the tools to ascertain the proofs and ikhtilaaf, so to save themselves from misguidance, it is better for them to follow a Madhhab?

If we do not have the capabilities to understand a rule such as naskh or the like, which ayah has been abrogated, which scholar's jarh is not accepted, which Hadith is hasan etc,. Can we follow a Hasan Hadith? etc,. 

then in this case, the person should find a shaykh that is well versed in fiqh or comparative fiqh and study under him? Am I right?

We cannot understand a daleel if we do not have the understanding of the sciences because anyone can quote a Hadith, ayah or a scholar's opinion.

When should a person ask/not ask for daleel and when is it obligatory for the scholar to give the daleel ?

How will one go about choosing a 'pious' Shaykh to study under? who knows if he is a mubtadí' etc,. because what if someone chooses a jahil shaykh ?

Jazakumullah khayra ahsanil jaza',
wassalam.

There's a book that explains this topic excellently called The Legal Status of Following a Maddhab by Mufti Taqi Uthmaani. Just Google it, it's available to read online for free.

A short answer which I like, though, is something that Sh Ismail Moosaa mentioned in his Nur Al-Idhah course recently. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said that when the Tartars invaded, they targeted the Muslim libraries, and so many ahadeeth were lost. Currently, we have less than 100,000 ahadeeth narrated to us, and no one in the world knows even these ahadeeth. But Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (RA) said that one needs to know about 400,000 hadeeth to be a mujtahid. 
Therefore, since all of the ahadeeth were available to the salaf, and since only a fraction are available to us today, we can't abandon rulings of the schools of thought simply because we can't find authentic narrations to support them.

Also, people ask "Why do you only follow one person (namely, Imam Abu Hanifa RA)?" Actually, he had forty students, each of whom knew over 100,000 hadeeth, and he would discuss each and every mas'ala at length with these students before coming to a conclusion. And even if they erred on some rulings, the generations after generations of ulamaa corrected them. Therefore we don't follow one person, but rather the past 1,400 years of ulamaa.

Personally, I find it interesting that, in the Wisdom of Allah (SWT), most of the ahadeeth were removed from our knowledge through the Tartar invasions. It is as if Allah (SWT) is showing us, "See! If you want to follow the straight path, you must follow the pious predecessors, even in fiqhi rulings." The whole ummah becomes dependent on them. Perhaps this is to teach the Ummah ita'ah (obedience and servitude). Allahu a'lam.

Wa alaykum salam wr wb,

I just want to note, that Ahmad’s tabulation of how many hadith one must know may well be based on the conventions operating during his particular time. Earlier authorities, noted as par excellence huffaz and nuqqad of the ummah, are at times noted to have with them a lesser number of hadith. For instance, in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz v. 1, p. 193, ‘Ali b. al-Madini is noted to have stated regarding Shu’bah, له ألفي حديث. “He has two-thousand hadith.” The calculations of 100,000+ hadith could be considering the different asanid [even when linked to a single matn], the marfu’, the mawquf, and perhaps the maqtu’ as well.

In addition, the stability of hadith texts happened relatively early. The ahadith of then have reached today just fine, al-hamdu liLlah.

Allah knows best.

So he had a lot of ahadith but just less people in the asaneed?

Wa alaykum salam wr wb,

This is what Zarkashi related regarding Ahmad’s statement,

وكأن مراده بهذا العدد آثار الصحابة والتابعين وطرق المتون ولهذا قال من لم يجمع طرق الحديث لا يحل له الحكم على الحديث ولا الفتيا به اه

Ahmad’s point could have thus been on that the hadith would need to be authenticated before one base a fatwa on it.

On defining a muhaddith, the definition is based on what is the convention of those involved in the subject at that time. Ibn al-Subki mentioned (from Mu’id al-Ni’am wa Mubid al-Niqam as cited by Sh. Abu Ghuddah in a footnote to al-Raf’ wa al-Takmil p. 58),

المحدث من عرف الأسانيد والعلل وأسماء الرجال والعالي والنازل وحفظ مع ذلك جملة مستكثرة من المتون وسمع الكتب الستة ومسند أحمد بن حنبل وسنن البيهقي ومعجم الطبراني وضم إلى هذا القدر ألف جزء من الأجزاء الحديثية هذا أقل درجاته اه

Being a mujtahid, a scholar of fiqh, does not always mean that a particular individual is an accomplished muhaddith. For example, Ibn Abi Layla is noted to be a great faqih; however, Shu’bah said, ما رأيت أحدا أسوأ حفظا من ابن أبي ليلى “I did not see anyone with worse memory than Ibn Abi Layla.” Abu Hatim al-Razi said, شغل بالقضاء فساء حفظه ولا يتهم بشيء من الكذب إنما ينكر عليه كثرة الخطأ ولا يحتج به “He was busy with the judiciary, his hifz was not well; his is not suspected of any sort of lying, however he is not approved of because of his frequent errors wa la yuhtajju bihi.” Ahmad b. Hanbal is noted to have said, فقه ابن أبي ليلى أحب إلينا من حديثه في حديثه اضطراب “Ibn Abi Layla’s fiqh is more endeared to us than his hadith, in his hadith there is idtirab.” Ibn Abi Layla passed in 148.

In fact, in placing conditions down for a mujtahid what is stipulated as far as his ability in hadith is less than the definition of a muhaddith. For instance, in Ibhaj v. 3, p. 254-55, Subki mentioned,

وثانيهما سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا يشترط فيها أيضا الحفظ ولا معرفة ما لا يتعلق بالأحكام كما في معرفة الكتاب قال الغزالي ويكفيه أن يكون عنده أصل مصحح لجميع أحاديث الأحكام كسنن أبي داود ومعرفة السنن للبيهقي...قال الشيخ محي الدين النووي قدس الله روحه والتمثيل بسنن أبي داود لا يصح فإنه لم يستوعب الصحيح من أحاديث الأحكام ولا معظمه وكم في صحيحي البخاري ومسلم من حديث حكمي ليس في سنن أبي داود اه

“And the second of the two [mention of the Qur’an was first] is the sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (sallaAllahu alayhie wa sallam) and hifz is not stipulated for it too, or knowing what is not connected to the legal rulings, as was the case in knowing the Qur’an. Imam Ghazzali maintained that it suffices that there be with the mujtahid an authenticated copy including all the hadiths on legal rulings, like Sunan Abi Dawud, Bayhaqi’s Ma’rifat al-Sunan…Imam Nawawi stated that this representation of Sunan Abi Dawud is not sound….”

This point is also stated by Zarkashi in al-Bahr al-Muhit for those looking for further reading.

Allah knows best.

As long as the Mujtahid has the ahadith and those aayaat etc,. pertaining to ahkaam, hecan still b  mujtahid and a great Faqeeh..just that he will be a little weak in being a Muhaddith.

JazakAllah khayran