I wish to present this brief overview without getting into hardcore academic research as I type this from the comforts of my couch watching my baby as she plays with her toy set watching Docmcstuffins.
I will proceed forth through a rhetorical question
"Is following a madhaab valid or invalid? Or is it acceptable? Or is it necessary (binding)?"
The base ruling of this question that no qualified jurist will deviate from is that it is not only valid, but "acceptable". However, after following through this synopsis, one will come back to this base ruling and realize why this is an Islamic fact. These questions have become epic in our times for many reasons. These reasons boil down to two main diverging reasons. There is a third and I will identify it here, but I feel there is no need to elaborate it on
1. In the western world, the mode of learning and perceptions of authority along with a long history of questioning authority, due to roman catholic history, has inexorably formed the modern paradigm whereby the nature of western practices of learning and viewing authority is based on questioning and empiricism.
What this means in the Islamic paradigm when the issue of following a school of thought was introduced was a question of authority between the primary sources of law, which is the Qur'an and the established authenticated Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. In the western context, the presentation of following a madhaab was formmated in such a way as to signify that the people could not extrapolate the intent of the Lawgiver (in the legal science, it is known as الشارع, i.e. the Lawgiver/Legislator, which means in the Principles of Islamic law as Allah literally, and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ implicitly). The science of understanding the intent of the Lawgiver is known as "Fiqh". The basis of this insinuated that the common people, in general, needed to go through a medium. That medium is known as scholardome. Qualified scholarship. Without going into a long drawn out discussion on this, the conclusion of this paradox resulted in a battle between those who've opined that you shouldn't have to go through the authority of scholarship when you have the source texts for yourself and deduce your own conclusion. And the opposing side is the side of those who have sided with a medieval paradigm implemented in the late 8th Islamic century that advocated unconditional blind following of a legal juristic school.
2. In the far east, a very different paradigm emerged. The primary region of concern here will be the indo-pak region but includes a broader region than the boubdaries of today's India and Pakistan. The primary legal school of law that eatablished the precedent of Islamic practice in the sub-continent for the past 1,000 yeas is the Hanafi school. Without going into a long historical analysis, and I understand brevity is an injustice to both sides of the polemic, but it is a must for readership, is that a development of antiquated legal issues emerged due to extremely rigid views and practices emerged because a post medieval paradigm emerged in which independant scholarship and ability to deduce legal rulings from the pimary sources have ended. The end result of this was that a hadeeth movement emerging out of Yemen that established connections into the region produced an equally extreme anti-madhaabi reaction and sentiment in the region. The birth of this context arose extreme fanatical difference and partisan bickering for over a century. It has fone so far that both sides have lost the purpose for their own legitimate basis and has blinded them to realize that there was a basis in each approach.
3. The third paradigm is a paradigm that rose in early classical and medieval period, but it had minimal ascendency in the Islamic nation. This is the paradigm of the Dhahiris beginning from Imam Dawud adh-Dhahiri and proliferated by the famous Imam Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi. However I will end further elaboration on this paradigm and stick with the main two because the second paradigm of the subcontinent have almost absorbed this third "dhahiri" paradigm into their arguments and vernacular. The same as with the first western paradigm, but not as heavily as with the sub-continent.
Both sides, from this point forward, shall be identified as the madhabis (proponents of following a madhab) and the la madhaabis (the antithesis of the madhaabis) and the most extreme form of the la madhaabis is the ahli-Hadees movement in the subcontinent. Milder forms of this movement includes factions of the salafi movement in the west (from which they relate but come from the former paradigm as outlined in point 1.) and the movement following the esteemed scholar Shaykh al-Albaani رحمه الله, the Yemeni scholars, notable among them was Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadi رحمه الله. The purpose behind this synopsis is not to get into the hair splitting arguments. Like for example, when madhaabis say "you must follow a madhaab to prevent yourself from following unrestricted allowances (a byproduct of following vain desires) is useless because there are two irrefutable counter arguments, one of which Qadhi Abu Y'ala opined that the fear of following rukhsas (allowances) is just as much applicable to the mujtahid as it is the laymen. So for every argument each proponent can argue with me with, I can pose one or more irrefutable counter arguments to make their stance invalid. The purpose of this article steers away from such back and forth circulars and wishes to go to the root core of the problem bi idhnillah
The madhaabi paradigm likewise went into exaggeration and extremism, the lengths of which is too great to outline here. The basics of their errors is culminated in a medieval argument that came about through a phenomenon that took place in the post Ibn Taymiyyan era of Islam immediately after his death.
So I will progress in outlining this phenomenon and then continue to establish the most accurate view that the classical scholars have upheld and the conclusion shall clarify this whole ordeal and put both proponents in their place and realize their current positions are extreme and wrong despite parts of the truth are rooted in their approach
The basis of the current madhaabi obligation to follow a legal school of law and obligating laymen to follow either Hanafis, Shafi'ees, Maalikis, or Hanbalis came about through a situation that tool place in the time of Ibn Rajab and for which Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was thee single most prominent advocate for.
Misconceptions About Ibn Rajab’s Position: There are some from the contemporaries who claim that Ibn Rajab in his book ‘al-Radd ‘ala Man Ittaba’a Ghair Madhahib al-Arba’ah’ (Rebuttal of those who follow other than the four Madhabs), obliges the layman to adhere to a Madhab. However, the book does not even deal with the aforementioned issue, for in no place does Ibn Rajab speak about obliging the layman to stick to a Madhab; rather, his book is a general advice to some of his contemporaries amongst the jurists who, according to him, did not reach any level of Ijtihad, while they also freed themselves from Taqleed, and began to issue verdicts that fall outside of the four Madhabs. This also corresponds to what Ibn Taymiyah said that the truth generally does not fall outside the four Madhabs, while in very few issues, it may fall outside of the four Madhabs according to the correct opinion.
Nor is it correct to understand from the book that Ibn Rajab condemns anyone who opposes the Imam of his Madhab, or claims Ijtihad. This is because Ibn Rajab says in the same book (page 25-26), that in spite of the four Imams and their Madhabs, people have appeared, claiming Ijtihad and do not make Taqleed of any of the Imams; and amongst them are those who are truly Mujtahids and those that are not. What further supports this is that we find Ibn Rajab describing Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah as a "Mujtahid" in his Dha’il Tabaqat. In fact, even Ibn Rajab himself did not adhere to his Madhab in every issue, for he was also known for his verdict on three Talaqs only occurring as one (as mentioned in al-Jawhar by ibn al-Mabrid), an opinion which falls outside of the four Madhabs, which he later left for the majority opinion.(See Principles 314-317, al-Wadih 162, Majmu’ah 20/161, Mawsu’at Ahl al-Sunnah 2/988-992, I’lam 6/203-205, al-Mustadrak 2/250, 251, Tasmiyat al-Muftin 72)
Ibn Rajab's book is about and solely for and only for scholars and students of knowledge aspiring to become jurists.
And so now we propel ourselves to land on how exactly should muslims percieve and outline this issue in a more accurate depiction than what the proponents of the la madhaabis have brought as arguments as well as the super madhaabis as they are both wrong.
Firstly, the correct Muslim view that the majority of scholars have judged, the majority position is that the laymen "HAS NO MADHAB" in other words, a person who is not a scholar or a student of knowledge, and is just an average person, has no madhaab. He is not qualified to even follow a madhaab! Why? Because the purpose of a madhab is to guide an aspiring jurists towards a coherent deduction of the law. Thats the whole basis for which the codification of a madhab is designed for. It is to guide a student from sifting through the haywire of the texts with no guidelines in forming sound deductions of the law.
So what does the laymen follow then if they are not suppose to follow a madhaab? Simple! The majority of the scholars say that the madhab of the laymen is the madhab of their teacher. That is because the general masses of people, the average masjid attendee, will either follow the rituals of the teacher they have learned from when they were a child, or the rituals of the Imam of their local masjid that he or she attends. And this is organically natural and the most reasonable position of all. What further solidifies this is that the common and average people dont know or care to understand what is maaliki or what is the shafi'ee stance on the performance of actions in the prayer. I have personally seen grown Arab laymen from the maghrib who have been raised all of their life performing the salah the maaliki way. Many of them don't even know that what they were performing was the maaliki application of salah. Then some of them adopted the practices of the salafi Imam of the mashid they have attended to over time, which was either the al-Albani version or the hanbali version. And this is life. There is none escaping the human element in this.
The end conclusion of this overview is that the base ruling is that following a madhaab is "acceptable" according to the jumhoor of the four schools. And its acceptability ultimately for students or aspiring students of knowledge. If a laymen wishes to follow a madhab, it still holds as acceptable (halal) but it really serves no purpose for them. Their madhaab is the madhaab of those whom they ask their scholars or teachers from those they feel comfortable and trust. Plain and simple! This is the most common, logical, and practical example of the application of Allah's command to Muslims in general
Ask the people of adh-dhikr if you do not know
Linguistic meaning of dhikr is the people of the reminder/remembrance
Scientifically, the people of reminder and remembrance means the scholars. In a broader definition, it implies anyone who has knowledge of any subject.
To end, i will simply quote two prominent and wise leaders commenting on the topic.
Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma’sumi): "It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi’i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr."
The great and esteemed scholar and jurist, Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu’, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi’is, saying: "It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion". Al-Mardawi comments: "And this is the correct opinion".
This outline is a response and repudiation of both the madhaabi and la madhaabi positions because it keeps the true Islamic position neutral, as it has always been neutral, as opposed to these late medieval and modern arguments by invalidating each other and even hereticating each other.
Allah's refuge is sought from extremism
Comments