The strongest evidence
A classic argument by those who think they know it all

Are they realy following the strongest evidence or are they assuming it is?

Ibn Qutayba narrates in his book Ta’wil mukhtalaf al-hadith that Imran ibn Husayn says, “By Allah, I know so many Hadiths that I can narrate rather extensively if I want to, but the practice of certain Companions impede me
from doing So. They (i.e. those Companions) heard many hadiths from Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) like I did, and they remained in his service like I did, but some of them have committed many inaccuracies while narrating. I fear that if I had to narrate, then the narration of the hadiths would bewilder me just as they were left bewildered. However, let me draw your attention to the fact that this was only an oversight on their part and they had no intention of committing these blunders."

It was for the same reason that Umar prohibited the people from excessive narration during his caliphate. In fact, he even prevented some of the very senior Companions from excessive narrations of the Hadiths.

Abu Salama asked Abu Hurayra if he used to narrate as abundantly during the time of Umar as he did in later times. Abu Hurayra replied, “If I were narrating (then) like I am doing now, ‘Umar would have cautioned me with his whip.”

This is where the services of a mujtahid or a Faqih are required to sift through the various narrations and views of the Companions and award preference to one opinion over the other. The 4 Imams have done this for us so why do some find the need to redo their work. It doesnt make sense.

Yet we like to step into this Fitna
For example, it is mentioned in a hadith that Allah's Messenger (PBUH) was once seated when the bier [janaza] of a disbeliever passed by. He immediately stood up. According to some narrations, he got up in honor of the angels accompanying the bier. If this is the case, there is even more reason for the people to stand for the passing of a Muslim bier. The narrators who consider this to be the underlying principle of the hadith do not even mention the
word ‘disbeliever' in their narrations. They do not consider it necessary because it is immaterial whether the bier is that of a Muslim or a disbeliever, due to the presence of the angels.
However if we learn from other narrations that Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) stoop up so that the bier would not pass above the heads of the Muslims, as this is a form of humiliation to them. If this is the reason for his standing up, then the practice of standing up for janaza will be restricted to the bier of a disbeliever only. Hence, in this case, the word “disbeliever” must be mentioned in the hadith by the narrator.

Words with different meanings at different times
To give one example, the word Wudhu is quite common(I'm sure you have automaticaly assumed it is for ablution before prayer). However, literally, the word Wudhu means cleanliness, purity, and washing of the hands. But In a narration of the Shama’il of Imam Tirmidhi, Salman once told Allah's Messenger (PBUH) that according to the Torah, Wudhu after meals brings about blessings in one’s food. Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) added, 'Wudhu' before as well as after the
meal is a source of blessing in ones food.” In Salman’s statement as well as the statement Allah’s Messenger(PBUH) , the word Wudhu unanimously refers to the washing of the hands. Here We can still establish that the word Wudhu is not used in its technical sense but in its literal sense.

With The Aid of Shaykhul Hadith Muhammad Zakariyya's book "The Differences of the Imams" and other personal comments and experiances I will try to present a way of looking at this issue, InshaAllah.

There is a new Fitnah amongst us today where we constantly hear that we should follow the strongest evidence or the strongest opinion.

It has gone so far, that respected people in the Islamic world have also started to use the same phrase. They even make comments like "Imam's Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i, Maliki & Hanbali said that if you find a stronger Hadith, then throw my opinion away and follow the stronger opinion". And then they comment "I am following this school 100% and you are following it 50%". Trying to be clever in front of an audiance allways makes it look like they are speaking the truth.
(These narrations were meant for the Fuqaha and not us or the Scholars of today)

They claim to be following A school by applying this rule of the Imams but infact they are following the way of the Shia and practicing "Taqiyah", where they lie in order to hide their beliefs, a form of deception. For example if a father was a Shafi'i and the whole family and area were followers of the Shafi'i school, but the son wanted to become a Salafi for arguments sake, then he would use the advice of these Imams and say that he was still a Shafi'i when he is realy a Salafi, he would be practicing Taqiyah without even knowing what it was.

What I dont understand is that how in the world do we get to a conclusion of which evidence is the strongest. For some time now people have been occupied with the question that, since the Imams (of the 4 schools) have established everything from the sayings and practices of the Messenger of Allah, why are there differences of opinion among them?

The repercussions of these differences have reached such proportions that people have split up into various sects grappling and contending with one another. The Wudhu of one group is considered invalid (I dont blame them, if they do Wudhu on cotton socks, another trait of the Shia) by the other while the
salat of one group is considered void by the other, and so forth. In zakat, sawm, hajj and virtually every other act of worship as well, there is inevitably some difference or other which has led to people debating with one another.

The Shia practice wiping over the feet only instead of following the Qurans method of washing the feet.

During the time of the Messenger of Allah, The only method of imparting Islamic rulings was that whenever a command was revealed, the Messenger of Allah used to inform the people verbally and demonstrate it practically.

Once the verses of wudhu were revealed he showed his community how to perform wudhu. When the verses of salat were revealed, the Angel Jibra’il actually demonstrated the correct procedure of salat before the Messenger of Allah and he in turn taught the Ummah how to perform salat. There were no distinctions whatsoever between a certain act being fard or wajib, or a certain posture being a sunna or integral [rukn], etc. The Messenger’s demonstration left no complexities or uncertainties.

Even the Companions refrained from digressing into possibilities and rationalities. If someone had to finely examine or challenge laws, it was considered rude and such a person would be admonished for his impudence.

Ibn ‘Umar was once asked if Witr Salah was Wajib or Sunna. He responded: “‘The Messenger of Allah as well as the Sahaba always performed the Witr
salah.” The questioner continued asking the same question repeatedly and Ibn Umar continued to provide the same answer.

The reason for his unwavering answer was simply to draw attention to the fact that those who sincerely wish to practice Islam will not delve into any intricacies.

If Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) and his Companions consistently carried out a certain action, its obligation is self-evident. In short, the laws of Islam used to be taught in a practical manner according to the need of the occasion.

The Companions used to detest questions based on mere
assumption: questions such as, if a certain act is omitted in wudu or something additional is done, what is the ruling?”

Ibn Umar says that, ‘Umar invoked the curse of Allah on a person who posed hypothetical questions. The Companions would only ask the Messenger of Allah about issues which occurred in reality. Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) would then issue a verdict according to the circumstances and conditions of the questioner.

What, When, Why, Who, How, If, But.

To be Continued in part 2