The great Taqleed Debate

Eraf

1,328

Brother

413

#46 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 03:48

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

This is how I go about it. When any Mufti of repute says something is permissible, I consider it to be permissible, even if another Mufti of repute says it is impermissible. This way I don't have to worry about "dysentery of religiosity."

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -1Like x 1Dislike x 1

Iqra (Read).

Unspecified

1,012

Brother

466

#47 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 03:54

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

And if i concoct a similar scenario, except that the opposing rulings are from muftis within one madhab, then a person can follow the different views of the Muftis within the same school and that would be perfectly fine right? Who came up with these lines which one csn cross vs which one can't?

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Concerned

London

27,568

Brother

9,601

#48 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 04:04

Concerned wrote:

View original post

The point is, not everyone can take from other schools as they like. To do this, they would have to be learned people, not lay people.

Would you advise a layperson to follow any opinion of any school at any time or would you tell them to be cautious about each school and how the rulings interlock with other rulings before coming to a conclusion before switching schools?

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

1,012

Brother

466

#49 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 04:15

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

All the information is in my post and the links provided. And no the allowances given aren't only for learned people, they are for laymen. Obviously the layman would have to consult Ulama for guidance if necessary as with any other matter. Listen to and read from Mufti Taha Karaan on this topic. We don't have to go from one extreme to the other.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Concerned

London

27,568

Brother

9,601

#50 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 04:17

My position on this forum is currently 4000+ more than anyone else (i.e. I have the most positive ratings) but I'm a layperson and don't consider myself to be even a fraction of many of the other members here. They are more knowledgeable than many of us put together, yet they too are laypeople!

So how can we indulge in discussion about switching schools for ease and convenience?

Matters within a school and difference of opinion within the same school is totally different from jumping from one school to another.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

1,012

Brother

466

#51 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 04:26

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Quote:

So how can we indulge in discussion about switching schools for ease and convenience?

The scholars throughout history have already discussed this for us. Contemporary scholars have discussed and explained this to laymen as seen in my links. Are you denying what they are saying? They are all incorrect and only the Deobandi opinion on this topic is correct?

Quote:

Matters within a school and difference of opinion within the same school is totally different from jumping from one school to another.

Say's who? My links all demonstrate that switching schools at times is not such a big deal. I gave practical examples of this as it applied to covid lockdown. And again, no one is saying go to the other extreme of always picking and choosing and changing haphazardly. Despite knowing of that possibility the Ulama did not all insist on taqleed shaksi. Ulama also knew of the different usuls of the madhabs and talfiq etc but yet they didn't all insist om taqleed shaksi.

Follow which opinion one wants and debate the pros and cons, but don't deny what the ulama of all madhabs have allowed throughout history up untill today. Infact going by your argument, as laymen how can we even attempt to show their view as "dangerous" or impractical?

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

Concerned

Unspecified

1,175

Brother

1,177

#52 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 05:17

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

My advice would be to live a less adventurous life and stick with a single madhab. :)

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

fod1083

Unspecified

241

Brother

295

#53 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 06:40

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Why leave out the Maliki school? I'm sure you can find a place for it too in your journey!

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

muslimman

11,918

Brother

346

#54 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 10:03

Concerned wrote:

View original post

The error in your understanding is that you are looking at Taqleed of a single Madhab as a zero-sum game when it isn't. A "Mufti" can give a ruling from another Madhab to an individual based on their circumstances and it is in the principles of all Madhabs.

By accepting, adopting and practising that "individualised ruling" it doesn't take one outside of Taqleed or Taqleed Shaksi.

Out of thousands of rulings, you have focused on combing Salah and even when someone practises it they don't get thrown out of the Hanafi Madhab. There are many examples where a "Mufti" practises or issues a ruling outside of his (or her) Madhab.

The rule is "Taqleed" of Ulama as I do not believe that Allah Ta'ala has legislated for us to use Google searches and compare rulings.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Winner x 2

There is no Plan B!

http://www.central-mosque.com/

Unspecified

2,675

Sister

1,888

#55 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:16

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

Have the audacity to call it "dysentery of religiosity"?

On the authority of an-Nu’man ibn Basheer (RA), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say, “That which is lawful is clear and that which is unlawful is clear, and between the two of them are doubtful matters about which many people do not know. Thus he who avoids doubtful matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honor, but he who falls into doubtful matters [eventually] falls into that which is unlawful, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allah’s sanctuary is His prohibitions. Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body is whole, and which, if it is diseased, all of [the body] is diseased. Truly, it is the heart.” [Bukhari & Muslim]

عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ النُّعْمَانِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: سَمِعْت رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه و سلم يَقُولُ: "إنَّ الْحَلَالَ بَيِّنٌ، وَإِنَّ الْحَرَامَ بَيِّنٌ، وَبَيْنَهُمَا أُمُورٌ مُشْتَبِهَاتٌ لَا يَعْلَمُهُنَّ كَثِيرٌ مِنْ النَّاسِ، فَمَنْ اتَّقَى الشُّبُهَاتِ فَقْد اسْتَبْرَأَ لِدِينِهِ وَعِرْضِهِ، وَمَنْ وَقَعَ فِي الشُّبُهَاتِ وَقَعَ فِي الْحَرَامِ، كَالرَّاعِي يَرْعَى حَوْلَ الْحِمَى يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَرْتَعَ فِيهِ، أَلَا وَإِنَّ لِكُلِّ مَلِكٍ حِمًى، أَلَا وَإِنَّ حِمَى اللَّهِ مَحَارِمُهُ، أَلَا وَإِنَّ فِي الْجَسَدِ مُضْغَةً إذَا صَلَحَتْ صَلَحَ الْجَسَدُ كُلُّهُ، وَإذَا فَسَدَتْ فَسَدَ الْجَسَدُ كُلُّهُ، أَلَا وَهِيَ الْقَلْبُ".
[رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ]، [وَمُسْلِمٌ].

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

الإسلامُ یَعْلُو وَلَا یُعْلیٰ

Unspecified

1,012

Brother

466

#56 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:25

Quote:

The rule is "Taqleed" of Ulama as I do not believe that Allah Ta'ala has legislated for us to use Google searches and compare rulings.

Back in the day one may have lived in an area where they were Ulama and followers of more than one madhab, and one would observe practices and learn rulings from layman or scholars different madhabs. This is similar to the situation of many in the multi cultural west.

Back in the day someone may have lived in an area in which they were only primarily Hanafi scholars and laymen, hence they had no choice but to stick to the hanafi madhab. Nowadays, a person may also be in a similar situation physically, but his social media feeds will provide him with authentic practices and teachings of laymen and Ulama of all madhabs. He doesn't even have to google search anything. Mufti Taha Karan also spoke about the role of the internet in giving one a reason to want to leave his madhab to act on a hadith that opposes his madhab. And he goes on to explain that this is perfectly fine once one follows a few guidelines.

Your post from Shah Waliullah also differentiated between the two scenarios illustrated above.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Informative x 2

Concerned

Unspecified

1,012

Brother

466

#57 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:30

A view of taqleed shaksi being compulsory due to specific conditions:

Mawlana Gangohi's verdict on Taqlid
Posted by ‘Abd Allāh
By Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi
Translated by Hafidh Saad Khan

Question
What opinion do the scholars and the jurists of Islam hold regarding taqlid shakhsi? Is it wajib (incumbent) or is it as the ghayr muqallidin (rejecters of taqlid) say, that it is polytheism and an innovation?

Answer
Taqlid mutlaq is fardh (compulsory). Allah mentions in the Qur’an:

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
“Ask those who have knowledge (of the previous scriptures) if you do not possess any knowledge (of the subject).” (Al-Anbiya’, 7)

In this verse Allah has decreed taqlid mutlaq (general taqlid) as fardh. There are two types of taqlid. One of them is taqlid shakhsi, in which you seek assistance in abiding by a law from a particular scholar. The other type is taqlid ghayr shakhsi, in which you are not particular with referring to one scholar. Through the generality of the verses text, both types of taqlid are included. Both types of taqlid are substantiated from the side of Shari’ah (Islam). Whichever type of taqlid one abides by, he will be fulfilling an order of Allah. Whoever declares taqlid shakhsi (which is ordered by Allah) as an innovation or polytheism is ignorant and astray. This is because, he is saying, that an order of Allah is polytheism in the opposition of Allah. He doesn’t realize that Allah has given a “restricted” person a choice, whatever type he wishes, he can practice upon. When there is generality of something then the subcategories of it are not outside the bounds of its originality, instead, it is a part of it. By way of an example, in the generality of the existence of humans, its subcategories cannot be separated from it. In the same manner the two types of taqlid (shakhsi and ghayr shakhsi) can never be separated from taqlid. Wherever you find anyone of these two types it will considered being under taqlid. Therefore in both types, a “restricted” person has a choice. Whichever he wishes he can practice upon, and by this he will be fulfilling an order of Allah. To call an order of Allah an innovation or polytheism is a sin in itself. Rather, both types are equal in their permissibility. However, in this time and era the general masses, even the learned ones, are in fear of falling prey to their carnal desires and are in self conceit with regards to their own opinions. Taqlid ghayr shakhsi is a wonderful means for them to follow their base desires and to excite their self conceit. As a result, this makes them careless in regards to the matters of din (Islam). It becomes a means for them to let their tongue loose on the status of the mujtahidin (expert jurists). It becomes an avenue for evil and discord to spread amongst the Muslim Ummah. In our time, this is all manifest. Due to these reasons taqlid ghayr shakhsi will not be correct. Through the above mentioned verse taqlid shakhsi has become stipulated by Shari’ah (Islam).

Unity plays a great part in Islam. Hence protecting unity will be a monumental fardh law as well. Allah mentions in the Qur’an:

وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا
“Hold fast to the rope of Allah (Islam and particularily the Qur’an as understood by the sayings of Rasulullah and the pious predecessors), all of you together, and do not separate (because Allah’s mercy lies in valid unity).” (Al-‘Imran,103)

وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَسَادَ
“And Allah dislikes corruption” (Al-Baqarah, 205)

There are many other narrations regarding this topic.
Due to the necessity of the protection of maintaining unity and in removing these great evils, one has to leave taqlid ghayr shakhsi and adopt a side which is stronger and more helpful in the protection of this great fardh law, which is the actual order of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them). For example, the Qur’an was revealed in seven different dialects, and one has the option to choose anyone of the seven dialects. Despite this, ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) abandoned this with the ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) and adopted a specific dialect for universal usage. The only reason for doing this was to repel evils and to save the Muslim ummah from disunity. Sahih Bukhari testifies to this. Another example is that of Zhul Khuwaysarah [see Fath al-Bari, 12:369], upon whom, death was incumbent due to his words of disbelief and insolence towards the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Yet, Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) still said: “Leave him, as people will begin to say that Muhammad kills his companions.” This was only for the reason of removing evil and nothing else.

The conclusion is that, in such a time where evil is predominant in the society, taqlid shakhsi will be declared wajib (incumbent) and taqlid ghayr shakhsi will be prohibited due to these evils which will surface from it. Never the less, if it is such that these evils are not found in taqlid ghayr shakhsi then one would have a choice to adopt that as well, just like he has a choice to adopt taqlid shakhsi. It has now become manifest that taqlid shakhsi must be declared wajib and to call it an innovation or polytheism is clear ignorance.

And Allah knows best.
Kutube Ahqar Rashid Ahmad Gangohi,
6 Zhul Hijjah 1311 A.H.

[Fatawa Rashidiyyah,1:206]

(The Obligation of Taqlid, p. 50 – 55, by Shaykh Fazlur Rahman ‘Azmi)

friendsofdeoband.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/mawlana-gangohi...

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

Concerned

11,918

Brother

346

#58 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:32

bint e aisha wrote:

View original post

Two Muftees differing is a "disagreed" matter and not a "doubtful" matter as each Mufti is clear about the issue and the judgment.

Saying Ameen loudly or Silenty behind the Imam isn't a "doubtful" matter, it is a "disagreed" matter. Here, you will make Taqleed of the Ulama whom you trust based on your Madhab...Nobody in the history of Islam has called it a "doubtful" matter!

A "disagreed" matter is different to "doubtful" matter. To make you understand the elementary basics of life, consider this:

If you are buying something and not sure about an ingredient then it is "doubtful" matter. OR you can get "doubts" if your Wudhu is broken or intact etc.

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (RA) coined the term "Dysentery of Taqwa" and it is real

Fiqh operates ABOVE DOUBT and not on "doubt" so you are mistaken. An example is when you have "doubt" that your Wudhu is broken you will disregard the doubt. Since you have a certain personality, you will keep on arguing although your mind clearly understands the distinction being made.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 1Ameen x 1Informative x 1

There is no Plan B!

http://www.central-mosque.com/

Unspecified

2,675

Sister

1,888

#59 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:40

Muadh_Khan wrote:

View original post

His post implies that whenever there is any disagreement, he will always follow the fatwa of permissibility and those who are following fatwa of impermissibility are in fact suffering from dysentery of religiosity. That's how I understood his post. Is that what Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi RA said?

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

الإسلامُ یَعْلُو وَلَا یُعْلیٰ

11,918

Brother

346

#60 [Permalink] Posted on 21st August 2020 11:49

bint e aisha wrote:

View original post

Actually he didn't say that, he said this:

When any Mufti of repute says something is permissible, I consider it to be permissible, even if another Mufti of repute says it is impermissible.

I think he probably means someone like Mufti Taqi Usmani (HA) or someone well known or reputable of that level or DU Deoband and his opinion is valid to consider it "permissible"...If you have any evidence against that please bring it.

He is not declaring it based on his opinion, he is basing it on Taqleed.

Just like someone else may consider it "impermissible" based on Taqleed of another Mufti.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 1Informative x 1

There is no Plan B!

http://www.central-mosque.com/

The great Taqleed Debate

Font Size

Font Weight