Those who oppose the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in this regard should pay close attention to both Imaams Ibn Taymiyah (رحمه الله) and his student Imaam Ibn Qayyum (رحمه الله). Have to say. Imaam Ibn Taymiyah (رحمه الله) said: “That which the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah is agreed upon is that the Ahl us Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah are in consensus in the fact that ijtihaad and taqleed are totally permissible. They do not compel ijtihaad on everybody, thereby forbidding taqleed. Nor do they forbid ijtihaad upon the scholars, compelling taqleed upon them. They are in agreement that ijtihaad is permissible for the scholar of adequate qualification and likewise taqleed is permissible for the people incapable of performing ijtihaad” Imaam Ibn Taymiyah’s student Imaam Ibn Qayyum (رحمه الله) concurs by saying: “There is a taqleed that is waajib to follow and a taqleed that is forbidden. The taqleed that is obligatory is the taqleed of those who know better than us. This is where a person does not know the evidences from the Qur’an and the Sunnah regarding an issue. Such taqleed was performed by Imaam Shaafi where in places [of his texts] he clearly stated that he made taqleed of ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan etc, in a certain matter. Imaam Shaafi’ said about the Companions “their opinions are better than ours” To add authentic Hanbali scholarship to the evidences given, we will quote from Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudaamah (رحمه الله), who said: “Taqleed in branches of Shari’ah is permissible by ijmaa’a and there proof therein is the consensus” The Differences in Fiqh Are a Mercy The four schools and their differences are in fact a mercy for this community. We know this from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in which he said: “The differences in my community is a Mercy” This hadeeth is widely quoted by numerous outstanding scholars and agreed upon, mentioned in texts such as Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din’s Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad, Imaam Suyuti’s Jazil al-Mawaahib fi-Ikhtilaaf al-Madhaahib; Imaam Abu Hanfiah’s al-Fiqh ul-Akbar; and Imaam Bayhaqi in his Madkhal. These are just few out of many. Imaam Maalik (رحمه الله) said: “Umar ibn ‘Abdul Aziz said: ‘I would not like it if the companions of Muhammad did not differ between themselves [on issues of fiqh], because if they did not differ, we would not have as much leeway.” Imaam al-Bahaqi (رحمه الله) said: “The differences between the Sahaabah are a mercy for the worshippers of Allah” Even Imaam Ibn Taymiyah (رحمه الله) says: “The Ijmaa’a of the Imaams is a definite proof and their differing is a vast mercy”. [He says further]: “If one does not follow any of the four Imaams, then he is upon misguidance, for the truth is not to be found outside of the four legal schools” Therefore, the following of a madh-hab is not only permissible, but, it is a mercy for the community of the last Prophet and there is a big giant stamp of consensus on this issue, and those who differ are not deemed to be from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, as they have rivalled themselves against the Ijmaa’a of the believers. To any such person, the evidences given should suffice in calling your heart back to the truth. And Indeed Allah is Most Merciful to you. Madh-habism – Going to extremes in madh-habs Let us turn to the claims of those who oppose madh-habs under the pretext they cause much fitnah and disunity. We often find this claim drifting about, whether it is two or three brothers raising their voices in the masjid, or the often repeated over used argument daily parroted on internet forums. Their argument is that the four madh-habs are four different sects, and to support this narrow view they will then present a string of ignorant statements made by an extreme Madhabists. Madh-habism is when a person considers his madh-hab to be the most God-favoured one, and upon the most correct path, whilst he deems all the other madh-habs to be in error at some point. Unfortunately this mentality does exist amongst Muslims. You may hear chants being thrown around too loosely almost like football supporters waving the flag of their team. Chants of “Imaam-e Azaam” from a select few of Hanafis, “Amaal-e Madinah” from a select few of Malikis and “Imaam Ahl us-Sunnah” from rarity of the Hanbalis. Although these statements stand true respectfully in their own context, they do not serve as evidences that one madh-hab is better than another. However does this give us enough reason to claim that all madh-habs are in error under the pretext that they are causing disunity to this Ummah? Concerning this illness Imaam adh-Dhahabi (رحمه الله) said: “Do not think that your madh-hab is the best and the one that is most beloved to Allah, for you have no proof of this. The Imaams [may Allah be pleased with them all] all follow great goodness; when they are right, they receive two rewards, and when they are wrong they shall receive one reward” It has also been claimed that at one time there was four separate prayer niches around the Ka’bah in which the followers of each madh-hab would pray under. This accusation was concocted in an attempt to suggest the people of the four madh-habs refused to pray together even at the Ka’bah. This is simply not true. There were four pavilions, in which people would seek knowledge and fatawaas according to their madh-hab, and when the prayer times arrived they was put away. This was traditional Islam in practice. Classes being taught by the Ka’bah until a group of Muslims from the eastern region of the desert came and destroyed this tradition under the false pretext they was uniting the Ummah under one Imaam. and certainly Allah knows best. realityofwahabisalafi.blogspot/2011/08/wahhabism-and-its-refutation-by-ahl-as.html
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:30:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015