KR

Izz continues to discuss the notion of a Shafi'i person following Imam Malik in a single issue: مسألة في تناول ما اختلف فيه الفقهاء كشافعي رأى مالكيا غصب طعاما ونقله أو عقد عقدا فاسدا في عين وخلطها وقال: قد ملكتها على مذهبي، فهل ملكه ملكا صحيحا لا شبهة فيه عليه أم لا؟ وهل يجوز للشافعي أن يعامله بالشراء فيه والأكل له أم لا؟ الجواب: لا ينبغي لمن يقلد الشافعي أن يفعل ذلك، وهذا مما يتأكد فيه الورع، وإن قلد مالكا في هذا أو أمثاله فلا بأس به، وإن كان شافعيا مقلدا لمالك في هذا، ولعل هذا ما يشتد كراهته لبعد المأحذ فيه، والله أعلم

Question on consuming something in which the jurists differ, like a Shafi'i who saw a Maliki usurp some food and introduce a change to it, or enter into an improper contract over some item who then mixes it up, saying, "I now own it according to my school." Would his ownership be proper beyond doubt, or not? And can a Shafi'i deal with him by buying or eating it, or not? Answer: One following Imam al-Shafi'i should not do that. This is a matter in which piety would be emphasised. But if he followed Imam Malik in this or other similar issues, then there is no problem; [the same applies] even if he [took this view from] a Shafi'i who was following Imam Malik in this issue. But perhaps this issue is one of extreme undesirability due to its extremely weak basis. And Allah knows better.

(Note: Fatawa 'l-Burzuli has an eerily similar wording to this passage, from Lakhmi)

How about showing up in a hammam where men reveal the body area between the navel and knees? Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam replies and offers his perspective on what one's modus operandi should be, and whether he should issue condemnation/objection in matters of disagreement: يجوز حضور الحمام، فإن قدر على الإنكار أنكر فيكون مأجورا على إنكاره، وإن عجز عن الإنكار كره بقلبه فيكون مأجورا على كراهيته ويحفظ بصره عن العورات ما استطاع، ولا يلزمه الإنكار إلا في السوأتين لأن العلماء اختلفوا في قدر العورة، فقال بعضهم: لا عورة إلا في السوأتين، ولا يجوز الإنكار على من قلد بعض أقوال العلماء، إلا أن يكون فاعل ذلك معتقدا لتحريمه، فينكر عليه حينئذ وما زال الناس يقلدون العلماء في مسائل الخلاف ولا ينكر عليهم، ولا يجوز للشافعي أن ينكر على المالكي فيما يعتقد الشافعي تحريمه والمالكي تحليله، وكذلك سائر مذاهب العلماء اللهم إلا أن يكون ذلك المذهب بعيد المأخذ بحيث يجب نقضه فينكر حينئذٍ على الذاهب إليه وعلى من يقلده

It is permissible to attend a hammam (public bath; bathhouse). If one is able to condemn [to sin], he should do so and he will be rewarded for objection. If he is unable to condemn, he should dislike it in his heart - he will be rewarded for his dislike. He should also guard his gaze from naked parts as much as he is able to do so, though it is not mandatory upon him to voice condemnation except in relation to the frontal and rear regions, as the scholars have differed over what constitutes the privates. Some said, "The only privates are the frontal and rear regions."* It is not permissible to object to someone who follows a scholarly opinion - unless the person doing so believes the act to be prohibited, in which case he should be condemned. People always follow scholars in matters of disagreement without being condemned. It is not permissible for a Shafi'i to condemn a Maliki in something the former believes is lawful and the latter unlawful. The same applies to all the schools of the scholars. This is unless that position is extremely weak, such that it would have be overturned [if issued in court], in which case the one opining it and the one following him would be subjected to objection.

The other view is that even if one believes it to be unlawful, he would not be condemned for acting upon the view of lawfulness, as a) there is no way of knowing which view he is following, and b) as per the post-rationalisation rule (التقليد بعد العمل), there is no need to condemn as long as the practice is in line with a valid scholarly position. * This is the view of Imam Ahmad in one riwayah (not the Madhhab), Ibn Abi Dhi'b, and Dawud, which is evidently a valid view according to Ibn Abd 'l-Salam.

Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam was not a fan of strict adherence to a school: 1. When questioning ʿIzz bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām (died 660 A.H.) on Taqlīd, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd 'l-Ḥamīd bin Abī 'l-Barakāt bin ʿImrān al-Ṣadafī al-Ṭarābalusī (died 684 A.H.) said:

... despite knowing the position that it is not obligatory to follow the most knowledgeable as al-Bāqillānī chose, and as the people of Uṣūl have reported that the Companions did not place under a rule-issuing interdiction on [everyone] apart from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, but rather those beneath them in knowledge used to pass rules in their presence...

- Jāmiʿ Masā'il 'l-Aḥkām by al-Burzulī (died 841 A.H.), 1/77, Dār 'l-Gharb al-Islāmī Beirut, 1st edition, 1422 A.H. 2. From the same book:

If a person’s Imām has two positions reported in an issue, he may follow whichever he likes. He may also follow another Imam who does not subscribe to his Imam’s position... because if we say that all Mujtahids are correct [in the eyes of Allāh], then there is no problem in switching from one correct opinion to another correct opinion, and if we say that the correct one is only one, then it is unascertained [i.e. which one the correct one is]. It is meaningless for a person to say that ‘I am a Shāfiʿī or a Mālikī’ except in the sense that he made a firm intention to follow al-Shāfiʿī in all his positions, yet his firm intention would not pin down upon him the following of anyone whom he likes out of the schools to follow, in which he had a choice. In fact, if he takes a vow to follow one specific Imām, it would still not be binding on him, and there is no reward in [such a vow].

• Fatāwā 'l-Burzulī al-Mālikī of Tunisia (died 841 A.H.), 1/79, Dār 'l-Gharb al-Islāmī Beirut, 1st ed., 1422 A.H. 3. It is also mentioned of the pair:

I (Ṭarābalusī) asked the Shaykh, the jurist, the scholar, ʿIzz 'l-Dīn bin ʿAbd 'l-Salām whether it is permissible to [stick to] the first opinion from which one's Imām has [now] withdrew. He told me, “That is permissible.”

- Al-ʿIqd al-Farīd Fī Aḥkām 'l-Taqlīd by al-Samhūdī (died 911 A.H.), pg. 122, Dār 'l-Minhāj Jeddah, 1st edition, 1432 A.H. 4. Izz also said in his own Fatawa:

He can follow whichever Imām he likes in any issue. When he follows an Imām in an issue, it would not have become binding on him to follow him in every matter of difference, because from the era of the Companions up to when the schools emerged, people have asked different scholars without condemnation from anybody, regardless of whether they followed dispensations or the original obligations. This is because those who considered the truthful [Mujtahid] to be only one [person] did not specify who he is, whereas those who considered every Mujtahid to be correct [could] not condemn [the opinion opposite as] one would have followed somebody who was correct [in their belief].

- Kitāb 'l-Fatāwā, pg. 153, Dār 'l-Maʿrifah Beirut, 1st edition, 1406 A.H.

Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam adopts the view that a mufti shouldn't bother what the questioner's Madhhab is. Rather, he should pass fatwa according to what his position is. مسألة: هل ينبغي للمفتي أن يقول للمستفتي: "أي شيء مذهبك؟ إن کنت حنبلیا فالحکم کذا، وإن كنت حنفیا فالحکم کذا، وإن كنت شافعيا فالحكم كذا"، أو يذكر ما يعتقده المفتي من مذهبه خاصة؟ الجواب: لا ينبغي للمفتي أن يسأل عن مذهب المستفتي، وعلى ذلك درج الصحابة والتابعون والمفتون من السلف والخلف ولا سيما إن كان مذهب المستفتي ضعيفا فاسدا، والله أعلم (Note that another view states that this should be done, especially if the questioner seeks that school's view. More pertinently, IAS's view is noteworthy in that he does not even request the questioner's Madhhab to refer him to a scholar of his Madhhab.)

Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam adopts the view that a mufti shouldn't bother what the questioner's Madhhab is. Rather, he should pass fatwa according to what his position is. مسألة: هل ينبغي للمفتي أن يقول للمستفتي: "أي شيء مذهبك؟ إن کنت حنبلیا فالحکم کذا، وإن كنت حنفیا فالحکم کذا، وإن كنت شافعيا فالحكم كذا"، أو يذكر ما يعتقده المفتي من مذهبه خاصة؟ الجواب: لا ينبغي للمفتي أن يسأل عن مذهب المستفتي، وعلى ذلك درج الصحابة والتابعون والمفتون من السلف والخلف ولا سيما إن كان مذهب المستفتي ضعيفاً فاسدا، والله أعلم .

Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam agrees that the sa' is a volumetric measurement and that it shouldn't be mixed up with measuring weight. مسألة: قد علم أن المعتبر في الفطر الصاع وهو خمسة أرطال وثلث بالمدني، ونجد ذلك من الحنطة لا يعم الصاع، ومن الشعير يملؤه، وقد وقع المخرج في حيرة وشك، فعلى ماذا يعتمد؟ وإلى أي شيء يركن في هذا؟ وما الضابط فيه؟ الجواب: هذا الاعتراض وارد، فإن تقدير ذلك بالوزن يؤدي إلى التفاوت في مقدار ما يسعه الكيل، فإنه يسع من الحب الرزين الثقيل أقل ما يسعه من الخفيف، والواجب إنما هو ما يسعه الكيل دون ما يتساوی في الوزن ويتفاوت في الكيل، ولا سيما إذا قوبل الحب الأخف بالحب الثقيل، والجواب عنه أن المقصود غير الصاع النبوي فيقدر بوزن العدس، فإن التفاوت في أنواعه يسير لا يحتفل بمثله، فكل صاع وسع من العدس خمسة أرطال وثلث يعتبر الإخراج ولا مبالاة بتفاوت الحبوب في الميزان، والله أعلم

Izz ibn Abd 'l-Salam (d. 660 AH) in his Fatawa explains why a court order issued by a Muslim judge from one Madhhab cannot be overruled by a Muslim judge from another school: إذن الحاكم إذا وقع في محل يسوع فيه الإجتهاد لم يجز لأحد نقضه، وهذه قاعدة متفق عليها معمول بها لا نعرف أحدا خالفها، فلا يجوز مخالفتها بغلط الغالطين وغفلة الغافلين، فإن أحدا من العلماء لم يستثن منها أشياء... ...لو نقضنا الأحكام في محل الاجتهاد لما ثبت للأملاك والحقوق قدم ولأدى إلى فساد عريض،‏ إذ يحكم أحد الحكام بملك أو بإذن في نكاح أو حق من الحقوق على اختلافها، ثم يجيء حاكم آخر لا يرى رأيه فينقض حكمه، فبطل الملك والإذن في النكاح والنسب والإرث وغير ذلك من الحقوق، ثم يأتي حاكم آخر فينقض النقض، ثم يأتي آخر فينقض النقض الآخر، إلى ما لا یتناهى وهذا مناف للحكمة الإهية التي بنيت عليها هذه الشريعة التي جاءت بكل جميل وحسن، ولو فعل هذا بعض الملوك في رعيته لكان قبيحا

No person has the right to overturn a judge granting permission [for an act] in a matter that is subject to [valid] ijtihad. This is an agreed-upon principle that has been consistently acted upon - we are not aware of anyone who has opposed it. Hence, it is not permissible to contravene it due to the errors and heedlessness of some. No scholar has made any exceptions to this rule... ...Were we overturn rulings in areas of [valid] ijtihad, then property, rights would not possess any stability, leading to strife of a great magnitutde. A judge rules on ownership, granting permission in marriage, or [adjudicating on] a some of the many rights [there are], then another judge comes who does not agree with him and overturns his ruling, thereby nullifying [the order of] ownership, marital permission, lineage, inheritance, or any other right. Then, yet another judge may come and overturn that reversal, followed by another who overturns the subsequent overturning - up to no end. This contradicts the divine wisdom upon which this Shariah - which has offered everything that is beautful and good - has been established. [Even] if a king to act in such a manner with his subjects, it would be deemed reprehensible.

I'm reading some dude offering some quotes that mandate X upon the entire Ummah no less, plucked up randomly without offering any analysis and context. To the gullible layman, they seem to be a slam dunk. For students who are studying, when you come across a quote in Usul or a Fiqh that has a wide-ranging societal impact (i.e., it's not just a random individual mas'alah about one's action in some part of Salah), the following must be assessed to ensure it is kept in its proper context and not misappropriated beyond it: 1. Was he talking about the default ruling of the Quran and Sunnah themselves? Or was he talking about a political issue? If the former, how forceful was he with his opinion, or was it just a guideline? If the latter, how universally applicable would it be outside that political context? 2. Is it a permanent and universally applicable principle he's issuing? Or is temporally restrained / geo-constrained? If the latter, what are the limitations of the principle? 3. If it is a universal statement that the scholar pronounced, was he in any way affected by bias such as status quo bias, establishment bias, or anti-establishmeny bias? 4. Was his ruling specific to a domain or universal to all domains? By Domains, we mean: education, Amal (personal practice), Fatwa, Qada, Waqf, emergencies, etc. 5. How long did he live? Where did he live? What timeframe was it? What were his earlier works and later works? Is there a divergence between any of these based on the shifts in his life, such as where he was or his age? Are his early and later views reconcilable or not? Why did he evolve in his views? 6. Is his position a copy-paste from a previous scholar? Or is it an informed judgement (basically his Ijtihad)? If the former, was that his general habit or did he express his personal opinion elsewhere, and why didn't he frame this one with his original thoughts? If the latter, who - if anyone - spoke on this prior to him? Did he disagree? Is there a nuance between the two? Was he even aware that someone before him had spoken on it? What is the quality of his references? 7. What is the quality of his evidence? Did he miss out on evidence on his side or from the competing side that could have changed the dial? If he was aware of the evidence but did not adopt that position, why did he deprioritise it? 8. Who was the audience of his statement? Scholars? Students? The public? Rulers? Everyone? 9. Was he responding to a specific case in the real world? Or was he just theorising? If the latter, would he have issued the same answer in a real case? 10. Is his view in line with the Maqasid of the Shariah? Or is it in line with what his teacher or the scholars of his region or what his Madhhab said? How did he reconcile the tension between the two? Did he even attempt to do that?

وَاسْتِشَارَةُ عُمَرَ فِي ذَلِكَ: أَصْلٌ فِي الِاسْتِشَارَةِ فِي الْأَحْكَامِ إذَا لَمْ تَكُنْ مَعْلُومَةً لِلْإِمَامِ، وَفِي ذَلِكَ دَلِيلٌ أَيْضًا عَلَى أَنَّ الْعِلْمَ الْخَاصَّ قَدْ يَخْفَى عَلَى الْأَكَابِرِ، وَيَعْلَمُهُ مَنْ هُوَ دُونَهُمْ. وَذَلِكَ يَصُدُّ فِي وَجْهِ مَنْ يَغْلُو مِنْ الْمُقَلِّدِينَ إذَا اسْتَدَلَّ عَلَيْهِ بِحَدِيثٍ فَقَالَ: لَوْ كَانَ صَحِيحًا لَعَلِمَهُ فُلَانٌ مَثَلًا فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ إذَا خَفَى عَلَى أَكَابِرِ الصَّحَابَةِ، وَجَازَ عَلَيْهِمْ فَهُوَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِمْ أَجَوْزُ

Umar's consultation in this is a foundational rule, which is to seek counsel for rulings when they are not known to the Head of Government. In this, there is also evidence that specific knowledge might remain concealed from the greatest people, yet it is known to those who are inferior to them. This repudiates the one from the blind followers (muqallidun) who goes to extremes: when a hadith is submitted in evidence against him, he says: "Had it been authentic, so-and-so (for example) would have known about it." So when it is possible that a lack of knowledge can overcome the seniormost Companions, it is even moreso a possibility for others.

- Ihkam 'l-Ahkam, by Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id

Imam al-Subki's respect for the Quran and Sunnah - from his Fatawa. وَالْفُقَهَاءُ يَقُولُونَ: شُرُوطُ الْوَاقِفِ كَنُصُوصِ الشَّارِعِ وَأَنَا أَقُولُ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْأَدَبِ: شُرُوطُ الْوَاقِفِ مِنْ نُصُوصِ الشَّارِعِ لِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ «الْمُؤْمِنُونَ عِنْدَ شُرُوطِهِمْ»

The jurists say, "The stipulations of the one creating the waqf are like the textual provisions of the Legislator (i.e., they cannot be violated). I would say out of respect, "The stipulations of the one creating the waqf are from the textual provisions of the Legislator, because he صلى الله عليه وسلم said, 'The believers stand by their stipulations.'"

The condition of [the dealings of] a muqallid (one who is unable to formulate arguments) is that he remains silent and be left in silence, as he falls well short of being able to traverse the path of argumentation. Had he been qualified for that, he would be have been one who is followed, not a follower; a leader, not in tow. If the muqallid engages in evidence-based arguing, then that is pointless on his part, and one engaging him would be like one striking cold iron, or one seeking to reform what is already corrupt. Can an apothecary ever repair what time has ruined?

- Imam Ghazali, Faysal 'l-Tafriqah

إن اكتفى بحفظ ما يقال كان وعاء للعلم ولا يكون عالما ولذلك كان يقال فلان من أوعية العلم فلا يسمى عالما إذا كان شأنه الحفظ من غير اطلاع على الحكم والأسرار If he suffices with memorising what it said, he would be a vessel for knowledge. He would not be a scholar. That is why it was said, "So and so is from the vessels of knowledge"; he would not be called a scholar when his occupation was to memorise without acquiring insight into wisdoms and secrets. - Imam Ghazali in Ihya Ulum 'l-Din

Having said this at the tail end of 800 years of entrenched practice, this fatwa against the status quo demonstrate Gangohi’s single-mindedness. It is therefore shocking to note that some Deobandis still view the Four Mihrabs as a good idea in principle and view it fondly, even with nostalgia.

Molana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi referring to the four Jama'ats (one per each madhhab) in the haram as makruh (Baqiyat Fatawa Rashidiyyah p. 409). https://t.me/+IdvBaZlbrwxmYTBk

"Oh look! We have a distinct Hadith method because Jassas slapped down Daraqutni!" Yeh ok. Jassas would have probably torn into Bukhari and Muslim as well had he had the opportunity, but that doesn't stop you foolishly trying to artificially tie the Madhhab to them by reverse-engineering their narrations onto the School. You lot are so emotionally beaten down by a bunch of Ahl-e Hadis from the Sub-Continent that you have fully internalised their ways of Hadith argumentation, and continuously scrambling to retrofit it onto the Hanafi Madhhab - as if that is how it should have always been... ...but you also want to claim that you have your own method. Talk about having your cake and eating it. In your own Dars-e Nizami, the works of Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Tahawi, or Jassas himself don't even get the attention or prominence of Khatib Tabrizi. Are you serious? Khatib Tabrizi of the eighth century AH? Forget Muslim and Bukhari, whose study you have made the emblem of Islamic scholarship at its pinnacle and its teachers the most worthy of respect and praise. The one teaching the competitor's method and narrations is your Shaykhul Hadith, whereas the one teaching Tahawi's Sharh Ma'ani 'l-Athar is just there as a tokenistic gesture to the school - a bit like your perfunctory inclusion of Shah's الفوز الكبير to give your the delusion of being upon the Waliyyullahi Method. Tahawi and Muhammad are just background noise. Yes I can see they’re there, pedagogically, but they are functionally a sideshow. When was the last time any of you attended a khatm on an early standalone Hanafi work? So that's the hierarchy you've internalised. In fact, you lot don't even have the courage to get rid of Ibn Hajar's Nuzhah from your syllabus for what you deem to be an approriate substitute. Do you have one that isn't from the past two decades? There is no difference between you lot teaching Bukhari to defend the Hanafi School to the exclusion of actual صناعة حديثية building, and the Ahl-e Hadis of the Sub-Continent teaching al-Hidayah to teach Fiqh in what they consider to be their critical method of the book. Zero, zilch, none. You are the same. Laugh however long you want at the Ahl-e Hadis - the joke is firmly and squarely on you. I've seen your exam papers. All that is examined is what is the Hanafi response to this Hadith and that Hadith. Sit your Hanafi Hadith Method Retrofit down and shut up. Or: own it properly, then come back when you have your own standalone and fully-fledged ecosystem of Hadith, not this parasitic nonsense coupled with bombastic quotes here and there from Jassas and others. (Previous comments on the same topic here, here, and here.)

This type of Tabligh is alien to me. There is no ikhlas. It’s all sectarian.