The scholar always refers back to Imam Abu Hanifah for example, as the one people turn to; however, didn’t his.......

[Shehzad Sattar]

QUESTION

4. The scholar always refers back to Imam Abu Hanifah for example, as the one people turn to; however, didn’t his, as well as other methodologies and schools of thought encompass not one, but hundreds if not thousands of scholars from inception, refining the rulings? So to emphasise the turning to the Imam, specifically, isn’t correct because it overlooks the contributions that hundreds and thousands of scholars made right?

ANSWER

This appears as a very weighty point i.e. that a whole array of scholars refined and perfected a school of thought. However it still needs to be looked at with regards to its exact nature and the practicality of it. It is all very well saying this, but we also need to see if this actually happened and what the outcomes were and what the usage of this is today. Also this point is not too different from question number 2.

Also, let not this alleged refining of a madhab by hundreds of scholars, be a means for us to deny and reject the clear manifest proofs that come to us. The virtue and respect of the scholars to one side but the evidences and proofs on the other, as Allaah says,

“And do not be like the ones who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them. And those will have a great punishment.” (Soorah Ale-Imran:105)

Likewise Allah has commanded us to establish the truth and to abolish falsehood, the question is, are we doing this based on what the truth is or are we doing this based on what the madhabs say. At the same instance are we being engrossed in madhabi fanaticism all in the name of hundreds or thousands of scholars refining and correcting a madhab.

He the Mighty and Majestic said,

“That He should establish the truth and abolish falsehood, even if the criminals disliked it.” (Soorah al-Anfal:8)

This understanding also has some major problems, although this may have been practised, it also brought more confusion and more inter madhab opinions, which most of the people are unaware of and this ultimately leads to the conclusion that the final verdict of a madhab is ambiguous.

We don’t know who the fatwa is from. If it is argued, as in this case it is hundreds of scholars then this is something that is not legislated, as Allaah has commanded us to ask the people of knowledge i.e. a scholar and not a whole group.

Is this not setting up a sect within Islam in that we have a whole array of scholars who spent their lives refining and perfecting verdicts and edicts based on the understanding of a certain madhab. At the same instance we are acutely aware that some of the scholars left the shackles of the madhab and issued edicts based on the Quran and Sunnah even though they went against the madhab.

This very same idea led to bigotry, staunchness and partisanship because this idea was enforced in the minds of the people, that we have refined this madhabs so much that it is not possible nor the need to look elsewhere. Did this then not only create more partisanship.

For example Ibn Abidin said concerning the classical manual on Hanafi Fiqh, the Mabsut, “Any statement which is in contradiction to the al-Mabsut will not be acted upon, it will not be given any attention nor any will there be any legal verdict issued based on it.” (Rasail Ibn Abidin, Risalah Sharh al-Manzoomah al-Musamah Bi-Aqud Rasm al-Mufti 1/20).

So now the author of al-Mabsut Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Sahl died in 499H and is based on the explanations of the works Shaikh Muhammad Shaybani, would it be fair and just to say any fatwas, difference of opinion or REFINING after the al-Mabsut be accepted and acted upon by the people who follow the Hanafi madhab.

Of course not but where does this leave the hundreds of scholars who allegedly refined the madhab. As here it is clearly stating any refining or new ijtihad will be rejected and not given any attention. This very clearly rebuts and renders this argument null and void according to the classical Hanafi scholars themselves.

As we have mentioned a few times there have been numerous instances when the scholars or the founding scholars of a madhab have differed with each other so much, for examples, Imams Abu Haneefah, Shaikh Muhammad and Ibn Abi Layla differed so much that citing all the examples or even most of them would lengthen this treatise.

Also the issue of Waqf (gifting) Shaikh Muhammad Shaybani very clearly said this was the fatwa and ruling of Imam Abu Haneefah without evidence and said if taqlid was permissible we would do it of the people before him like Hasan al-Basri and Ibrahim an-Nakhai who were more worthy of it. (Refer to al-Mabsut 12/28 of Sarkhasi)

Some other examples are when Shaikh Muhammad Shaybani even after citing the evidences of Imam Abu Haneefah in his Kitab al-Athar, he fails to accept them and in fact when he differed with Imam Abu Haneefah he would provide evidences for his ruling and differing. Qadhi Abu Yusuf also differed with the fatwas and rulings of Imam Abu Haneefah.

It is therefore not surprising to read and to know in general that Imam Abu Hanifah’s student Imam Abu Abdur Rahman Abdullah bin Yazid al-Muqri narrates. “I heard Abu Hanifah say, “What I generally and normally narrate with regards to ahadith are incorrect.” (Tarikh Baghdad 13/402, al-Kamil 7/2473)

Sometimes this refining does not change anything and the madhab remains as it was and in essence this so called refining and fine tuning remains only and exists in wording. For example, the scholars more specially the Imams with regards to the takbeerat for Eid, Imam Abu Haneefah said 6 takbirs are to be pronounced whereas the rest of the Imams said there should be 12 takbirs.

So Fatwa Qadhi Khan and Hidayah mention that more than 6 takbirs is an innovation. A current day eminent Hanafi scholar, who is allegedly, supposedly and hypothetically refining the rulings says the same that Imam Abu Haneefah said more than 6 takbirs is an innovation and he rejected any additional takbirs.

The question here is not the evidence for 6 or 12 takbirs neither is the issue in itself important, however what is important is the ruling that more that 6 is an innovation.

So on the basis of this refinement, Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Hurairah, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, Aishah, Zaid Ibn Thabit (RadhiAllaahu Anhuma Ajma’ieen) and from amongst the successors, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Zuhri, Makhool and in addition to them the seven famous jurists of Madinah and the Imams of Fiqh in general including, Malik, Ahmad, Ishaq and Awzai all opined and help the position that the takbir should be pronounced 12 times.

So are all these people innovators??? All – just in the name of refinement. How about the Hanafi scholars who differed with this opinion. So at what expense based on this array of scholars who helped refine this madhab, be taken, at everyone else’s expense. This does not seem praiseworthy nor acceptable from the angle of respecting the other Scholars, the vastness of knowledge and even from the angle of ijtihad.

We have already mentioned the fruits and results of this bigoted and staunch refinement in question 1 so much so that the likes of Imam Shafi, one of the four main Imams was declared to be ignorant, again at what expense, the refinement of the madhab and the Deen.

Shaikh Mulla Jiwan the Hanafi declared Imam Shafi ignorant on the issue of issuing edicts based on oaths of the witness and claimant. He goes onto say the first person to do this was Mu’waiyyah. (Refer to his Nur ul-Anwar pg.298, another edn. pg.304).

Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) ijtihad was that if a claimant does not have 2 witnesses then one witness would suffice with the claimant taking an oath. Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) was not alone in this ijtihad but the rightly guided Khulafa, the 7 jurists of Madinah and also the fatwa of the three imams, namely Malik, Shafi and Ahmad. (Refer to Nayl al-Awtaar 8/290).

Imam Nawawi stated, “The majority of the scholars of Islam, the companions and the tabi’een and the scholars after them in the various lands also concluded the same. This is also the fatawa of Abu Bakr, Ali (RadhiAllaahu Anhuma), Umar bin Abdul Azeez, Malik, Shafie, Ahmad, the jurists of Madinah and all the scholars of Hijaz and most of the scholars of the different lands also agreed with this ijtihad and verdict.” (Refer to Sharh Sahih Muslim 2/74).

However Imam Abu Haneefah and some other jurists differed with this, again the issue is not significantly important here, however what is important and what is worthy to be noted, is the stance and method employed which was ultimately developed due to partisanship, sectarianism, bigotry and staunch rigidity in what the Hanafi madhab concluded and that this was a Bidah which Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) started. (Sharh Waqayah 1/205).

The words are, “The opinion of getting the claimant to take an oath is an innovation and Mu’awiyyah was the first person who did this.” (This is from the Sharh Waqayah, in the Book of ad-Da’wa, which s book of Hanafi curriculum, i.e. it is taught in their institutions)

Again the question arises, okay there may exist a legitimate difference of opinion between the fuqaha but should such refining and fine tuning lead to such beliefs in the first place that Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) was an innovator!!! We indeed seek Allaah protection from such statements and may Allaah be pleased with Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu), Ameen.

In light of refinement by scholastic academics of the madhab this notion of Mu’awiyyah (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) being an innovator should have been deleted and omitted from the books, but was this the case? No. It remains in their classical books of Fiqh till this day. Is this our understanding if our refinement that at its expense we open the doors to Shiaism.

And numerous Hanafi scholars of Usool and principles have mentioned numerous such statements concerning the companions throughout the ages. There are so many that it would be so lengthy to mention them here but it is really shocking to see and read so many such similar statements.

What really is more disturbing in light of this question, i.e. of refinement and correction is what Shaikh Mulla Jiwan says, “This is what our Salaf (i.e. the previous Hanafi scholars) have said but we do not have the courage to say this (meaning we believe this but don’t have the guts to say this in our time.” (Nur ul-Anwar pg.298)

So is this the refining we are seeking, that some scholars in the past have mentioned such statements in belittlement of the companions and then after hundreds of years later, under this so called refining this is the result and outcome! Is there any censure, reprimand or admonition for this? No. Rather we find them affirming such statements and they say, we just don’t have the courage or guts to say the same. So we ask, is this the desired, accepted and expected refinement we seek after centuries?

We ask did the madhab also refine the statements for example Qadhi Khan says about Anas Ibn Malik (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) he would eat a lot of different types of food and fill his stomach so much that he would eventually have to vomit (Fatawa Qadhi Khan 3/403). Who would say this about our beloved companions!!! We don’t see any of the Hanafi scholars reprimanding this statement.

Qadhi Khan or any other treatises saying this, is a despicable mistake, rather we find all kinds of excuses with regards to what he could have meant or his intended meaning was something different. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned that Anas (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) was from the Sahabah who had a lot of Zuhd (Abstinence) (Sifatus Safwah 1/710).

The arch ardent and staunch Hanafi, Muhammad Zahid Hussain al-Kawthari says about Anas (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) that his memory deteriorated as he got older. (Tanib al-Khatib pg.117).

No one from the Hanafis reprimanded him for saying this as this was just another way of saying Anas (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) was not a faqih companion, so in essence the point remained the same but just a different way of addressing it.

So we ask where is this refinement of hundreds and hundreds of scholars? So who defended the honour of Anas (RadhiAllahu Anhu) and reprimands Mr Kawthari from amongst the Hanafis?

The noble and virtuous scholar of Yemen, Shaikh Muallimi Yamami reprimanded Kawthari and said, “We don’t know anyone before Kawthari who said this.” (Tilyah ut-Tankil pg.66).

This is the sign of a scholar, whose iman comes into play and no matter who the person is, there is reprimand and this is what we call refining, in that any incorrect notion or position is corrected, this is the very basic of our understanding.

The Neo madhabists who believe we all must conform to a madhab then jump in and they attempt to answer such major discrepancies with the rulings of the madhabs, who in essence and in reality have no idea what they are talking about but for the ardent sake of defending their fellow madhabists they feel the need and importance to do so, this is what we are referring to as ardent and vehement partisanship.

Where is that fervour of our Iman, where is that power of our Iman, that anyone say this about our Sahabah, dishonour them and degrade them but we hide behind the curtains and doors of madhabism, shame on us!!!

Another problem with this idea is that some of the scholars who have been attributed to these madhabs or are well known to be associated with these madhabs were mujtahids in their own right. Therefore their alleged contributions and additions to the said madhab are questionable and controversial to say the least. For example Imam Qurtubi says about Imam Ibn Abdul Barr that he was a Mujtahid (ar-Radd Ala Min Akhlad pg.190)

However he is considered to be a pivotal Imam in the Maliki madhab. So how can a Mujtahid be refining and following a madhab. Likewise Imam ad-Dhahabi mentions about Imam Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi that he was also a Mujtahid (Tadhkiratul Huffadh 4/1296 and Siyar al-A’lam an-Nabula 20/201).

The same was said concerning Allamah Ibn Qudamah, that he was a Hanbali but Imam ad-Dhahabi said he was a Mujtahid and he cites from Ibn Ghuniyyah that he said no one in our times other than him reached the level of a Mujtahid. This also follows on that attributing certain Imams and scholars to be from the Muqallideen of a madhab, is absolutely and entirely incorrect.

From them is Imam ash-Shatibi, there are those who have attempted to restrict him to a madhab, however this is nothing but an imaginative stretch of their wishful thinking. Imam ash-Shatibi for example obliterated and annihilated the arguments and concept of Taqlid in the second volume of his monumental and ground breaking book al-Ei’tisam and cited at least 10 harms and dangers of Taqlid.

We have the likes of Imams Zuhri, Sha’bi, A’ta, Tawus, Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Seereen, Makhool, Awzai, Ibrahim an-Nakhi, Hamad, Sufyan Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, Rabi’a, Laith Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Mubarak, Ishaq ibn Rahawaihah amongst others who were all scholars and Imams in their own right.

We also know there were other madhabs which were less widespread. This also emphasises the point that some madhabs were forced via various means as we have cited in Question no 1.

So when this was the case, it makes sense that other madhabs and the opinions of other mujtahids would diminish. However we know that there were some scholars who were more knowledgable and more faqihs than the four Imams but their schools diminished.

For example Imam Shafi’e said, “Imam Laith ibn Sa’ad was more of a faqih that Imam Malik.” And Imam Ibn Bakir also said the same.” (Refer to Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 8/463)

However, extreme partisanship for ones madhab led the late Hanafi Deobandi scholar Anwar Shah Kashmiri to declare Imam Laith Ibn Sa’ad a Hanafi. (Refer to his Faidh al-Bari 1/178, 301)

This list also includes numerous others and to enumerate all of them here would take an age, from them were the likes of Imams of Ahlus Sunnah, Ibn Jair at-Tabari, Bukhari, Abu Dawud, Ibn Khuzaimah, Abu Thawr and Baqi ibn Mukhlad (refer to the general books of Tabaqat like Tadhkaritaul Huffadh) and Imam Dhahabi also has composed an extensive long list of the mujtahids in his Siyar A’lam an-Nabula (8/81 and 9/52)

Shaikh Sakhawi in ‘adh-Dhuw al-Laam’e’ also includes numerous entries of mujtahids and Imam Shawkani also cites on many occasions that so and so was not upon taqlid in his ‘al-Badr al-Taal’e’

Imam Suyuti has also done the same he establishes the following chapter, “THE MENTIONING THE IMAMS OF IJTIHAD (Mujtahideen).” And then extends a long list of 77 mujtahids from the time of the tabi’een to his era. (Refer to his Hasan al-Mahadhirah 1/161)

Imam Suyuti further states in his fatawa “Numerous mujtahids have passed through the various eras in addition to the numerous mujtahids after the time of the tabi’een. There were 10 madhabs that were prevalent. So in addition to the four madhabs we have the Madhab Sufyan ath-Thawri, Madhab Awzai, Madhab Laith ibn Sa’ad, Madhab Ishaq ibn Rahawaihah, Madhab Ibn Jarir and the Madhab of Dawud. However after the 5th century due to the lack of fervour, motivation and rejuvenation these other madhabs dimished.” (al-Hawi Lil-Fatawa 2/156 of Imam Suyuti)

And the Imam al-Allamah Ibn Hazm authored a specific treatise, a risalah of the names of the scholars who were mujtahids and issued edicts in which he cites from the time of the companions to his era. So he lists 21 such mujtahids in Makkah, 60 in Madinah, 31 in Sham (Ya Allaah destroy the Rafidah Shia, Ameen), 97 in Basrah, 91 of Kufah, 19 of Misr and 44 in other lands and areas. (This Risalah is published with Imam Hazms book, ‘Jawameh as-Siyar’)

We also have Allamah Suyuti who himself claimed to be a Mujtahid mutlaq and authored his pivotal awe inspiring book, elucidating that ijtihad exists in every era and this is on-going and he titled it, ‘ar-Radd Ala Min Akhlad Ilal Ardh Wa Jahl Innal Ijtihad Fi Kulli Asr Fardh’, therein he says, “The people who say Mujtahid mutlaqs were only in the olden times and now we only have mujtahids, then they are wrong and they have no knowledge of the clarifications of the scholars.”

Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri who was an Imam of the people of Iraq and according to most of the scholars was greater in rank than the scholars of his era like Ibn Abi Layla, Hasan bin Saleh and Abu Haneefah. His madhab is present today in Khurasan. Likewise the madhab of Imams Ishaq ibn Rahawaihah and Dawud (adh-Dhahiri) is also prevalent today, in fact in the east and the west you will find that most of the followers are of the Dawudi madhab.” (al-Fatawa al-Kubra 2/374)

Also dear readers bear in mind that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah died in 728H and he is saying that you will find people upon other madhabs, so this shows the people were not confined to these madhabs even in the 8th century of Islam.

There are a numerous reasons as to why some of these madhabs diminished and became extinct and looking at them would lengthen the discussion, if Allah wills we can pen this at a different time In shaAllaah.

Mas’ood bin Shaybah Sindhi, who was a staunch author and from amongtst 7th century Hanafi scholars mentioned most of the people of Rauzrawar, Yazjard, Juzbazkan (central asia) and some of the people Hamdan are upon the madhab of of Thawri. (Muqaddimah Kitab at-Ta’lim pg.331)

Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowi said about Imam Tahawi, that, “He had the right to choose in the usool and furoo (in the principles and subsidiairy issues).” (an-Naf’e al-Kabir pg.100) and Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri said, “Tahawi was a Mujtahid and a Mujaddid.” (al-Urf adh-Shadhi pg.45)

In a discussion with Qadhi Abu Ubaid bin Jarthumah regarding an issue, Imam Tahawi said, “Not every statement of Abu Haneefah is my statement? (or opinion). So Qadhi Abu Ubaid said, “I thought you were a muqallid.” To which Imam Tahawi replied, “Only a sinner and stupid person does taqlid.” (Lisaan ul-Mizaan 1/280)

So the confusion upon delusion here is the claim that the scholars refined the madhabs. However we find the same eminent Hanafi scholars saying the scholars were mujtahids and then they say a mujtahid is not a muqallid but rather he has his ijtihad and it is therefore haram for him to be a muqallid. However, at the same time, the latter day muqallids are saying they refined a madhab!!! How contradictory and confuising is this?!?!

It is also known that Junaid Baghdadi would pass verdicts based on the madhab of Imam Abu Thawr (Tarikh Baghdad 7/242).

Now here some will argue, and they have been arguing for centuries; that some scholars and Imams are Mujtahid Mustaqil i.e. derive their own principles. However the question that arises here who is a Mujtahid Mutlaq, i.e. the one who derives based on the rules and principles of another imam and likewise who is a Mujtahid Mustaqil.

In essence and in reality all of these are derivations and interpretations of humans and not divine. So therefore how can we now take that the scholars refined and correct rulings within a madhab when we don’t know what their status was and we are not denying their knowledge, may Allaah have mercy on all of them. Ameen.

Also what shows that the scholars and Imams were capable of making ijtihad and were not upon the madhabs as we see, was the harm of society and the ill effect it would have on them and likewise they were not refining the madhab as we know it.

The people would go to these scholars hoping they would give them Fatawa based on the madhabs and if the scholars attempted to make their ijtihad the people would not take it from them. Also during history and the various times the administration was also at times unfavourable and forceful and hence the scholars would just continue with what they knew.

The student of Shaikh Balqaini asked him what prohibits Shaikh Taqi ud deen as-Subki from doing ijtihad (and here it means of the Mustaqil or mutlaq type) whereas he has the capability and knowledge. The student also thought that Shaikh Balqaini was also of the same level and so whatever answers he gives I will also assume that to be his own reasons also.

However Shaikh Balqaini remained silent. So the student himself said, may be he thought it was inappropriate and this ijtihad was restricted to the 4 madhabs and those who left these 4 madhabs and performed ijtihad, they would not achieve anything because the people would abandon and not take Fatawa from them and at the same instance label them to be innovators. Then Shaikh Balqaini smiled upon my clarification and agreed with me. (Refer to Shaikh Shah Waliullahs al-Insaf Fee Bayan Sabab al-Ikhtilaf pg.60-61)

Sometimes these scholars would learn, follow or sympathise with madhab and then later they would adopt the Quran and Sunnah and abandon the madhab, but yet their name would still be included as one of the refiners of the madhab or its follower.

Allamah Sh’arani mentions some examples of this with regards Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani and others who had reached their own level of Ilm but the people would still use the terms of the madhabs for them. (al-Meezan al-Kubra 1/47)

Another instance this occurs or when people think there were so many scholars refining a madhab when in reality there were very little and the main reason for people thinking they were followers of a madhab or they helped refine them, was because most often their ijtihad and their Fatawa coincided and were synonymous with the Fatawa of a particular madhab.

For example it is famous about Imam Ibn Taymiyyah that he was a Hanbali, however he said, “Whatever I take from the madhab of Imam Ahmad I take on the basis of knowing the evidence and not on the basis of Taqlid.” (Refer to ar-Radd Ala min Akhlad pg.166 and also A’lam al-Muwaqqi’een)

The well-known scholar and researching scholar of the Ahnaf, Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowi said, “That Abu Bakr al-Qaffal, Abu Ali and Qadhi Hussain were said to be from the Shafis but they themselves said we are not the muqallids of Imam Shafi but rather our opinions (i.e. ijtihad) concur and coincide with Imam Shafis.” (an-Naf’e al-Kabir pg.100).

Adding to this further Imam Nawawi cited from Imam Abu Ishaq Shairazi who said, “Most of the (so called) Shafis ijtihad agreed with Imam Shafis ijtihad and not because they did Taqlid of him (this is why they were labelled as Shafis).” Then he cites the statement of Shaikh Abu Ali as-Sinji who said, “We follow Shafis and not others because we found his statement to be the most correct and the one that had most precedence and not because we did Taqlid of him.” (Refer to al-Majmoo’a Sharh al-Muhazzab 1/73).

Shaikh Shah Waliullah said the same concerning Imams Nasaa’i and Baihaqi that their ijtihad concurred with that of Imam Shafi and so just because on this basis the people said they were Shafis. (Hujjatullah al-Balighah 1/153)

So there we have it, half the times these so called refiners agreed with the verdict of the imam based on the evidences and not because they were Muqallids. This therefore nullifies this notion that all if not half of the scholars refined and corrected the rulings.

It is known that the likes of Imams, Muzani, Ibn Khuzaimah, Abu Thawr, Muhammad Nasr al-Marwazi, Abu Ubaid Qasim bin Salam and Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari were from amongst the mujtahideen and major scholars in their own right but look they were included in Tabaqaat ash-Shafiyyah as if they were Shaafites, just because most of their rulings and ijtihad agreed with Imam Shafi’ee.

Another example is what Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowi has cited by Imam Tahawi to be in the same situation and this is how he was a Hanafi or known to be a Hanafi, meaning that his rulings and verdicts coincided with the Hanafi madhab because in reality he differed with Abu Haneefah in numerous issues of usool and furoo. (Refer to an-Naf’e al-Kabir pg.100, Shaikh Sha’arani has also cited the same about these authorities in his al-Mizan al-Kubra 1/23, as does Shaikh Shah Waliullah in his al-Insaf pg.67 and his masterpiece al-Hujjatullah al-Baalighah 1/153)

Shaikh Suyuti mentions the same situations with regards to Ibn Sabbagh, Ibn Abdus Salam, Ibn Daqiq, Subki and Balqaini and said the people knew they were mujtahids but were attributed to the Shafi madhab and likewise they would teach in Shafi institutes of learning. So because all of them were mujtahids they would not see any harm in being attributed to a particular madhab. (ar-Radd Ala Akhlad pg.167-168).

The readers might at this instance say, well how about the Tabaqaat for each madhab, like Tabaqaat Hanafiyyah, Tabaqat Malikiyyah, Tabaqat Shafiyyah and Tabaqat Hanabillah and the scholars have been cited in them and so how can you say the madhabs were just attributed to them. Well just because a scholar has been mentioned in one of these Tabaqats this is not an evidence they were Muqallids and hence refined the madhab.

For example the Hanafis do not speak favourably about Imam Nu’aym bin Hammad but you will see that he has been added to the Hanafi Tabaqat by Shaikh Qurashi.

Also to our amazement Imam Shafi has been included in Tabaqat Malikiyyah, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Imam Ishaq Ibn Rahawaihah have been added to Tabaqat Shafiyyah and Imams Laith ibn Sad, Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri, Imam Ibn Uyainah have been added to Tabaqat Hanafiyyah. Both the Hanafis and Malikis have added Imam Abdullah Ibn Mubarak to their respective Tabaqats.

What is astonishing and also at the same instance hilarious, is what Muhammad Zahid Hussain Kawthari said. He effectively and unwittingly affirms our point of argument in that he rebukes Subki and says he included people in his Tabaqat Shafiyyah who just even gave Salam to Imam Shafi or those who heard just one statement from him and indeed this approach is very bad. (Refer to his Ahqaq al-Haq pg.64).

However this approach is not just restricted to Tabaqat Shafiyyah in fact this approach and method was employed by all of the madhabs in order to increase their numbers and give their madhab more credibility and fame.

So all of this refining just in order to increase the numbers. Indeed is not a numbers game or claim to fame. So when this is the situation with these Tabaqat and the scholars who belonged to these madhabs, can we now really say who really belonged to them and who actually did any refining or fine tuning.

The question itself is contradictory because it is suggesting that you don’t follow the imam or the founding fathers but all the refining scholars, which is impractical.

In fact out right impossible as there is no way possible on this earth that a Muqallid or follower of that madhab will have ability and knowledge to follow what the refining scholars said. In essence this is the main point, that when you’re following a madhab you don’t know whose ijtihad you are following.

It would be most pertinent to mention the statement of Imam Malik here who said, “The truth is always one and two differing statements are never correct because the truth and what is correct is one and Ibn Shahb said Laith (Ibn Sa’ad) also said the same.” (Jami Bayan al-Ilm Wa Fadhlihi 2/88-89)

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmir Deobandi Hanafi has admitted the books of the Hanafi madhab include the issue that if the Hanafis and Shafis are debating in the month of Ramadhan and they feel or think they are weak due to energy, then it is permissible for them to break their fast in order to debate with the shafis.

No doubt Maulana Anwar Shah refuted this notion, but the question and issue is, how long was this allowed in the Hanafi madhab and was this also done in the name of the refining of hundreds of scholars, corrections and bigotry towards ones madhab that even the command of Allah can be refined. Astagfirullah. (Refer to Faidh al-Bari 2/196)

Let us look at another example at why this refining not only does not work, but it lands a follower in more grave danger and severe problems.

For example Shaikh Hussain Ali who was from the students of Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Deobandi Hanafi and the teacher of the another revered Deobandi Hanafi scholar, Ghulamullah Khan, so effectively from this century or you could argue in the 21st century, they said about Raf ul-Yadain that it is not established from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) let alone it being abrogated.

Now this is allegedly and the supposed refining we thought was going on. The older Hanafi scholars opined that Raf ul-Yadain was abrogated and no doubt they are mistaken and have erred on this point, al-Muhim the point here is that they concluded it was abrogated.

From them include Imam Tahawi, Shaikh Ibn Humam, Shaikh Kasani, Shaikh Ayni who ranged from the 5 century onwards and now based on centuries of scholarship instead of admitting that Raf ul-Yadain was an established practiced this refining has reversed and gone backwards.

Also most of the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah said Raf ul-Yadain is mutawatir and it should be noted the eminent Hanafi scholars from the likes of Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowi, Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Maulana Badr Alam all concluded that Raf ul-Yadain was mutawatir also.

Yet however at the same instance in the 13th century, Abdul Lateef Thathwi Hanafi also gave his own figurative explanations for Raf ul-Yadain and giving all sorts of answers to it in his (Dhab Dhababat ad-Dirasat (1/585)

So there was and there still is this tahazzub, partisanship and sectarianism, this refining and fine tuning is just a myth. So when they did do any refining or clarifications it seemed to have fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes.

For example as it relates during the time of Shaikh Abu Bakr al-Jurjani, a Hanafi man wanted to marry a woman from amongst the Ahlul Hadeeth, so he asked her father, who stipulated the condition that he should recite Fatihah behind the Imam and raise his hands as he went into ruku. So the man ended up doing this.

Shaikh Abu Bakr al-Jurjani said although the nikah is valid but at the time of the transition, he may have been without Iman. So if he abandoned his former madhab to become Ahlul Hadeeth based on evidences, then there is no harm in this, in fact this is recommended. (Radd al-Mukhtar 4/249)

Another example of this fine scholarship, academic contribution and refining of the madhab is the example of the issue of one witr as occurs in the authentic ahadeeth. Now we know the hadeeth is authentic and this has been accepted by the Hanafi elders, but how come the Ahanf don’t act upon this hadeeth.

This issue of refining is leaving so many Hanafis abandoning this hadeeth and Sunnah, is this what refinement does to a madhab that after 1400 years we cannot still act on an authentic hadeeth. We say, what is the use of such academia and scholasticism!

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiri says, “For verily I spent nearly 14 years pondering and thinking of a satisfactory answer for this (hadeeth which mentions 1 rakah for witr).” (Refer to Urf ash-Shadhi pg.215 and also his Faidh al-Bari 2/375)

So here we ask what kind of scholastic refining is this, is this not opening the doors to denying and rejecting ahadeeth and each and every individual will be responsible for his own actions. One cannot deny or hide the behind the excuse that “I just did taqlid of the Imams or my Imam or scholars!”

The scholars have specified when your hear a fatwa of a mujtahid and it is correct, and then acting upon it is permissible.

Hence Shaikh Bahr al-Uloom writes in his explanation of ‘Sharh Muslim ath-Thabut’, “If you come across a correct statement of a mujtahid, it is permissible to act upon it, do you not know that the later (Mutakhireen) scholars issued verdicts on the statement (opinion/ijtihad) of Ibn Abi Layla in the instance of taking an oath from a witness.” (Fawateh ar-Rahmut Sharh Muslim ath-Thabut 2/407)

So this refining was on the ijtihad and fatwa of Ibn Abi Layla and if this is the case how can the people say we follow the Hanafi madhab.

This example and numerous others we have cited indicate that the madhabs were formed in this way with a whole array of opinions and ijtihad which is not what Allah obligated upon us. The obligation upon is to follow that which Allah revealed, i.e. the Quran and Hadith.

Dear readers let us not be from amongst those who deny ahadeeth just in the name of scholastic refining as there will be no excuse before Allah and when his Messenger his standing at the pool.

How can we forget the famous and well known principles that were formulated in defence of the Hanafi madhab, its rulings and positions all in the name of refining for blind bigoted fanaticism?

Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi said, “Every Ayah, which is in opposition to the statement of our companions (i.e. followers of the Hanafi madhab) should be taken as abrogated or given precedence over but it is better to figuratively explain it away. The same is for every Hadeeth which opposes the statement of our companions (i.e. the hanafi madhab), it will be left to be abrogated and it will be understood there is a similar contradictory text. Then the evidence our madhab has used will be looked at and it will be given precedence over this conflicting text.” (Usool al-Karkhi pg.8 and pg.29 respectively and also pg.373 printed with Usool al-Bazdawi)

Subhanallah so these are the principles have been set up to refine and fine tune the Hanafi madhab, no doubt this and other such principles are a means and tools that have been innovatively formulated to fight and oppose the Quran and Sunnah.

This again is another deprived and grave statement because there is no way possible to look at these principles in a positive light at all and all those who fail to comprehend this need to stand back and wash away their stubbornness and arrogance coupled with blind fanatical bigoted staunch partisanship. May Allaah save us from this, Ameen.

There are also some very ignorant individuals who post on deceptive forums coining our name of Ahlul hadeeth, who have the sheer depravity to say why do we look at this in a negative way, there are also a number of positive interpretations!!!

Or those lost, confused and narrow minded individuals who have in recent times unleashed a wave of spider web based arguments in their vile attack of the Ahlul Hadeeth. Where they utter and repeat like parrots, what are the Usool of the Ahlul Hadeeth. In sha Allah and indeed this will be replied to very soon.

So we have spoken about how blind fanaticism, partisanship and staunch bigotry have led to a whole host of problems within madhab and with other madhabs. However most of these issues were pertaining to issues of fiqh.

The mujtahideen and righteous scholars had no problem in changing their opinions and stances on a whole array issues and this spread across a vast spectrum of rulings but the muqallideen, (especially the current day ones) have looked at this as something censurable and blameworthy.

For example in the Hanafi madhab, we have the issue of the Dhimmi (a disbeliever residing in a Muslim country) that if he was to swear or abuse the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) there is no punishment upon him and his covenant with the Muslim rule does not break.

The famous Hanafi jurist, Allamah ibn Najeem writes in this regard, “The soul of a believer is inclined and disposes towards the position of the Mukhalif (i.e. the opposers, opponents and in this case the Shafis [and the Ahlul Hadeeth and Salafis] who establish a punishment on such an individual i.e. qatl) BUT IT IS OBLIGATORY UPON US TO FOLLOW OUR MADHAB.” (al-Bahr ur-Raiq 5/135).

Meaning we don’t like the position in our madhab but following the false opinion and position is obligatory upon us, as this is what our madhab necessitates upon us.

It is most pertinent to ask here what refining are the scholars doing since the inception of the madhab, when even in issues of Aqidah they cannot leave their madhab. This is not refining, this is misguidance!!!

This is another example that renders the principle and concept mentioned in the question to be null, void and futile. This is because the shackles and chains of taqlid, partisanship and sectarianism can never come off and this is why there is no refining and correction.

In the issue mentioned above about cursing and swearing to the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) the Hanafi scholar Allamah Ibn Humam disagreed and differed in many issues of the Hanafi madhab and he also does so in this issue of swearing to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) (as he has mentioned in his book Fath ul-Qadeer 4/381).

The point here is that we have been talking about refining, correcting the rulings and positions of a madhab. So in this instance of swearing to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), it is shocking to know that in the name of this alleged and supposed refining Shaikh Ibn Najeem discusses this issue and totally ignores and overlooks the position of Shaikh Ibn Humam’s on this issue as if it never existed or was unimportant!!! Something to think about!!!

He cites from his student Qasim bin Qutlubugha who said, “This discussions and assertions of our Shaikh (i.e. Shaikh Ibn Humam) which are contrary and in contradiction to our madhab should not be acted upon.” (al-Bahr ur-Raiq 5/125 and Rasail Ibn Abidin 1/24)

So the example above is another yet another one that shows there was very little refinement. Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowi, the researching scholar of the Hanafis also repels and rebuts this understanding of the refining of the madhabs and in fact elucidates that the followers including the scholars of the madhabs were muta’assub and bigoted.

He says, “A taifah (i.e. a whole group) of the Hanafis are engrossed in ta’assub (i.e. partisanship – hizbiyyah) and this partisanship is extreme. They are heavily engrossed in pushing fatawa, even if an authentic hadeeth or clear proof contradicts it (i.e. the fatawa). They think if the hadeeth was authentic the Imam would have acted upon it and would not have an issued a verdict in contradicting it, this is indeed clear ignorance from them.” (an-Naf’e al-Kabir pg.135)

We have already mentioned this before, but again it is pertinent to be mentioned here. There are also other differences in which they have shown extreme bigotry and scaremongering tactics and thereby strongly refuting and rebuking the opinions of the other madhabs.

For instance the one Hanafi elder and scholar, i.e. Shaikh Abdullah Balkhi said, “Whoever recites Fatihah behind the Imam, force soil into his mouth, and if not then break his teeth.” He also issued an edict that the one who recites Fatihah behind the Imam then he is a fasiq and someone who does something haram. (Refer to Durr al-Mukhtar 1/544 and Fath ul-Qadeer 1/240)

What impression and understanding does this give the Hanafi muqallid with regards to the other madhabs and people who believe one must recite Fatihah behind the Imam, how comfortable would they feel if they happen to pray in their masaajid!!!

A hanafi “saint” Shaikh Nizam ud deen was in favour of reciting Fatihah behind the Imam but some hardcore extreme bigoted muqallideen presented some weak reports to him mentioning that the one who recites Fatihah behind the Imam will have a flame of fire put into his mouth!!! So he replied, “I might receive this punishment but I cannot bear that my prayer is rendered null and void (if I don’t recite the fatihah).” (Nuzhatul Khawatir 2/129)

Who from the Ahnaf takes this REFINING, that although he was informed about all the punishments and sin of going against the position of the madhab, it was more beloved to him to follow the evidence from the book and Sunnah. This is also the refining and correction, so why do we choose which refinement we take and which one we abandon?

Another problem with this concept and theory is that some eminent Hanafi scholars said, those who claim there is no mujtahid after Allamah Nasafi and by this they mean mujtahid fil madhab and with regards to ijtihad mutlaq they say it finished with the 4 Imams to the extent that they said, obligated and necessitated taqlid of one of the 4 imams.

Then all of this is a whim from amongst their whims and their speech is not given any importance. (Refer to Fatwateh ar-Rahmut 2/399)

This is also the reason why some later day Hanafis who knew that there was no refining and correcting…. spoke the truth. They said the different madhabs and inter-madhabs became so engrossed that the different madhabs appeared to be like different Shariahs, where as they all believe the commands were from Allah. (Refer to Ma’ariful Quran 3/364) of Maulana Muhammad Shafee)

There is also the possibility that a scholar can be wrong in their ijtihad and we have shown this from examples of inter madhab differences, reconciliations and corrections. However a scholar can be wrong in his rulings and his ijtihad; and as we know from the hadeeth he will only get one reward and two if correct. (Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud).

Therefore this shows that mistakes and incorrect rulings can be made and for this they cannot be shunned as they are scholars. Yet again the question and pivotal point is, what is the obligation and command upon the Muslims and indeed this has been clarified and to repeat for the sake of reminder and that is that we return to the Quran and Hadeeth.

Let’s take an example where refining and correction has not taken place and it also shows by this notion, that it is a myth and a poor understanding of the reality.

It is clearly mentioned by the Messenger of Allaah (ﷺ) that he said, “Allah’s curse is on the one who does Halaalah and the one who asks for it to be done.” (Bukhari) and Umar (RadhiAllaahu Anhu) ordered both of them to be stoned. Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said “That the companions are agreed in its prohibition from the likes of Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masood, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and others (RadhiAllahu Anhum Ajma’een) and it has not been transmitted from any of the companions that they wed the woman to the first husband after the halalah.” (Majmu’a al-Fatawa 33/330-33)

However on the contrary the Hanafi madhab says halaalah is permissible to the extent that it has been said, “If someone has the intention of halaalah but does not actually do it, he will be rewarded because he intended rectification and reconciliation.” (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 3/415)

It seems like Shaikh Mulla Ali Qari rebuked this horrendous Hanafi position (Mirqat Sharh Mishkat 6/298) and yet despite this there are halaalah centres in some muslim countries.

Another example is when such corrections within a madhab are abandoned, is that the official position of Imam Abu Hanifah, Shaikh Muhammad Hasan Shaybani and Shaikh Abu Yusuf with regards to eating a lizard is that it is unlawful. However Shaikh Tahawi said there was no harm in eating it. (Mukhtasar at-Tahawi pg.441). Likewise he considered the urine of a camel and Horse meat to be halal. (Mukhtasar at-Tahawi pg.434).

Imam Ibn Hazm said “from the first to the last of the companions and all of the successors, we have from them Ijmaa that it is impermissible to take all of the statements of an individual who was from their time or before them (Except the Nabi). The people who take all of the statements of either Abu Haneefah, Malik, Shafi or Ahmad (i.e. they do taqlid) of them, knowing that the one who they do taqlid of, they do not reject his statements, then they should know that they are going against the Ijmaa of the whole Ummah and they have left the way of the believers and we seek refuge in Allaah from such a state. The second point is that all of these virtuous scholars prohibited the people doing taqlid of them and the taqlid of others therefore the one who does taqlid of them is opposing them.” (an-Nubdh pg.71 of Imam Ibn Hazm and ar-Radd Ala Ila Mi Akhlad Ilal Ard pg131-132 of Suyuti., also cited by Shaikh Shah Waliullah Delhawi in his Hujjatullah al-Baalighah 1/362)

By the two who are in need of the Mercy of his Lord
May Allah forgive us. Ameen

Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
Shaban 1435 / June 2014

Source & PDF: http://www.salafiri.com/the-evil-conseq ... -complete/