Follow Islam vs. follow Madhab

[zeyneddine]

Any discourse or discussion on Islamic rulings suddenly turns into a madhab opinions, and countless fatwas are thrown around. Why does that happen? I understand a lot of us are not "knowledgable" enough about Islamic laws, so I'd like to know what "knowledge" we do need to read the Quran/Hadith, learn about the context such a ruling was sent down/applied and realize what the law/ruling is?

[spicyhijabi]

zeyneddine said

Any discourse or discussion on Islamic rulings suddenly turns into a madhab opinions, and countless fatwas are thrown around. Why does that happen? I understand a lot of us are not "knowledgable" enough about Islamic laws, so I'd like to know what "knowledge" we do need to read the Quran/Hadith, learn about the context such a ruling was sent down/applied and realize what the law/ruling is?

The fact that there are differing opinions is a mercy because not every situation is the same. IMHO

[dreamdeferred]

^^^^^^ Agreed spicy.

Brother you're oversimplifying a very complicated matter.

[Jamroll]

zeyneddine said

Any discourse or discussion on Islamic rulings suddenly turns into a madhab opinions, and countless fatwas are thrown around. Why does that happen? I understand a lot of us are not "knowledgable" enough about Islamic laws, so I'd like to know what "knowledge" we do need to read the Quran/Hadith, learn about the context such a ruling was sent down/applied and realize what the law/ruling is?

Follow the madhab of your congregation in rulings. Read Quran and Hadith for bettering your own understanding of Islam.

[Revert]

zeyneddine said

Any discourse or discussion on Islamic rulings suddenly turns into a madhab opinions, and countless fatwas are thrown around. Why does that happen? I understand a lot of us are not "knowledgable" enough about Islamic laws, so I'd like to know what "knowledge" we do need to read the Quran/Hadith, learn about the context such a ruling was sent down/applied and realize what the law/ruling is?

First you need to know Arabic at least a Masters Degree level as much of the interpretation of the Quran and Hadith comes form the nuances of the language.

You should know the Quran like the back of your hand. You should also work on controlling your nafs, this play a huge part in drawing up unbiased rulings.

Islamic history is also a plus as you should know why and how the verses were revealed.

Thats probably around 20 years of studying for the average person. Hop to it.

[zeyneddine]

dreamdeferred said

^^^^^^ Agreed spicy.

Brother you're oversimplifying a very complicated matter.

Bro, I'll continue the discussion here since it was off-topic in the other thread.

Firstly, there was no "madhabs" during Mohammad (sa)'s time. There was only A law-giver, who acted out as per God's commands. All of his judgments were made in light of Quranic injunctions.

The four rightly-guided caliphs (primarily Umar (ra)) extended some of the laws as per their interpretation and social context at that time. Keep in mind, as they were the khulfah, they were the law-givers of their periods, and are answerable to Allah if any of their laws contravened Islamic injunctions.

At the present time, most if not all Muslims belong to one of the four main madhabs. Those are just opinions by esteemed scholars and their interpretations were made in terms of the social context at that time. There were not law-givers. And they all made their opinions keeping in mind the Quran and the Sunnah, both of Mohammad (sa) and the caliphs.

Laws are generally based on precedent, and Islam is no different. However, Islamic precedent is not the opinions of the scholars, but it is the Quran and Sunnah.

Today we see everything jumbled up into a matter of Ikhtilaf. This has caused numerous in-fighting amongst the madhabs, to matters as simple as the day of Eid. This is not mercy to the Ummah, rather it erodes the unity and is detrimental to Islam. We see now that further interpretations are made from the interpretations of the scholars of the four madhabs, hence we're braching Islam into different pieces.

Lastly, interpretation is also dangerous. Just a small example, the Quran tells the believing woman to cover themselves up so that they may be regarded as believing women and be not molested. An interpretation I have heard from Pakitsan is that since every woman in Pakistan is a Muslim, there is no need to "cover up" and they are all "believing women" (i.e. Muslims) and in light of an Islamic government, there is no fear of being molested. Such interpretations are dangerous, and are not matters of Ikhtilaf.

Wallahu Alim.

[dreamdeferred]

Akhi, I'm not sure I want to spend too much time on this as I could honestly argue convincingly for either position (in terms of madhab vs la madhab) but I will say that the argument as framed in your thread title is highly misleading. We simply cannot approach this topic as "Islam vs Madhabs". As you've noted, Islam is a religion predicated on two sources (Quran and Sunnah) but these sources require interpretative mediation. As such differences of opinion will always exist in the absence of crystal clear injunctions. Also...there is a distinction between Shari'ah and Fiqh that your post above does not account for and as a result muddles the discussion at hand.

With regards to your last comment..........no serious scholars would accept that argument as legitimate so it's a moot point.

[zeyneddine]

dreamdeferred said

Akhi, I'm not sure I want to spend too much time on this as I could honestly argue convincingly for either position (in terms of madhab vs la madhab) but I will say that the argument as framed in your thread title is highly misleading. We simply cannot approach this topic as "Islam vs Madhabs". As you've noted, Islam is a religion predicated on two sources (Quran and Sunnah) but these sources require interpretative mediation. As such differences of opinion will always exist in the absence of crystal clear injunctions. Also...there is a distinction between Shari'ah and Fiqh that your post above does not account for and as a result it muddles the discussion at hand.

With regards to your last comment..........no serious scholars would accept that argument as legitimate so it's a moot point.

Thanks for your opinion bro. Just for elaboration, how do you discern crystal clear injunctions from hazy injunctions? As regards to distinction between Sharia'ah and Fiqh, it is difficult to really separate the two with clear boundaries, as Islamic jurisprudence takes different paths with different madhabs.

Whats funny is that the last comment actually came from a pretty serious scholar back in the motherland.

[TrentReznor858]

zeyneddine said

Just a small example, the Quran tells the believing woman to cover themselves up so that they may be regarded as believing women and be not molested. An interpretation I have heard from Pakitsan is that since every woman in Pakistan is a Muslim, there is no need to "cover up" and they are all "believing women" (i.e. Muslims) and in light of an Islamic government, there is no fear of being molested. Such interpretations are dangerous, and are not matters of Ikhtilaf.

Wallahu Alim.

A) Women are not told to cover up for fear of being molested. Women are molested all over the world, regardless of what they wear.
B) Whomever told you such a thing is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, as it is a extremely primitive form of "logic" (for lack of a better term), more closely related to a fallacy.
C) Pakistan has an "Islamic" government? Since when is a military dictatorship "Islamic"?

[dreamdeferred]

zeyneddine said

Thanks for your opinion bro. Just for elaboration, how do you discern crystal clear injunctions from hazy injunctions? As regards to distinction between Sharia'ah and Fiqh, it is difficult to really separate the two with clear boundaries, as Islamic jurisprudence takes different paths with different madhabs.

Whats funny is that the last comment actually came from a pretty serious scholar back in the motherland.

No problem.

When I mentioned "in the absence of crystal clear injunctions" I didn't mean to imply that there are "hazy injunctions" in the Quran/Sunnah (although there are certainly some examples of that)....what I meant was that when scholars are presented with a novel situation, or are required to make a ruling on a matter not specifically/thoroughly addressed in the two normative sources etc.... different perspectives will emerge depending on the methodology used (among other factors). Even in something as simple and authoritative as Salah...you'll find very minor differences amongst schools as a result of methodology.

In terms if Jurisprudence all madhabs use the same tools of Usul al Fiqh(at least post Shafi ra,)...Quran, Sunnah, ijma, qiyas....with different emphases.....the same is true of those who ascribe themselves to the Salafiyyah movement.


Who is this scholar you're referring to? Is it Ghamidi?

[jinnzaman]

The Importance of Following a School of Law in Islam | Global Intifada

[zeyneddine]

TrentReznor858 said

A) Women are not told to cover up for fear of being molested. Women are molested all over the world, regardless of what they wear.
B) Whomever told you such a thing is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, as it is a extremely primitive form of "logic" (for lack of a better term), more closely related to a fallacy.
C) Pakistan has an "Islamic" government? Since when is a military dictatorship "Islamic"?

bro, I keep my manners in this sub-forum, i'd appreciate if you do the same.

A)Read surah Al-Ahzab.
B)I will agree, but since that person has a sizable following, people are being misled.
C)I wont argue about that, because I didnt claim it. The scholar did.

[zeyneddine]

jinnzaman said

The Importance of Following a School of Law in Islam | Global Intifada

jazak Allah. I will read through that.

[Jaysh]

zeyneddine said

jazak Allah. I will read through that.

That is just one view that Jinnz provided. The Ahle Hadees provide another view, which is generally considered 'anti-madhab.' I lean towards the so-called anti-madhab opinions.

[jinnzaman]

Jaysh said

That is just one view that Jinnz provided. The Ahle Hadees provide another view, which is generally considered 'anti-madhab.' I lean towards the so-called anti-madhab opinions.

Ibn Hazm related that the Sahabah engaged in taqleed of seven of the fuqaha. If you research how the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) engaged in fiqh, its essentially the same as following a madhab.

Jaysh, do you really expect people who have no knowledge of the Qur'an, Arabic, or basic sciences of hadeeth, let alone usul al fiqh, to be able to adequately weigh opinions?