Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

[diwana]

Alhamdulillah, difference of opinion is a mercy. The 4 madhabs are sound. So yes we should accept them and follow. Not splitting up into billion madhabs like we see today. That is jahalat.

:)

Why not one or five total? Why four? That is the question.

Allah and his messanger SAW never said follow one of four.

[cricketplaya]

:)

Why not one or five? Why four? That is the question.

Allah and his messanger SAW never said follow one of four.

Because naturally they have remained strong because of their evidences/proofs from quran and sunnah and because people followed them based on these strong proofs, not just ordinary people but even the most pious greatest scholars this world has seen (apart from the prophets and sahaba). There would of been more than 4 but the other 2 died out, Allah wills.

[diwana]

Because naturally they have remained strong because of their evidences/proofs from quran and sunnah and because people followed them based on these strong proofs, not just ordinary people but even the most pious greatest scholars this world has seen (apart from the prophets and sahaba). There would of been more than 4 but the other 2 died out, Allah wills.

I think you have been avoiding the core of the question in other thread and this one. These madhabs were created by people by following imams who never themselves wanted this way.

And these imams were born after the prophet SAW.

The prophet SAW with all the wisdom and knowledge and recommendations, never once said to follow anyone after him like a madhab.

His SAW last sermon said two things to follow. And hope you know. What they are.

It is the duty of EVERYONE to search what is in those two items which was advised to be followed.

Not leaving the responsibility to any aalim only. I said 'only' here for a reason. Let these good aalims do their search but your individual responsibility will not be forfieted.

You cannot go to Allah and say, I did it because such and such aalim told me to do so! Hope this is clear enough! Aalim will go to his qabar and you will go to your.. (and I will go to mine...)

That is the biggest problem with not only muslims but people of other religion too. They follow human being like superior being 'blindly' out of shear laziness and find excuse of lack of knowledge.

I am sorry, we are again going to the topic I started. I will stop here. If you wish and answer in other thread. or if you do not then that is fine too.

[cricketplaya]

I think you have been avoiding the core of the question in other thread and this one. These madhabs were created by people by following imams who never themselves wanted this way.

And these imams were born after the prophet SAW.

The prophet SAW with all the wisdom and knowledge and recommendations, never one said to follow anyone after him like a madhab.

His SAW last sermon said two things to follow. And hope you know. What they are.

It is the duty of EVERYONE to search what is in those two items which was advised to be followed.

Not leaving the responsibility to any aalim only. I said 'only' here for a reason.

That is the biggest problem with not only muslims but people of other religion too. They follow human being like superior being 'blindly' out of shear laziness and find excuse of lack of knowledge.

I am sorry, we are again going to the topic I started. I will stop here. If you wish and answer in other thread. or if you do not then that is fine too.

Again we're going in circles :)

Allah has said in Quran, go to the people of knowledge. I see no harm in going to the people of knowledge, Allah knows best for us. That is why it is advised, throughout history to have a teacher. For anything in this world, you need a teacher. You want to become a physicist, you can read all the books in this world and still not be able to grasp the knowledge. You need a teacher. That is why we have the 4 madhabs (in reality they are 1 since they all follow the 2 sources), now Prophet SAW is not here to tell us. Where do we go? Do we start reading and interpreting ourselves or do we go to the people of knowledge? Again, there is no harm in learning, all scholars throughout history have promoted learning but we should differentiate between learning and deriving rulings. The latter only leads people astray.

[diwana]

Again we're going in circles :)

Allah has said in Quran, go to the people of knowledge. I see no harm in going to the people of knowledge, Allah knows best for us. That is why it is advised, throughout history to have a teacher. For anything in this world, you need a teacher. You want to become a physicist, you can read all the books in this world and still not be able to grasp the knowledge. You need a teacher. That is why we have the 4 madhabs (in reality they are 1 since they all follow the 2 sources), now Prophet SAW is not here to tell us. Where do we go? Do we start reading and interpreting ourselves or do we go to the people of knowledge? Again, there is no harm in learning, all scholars throughout history have promoted learning but we should differentiate between learning and deriving rulings. The latter only leads people astray.

(Well, you answered here then as long as hareem has no problem, let me answer)

I think you are the one going in circle. My point of view has been very straightforward from the first post in this thread.

TLK asked the question above I think...And I asked the same after you posted the verse.

Who are those people of knowledge?

How will you ever decide who are those people of knowledge?

Obviously there has to be a reason for you to choose one or the other. So, based on what?

Can you answer the questions I post rather than making general statements?

Why would you follow just one imam or madhab made AFTER the time of the prophet SAW.

You still have to search on your own and that is what a better way to follow religion.

You again avoided the responsibility issue here. Aalim is not going to be responsible and will not be there if the questions will be asked...sorry no cheating or conference call will be allowed..:)

[a-town_boy]

Alhamdulillah, difference of opinion is a mercy. The 4 madhabs are sound. So yes we should accept them and follow. Not splitting up into billion madhabs like we see today. That is jahalat.

oh the irony!!!

[cricketplaya]

[quote="“diwana, post:14, topic:221293"”]

Who are those people of knowledge?

How will you ever decide who are those people of knowledge?

Obviously there has to be a reason for you to choose one or the other. So, based on what?

Can you answer the questions I post rather than making general statements?

Why would you follow just one imam or madhab made AFTER the time of the prophet SAW.

You still have to search on your own and that is what a better way to follow religion.

You again avoided the responsibility issue here. Aalim is not going to be responsible and will not be there if the questions will be asked…sorry no cheating or conference call will be allowed..
[/quote]

The people of knowledge are scholars (as pointed out in commentaries of Quran). How will we know who the scholars are? We have to look at the traditional ulema, not the ones that pop out of Medina university or any other university. Like hadith, you need a strong chain right? Just like that the traditional ulema go back (in one way or another) to Rasulullah SAW. Silsila you can call it. For example, Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmed sahab has his silsila: http://www.tasawwuf.org/shaykh/silsilah.htm Obviously you look at their righteousness, piety, humility, taqwa, ikhlas…etc
Maybe other brothers can explain it better but that’s the simplest way I can put it.

And the issue of responsibility, of course it’s the duty of every Muslim to find out the proofs of the rulings if he can, but there is no sin on him if he can’t. He’s trusting the ulema as Allah advised us. Who knows more? Allah or the jahil saudi kingdom that is responsible for this anti-madhab mess?

btw, I remembered this (on the topic of becoming a mujtahid)

@Abdal-Hakim Murad

**In order to protect the Shariah from the danger of innovation and distortion, the great scholars of usul laid down rigorous conditions which must be fulfilled by anyone wishing to claim the right of ijtihad

  (a) mastery of the Arabic language, to minimise the possibility of misinterpreting Revelation on purely linguistic grounds; 

  (b) a profound knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah and the circumstances surrounding the revelation of each verse and *hadith*, together with a full knowledge of the Quranic and *hadith* commentaries, and a control of all the interpretative techniques discussed above; 

  (c) knowledge of the specialised disciplines of *hadith*, such as the assessment of narrators and of the *matn* [text]; 

  (d) knowledge of the views of the Companions, Followers and the great imams, and of the positions and reasoning expounded in the textbooks of *fiqh*, combined with the knowledge of cases where a consensus (*ijma*) has been reached; 

  (e) knowledge of the science of juridical analogy (*qiyas*), its types and conditions; 

  (f) knowledge of ones own society and of public interest (*maslahah*); 

  (g) knowing the general objectives (*maqasid*) of the Shariah; 

  (h) a high degree of intelligence and personal piety, combined with the Islamic virtues of compassion, courtesy, and modesty. ** for himself. These conditions include:        

and on the same subject, Abdal-Hakim Murad beautifully explains our current “anti-madhab” climate:

**In a Western-influenced global culture in which people are urged from early childhood to think for themselves and to challenge established authority, it can sometimes be difficult to muster enough humility to recognise ones own limitations. We are all a little like Pharaoh: our egos are by nature resistant to the idea that anyone else might be much more intelligent or learned than ourselves. The belief that ordinary Muslims, even if they know Arabic, are qualified to derive rulings of the Shariah for themselves, is an example of this egotism running wild. To young people proud of their own judgement, and unfamiliar with the complexity of the sources and the brilliance of authentic scholarship, this can be an effective trap, which ends by luring them away from the orthodox path of Islam and into an unintentional agenda of provoking deep divisions among the Muslims. The fact that all the great scholars of the religion, including the hadith experts, themselves belonged to madhhabs, and required their students to belong to madhhabs, seems to have been forgotten. Self-esteem has won a major victory here over common sense and Islamic responsibility.

The Holy Quran commands Muslims to use their minds and reflective capacities; and the issue of following qualified scholarship is an area in which this faculty must be very carefully deployed. The basic point should be appreciated that no categoric difference exists between usul al-fiqh and any other specialised science requiring lengthy training. Shaykh Said Ramadan al-Buti, who has articulated the orthodox response to the anti-Madhhab trend in his book: Non-Madhhabism: The Greatest Bida Threatening the Islamic Sharia, likes to compare the science of deriving rulings to that of medicine. “If ones child is seriously ill”, he asks, “does one look for oneself in the medical textbooks for the proper diagnosis and cure, or should one go to a trained medical practitioner?” Clearly, sanity dictates the latter option. And so it is in matters of religion, which are in reality even more important and potentially hazardous: we would be both foolish and irresponsible to try to look through the sources ourselves, and become our own muftis. Instead, we should recognise that those who have spent their entire lives studying the Sunnah and the principles of law are far less likely to be mistaken than we are.

Another metaphor might be added to this, this time borrowed from astronomy. We might compare the Quranic verses and the hadiths to the stars. With the naked eye, we are unable to see many of them clearly; so we need a telescope. If we are foolish, or proud, we may try to build one ourselves. If we are sensible and modest, however, we will be happy to use one built for us by Imam al-Shafi’i or Ibn Hanbal, and refined, polished and improved by generations of great astronomers. A madhhab is, after all, nothing more than a piece of precision equipment enabling us to see Islam with the maximum clarity possible. If we use our own devices, our amateurish attempts will inevitably distort our vision.

A third image might also be deployed. An ancient building, for instance the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, might seem imperfect to some who worship in it. Young enthusiasts, burning with a desire to make the building still more exquisite and well-made (and no doubt more in conformity with their own time-bound preferences), might gain access to the crypts and basements which lie under the structure, and, on the basis of their own understanding of the principles of architecture, try to adjust the foundations and pillars which support the great edifice above them. They will not, of course, bother to consult professional architects, except perhaps one or two whose rhetoric pleases them nor will they be guided by the books and memoirs of those who have maintained the structure over the centuries. Their zeal and pride leaves them with no time for that. Groping through the basements, they bring out their picks and drills, and set to work with their usual enthusiasm.

There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islam’s enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.**

If you want, you can read the full article here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/newmadhh.htm

[psyah]

@AllahkaBanda

^no offence brother pysch, but you haven’t even touched the tip of this issue. Due to this reason, your response is full of grave mistakes. Like I said, if you want to continue, we can do so in private but if you really want then I may be able to do in public but start another topic. barakAlahu feeka

I’ve refreshed my study on the development of the aqeedah schools and have found that there are indeed errors in my previous posts.

In a nutshell I have come across:

Source dogma was non-existent since faith was equated to obedience to the prophet (SAW).
Khawarij were first breakaway on dogma
Muta’zili and Najdis came from them
Kalam started - dialectic between Sunnis and Muta’zili
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (RA) rejected Qur’an creation theory, when Muta’zilis were dominating
Imam Abu Hanifah wrote most text on beliefs
Imam At-Tahawi and Imam Maturidi developed two creedal formulas independently.
Imam Al-'Ashari broke away from Muta’zili and developed creedal formula similar to Maturidi
Imam At-Tahawi got widest acceptance due to being simplest and avoided refuting dogmatic positions. (Note: Widest acceptance does not mean MOST acceptance)
Early Hanafis were Tahawi
Later Hanafis became Maturidi in general, some became 'Ashari
The current Athari aqeedah utilises Tahawi as a basis, but includes some speculative discourse and identifies disagreements with other dogmas.

Hence if you believe that At-Tahawiyya is the Athari/Salafi aqeedah then it is the first. But my argument stemmed from the fact that theology was not required for the Salaf and hence any dogma or creedal formula must only have been created to counter the breakaways.

Somewhere in the equation were the literalists who rejected all forms of reason who were the opposites to the Muta’zilis. The Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jammah consisted of people from the schools of these three creedal formuals. (Maturidi, 'Ashari & Tahawi)

The Salafi/Athari aqeedah in this regard is taken from the refutations of those early scholars who rejected and documented their rejections against the Khawarij and the Muta’zili. But I still hold, that the current athari formula had not been developed until many years after Imam At-Tahawi.

[diwana]

@cricketplaya

The people of knowledge are scholars (as pointed out in commentaries of Quran). How will we know who the scholars are? We have to look at the traditional ulema, not the ones that pop out of Medina university or any other university. Like hadith, you need a strong chain right? Just like that the traditional ulema go back (in one way or another) to Rasulullah SAW. Silsila you can call it. For example, Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmed sahab has his silsila: http://www.tasawwuf.org/shaykh/silsilah.htm Obviously you look at their righteousness, piety, humility, taqwa, ikhlas…etc
Maybe other brothers can explain it better but that’s the simplest way I can put it.

And the issue of responsibility, of course it’s the duty of every Muslim to find out the proofs of the rulings if he can, but there is no sin on him if he can’t. He’s trusting the ulema as Allah advised us. Who knows more? Allah or the jahil saudi kingdom that is responsible for this anti-madhab mess?

btw, I remembered this (on the topic of becoming a mujtahid)

and on the same subject, Abdal-Hakim Murad beautifully explains our current “anti-madhab” climate:

If you want, you can read the full article here: Understanding the Four Madhhabs (with footnotes)

It seems two different topics are being discussed in this thread.

[cricketplaya]

*The Poet of the East, ‘Allamah Iqbal (1837-1938) on Deobandis
The following piece has been edited by Maulana by Abu Zaynab and taken from the inside cover of a 1984/1405 edition of a South African Muslim journal called “Awake to the Call of Islam!” The extracts were taken by the editors of the journal from a book called “History of Darul Uloom Deoband”.

Deobandiyat is neither a creed (mathab) nor a sect – terms by which its antagonists try to incite the masses against it – but it is a comprehensive picture and a complete edition of the tack of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah in which all the offshoots of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah are seen joined with their root.What a fine and succinct sentence the Poet of the East, the late Dr. Sir. Muhammad Iqbal – and, it beseemed him alone – had spoken about Deobandiyat.

When someone asked him:

‘What thing is the Deobandi, a creed or a sect?’ He replied: ‘It’s neither a creed nor a sect; Deobandi is the name of every rationalist religious man.

Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal said:

Let these madressahs be in this very condition; let the children of poor Muslims read in these madressahs. Should these mullas and Dervishes be not there, do you know what will happen? Whatever will happen I have come after seeing with mine own eyes. If the Muslims of India are deprived of the influence of these madressahs, it will happen exactly like it happened in Andalusia (Spain) after eight hundred years of Muslim rule there. Today, except the relics of the ruins of Grenada and Cordoba and Al-Hamra, no trace is found there of the followers of Islam, and the Islamic civilisation. In India, too, save the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort of Delhi, no trace of the Muslims’ 800-year rule and their civilisation will be available.

(Extracts from a “History of Darul Uloom Deoband”, Vol.1, 1980)*

The Poet of the East, ‘Allamah Iqbal (1837-1938) on Deobandis

–

Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi (may Allah shower His mercy upon him)] said, ‘I always give preference to ‘ulama’ over the Sufis, for they are the protectors of the religion and its boundaries. This is why I prefer that ‘ulama’ spend more time in teaching, lecturing, preaching or writing and issuing fatwas than remaining in solitude. This statement of mine is a rational one; otherwise, I have a natural love for the Sufis.
*
Referring to those Sufis who are not ‘ulama’*

[cricketplaya]

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

***“The great madrasah of Deoband is [like] a radiant sun that has illuminated various parts of India. It revived the Prophetic way (sunnah) academically, practically and in terms of suluk, and it removed the darkness of innovation (bid’ah), which had amassed in those lands for a lengthy time. It stripped the pools of knowledge and shari’ah from all that was alien to them in the same way that it stripped the suluk of the Sufis from new customs — such as sama’ and stringed instruments and their like from the gatherings of bid’ ah that were prevalent in India in those days. It replaced those innovations with clear and radiant sunnah — in terms of teaching and studying, suluk and propagation — until it (the madrasah) became a powerful, great and authentic source of light from which came droves of god-fearing (rabbaniyyin) ulama, who combined the excellence of knowledge and action (’amal), while adhering to the sunnah and eliminating bid’ah.” -

(The Renowned Hadith Scholar of the Last Century,
‘Allamah Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah on Dar al-’Ulum Deoband)***

[Das_Reich]

Alhamdulillah, difference of opinion is a mercy. The 4 madhabs are sound. So yes we should accept them and follow. Not splitting up into billion madhabs like we see today. That is jahalat.

i agree with the bolded part but historically there were many other scholars too which gave verdicts sometimes a little different from the verdicts of the presentday imams, why is following their opinion wrong ?
Show me a hadith that Prophet wanted just 4 madhab or predicted that

[Das_Reich]

Because naturally they have remained strong because of their evidences/proofs from quran and sunnah and because people followed them based on these strong proofs, not just ordinary people but even the most pious greatest scholars this world has seen (apart from the prophets and sahaba). There would of been more than 4 but the other 2 died out, Allah wills.

but the 12ers have survived , ismailis have survived is that God's will too yet other schools of thought of ahle sunnah died out

Subanallah never heard of such rationalizations

[cricketplaya]

@Das_Reich

i agree with the bolded part but historically there were many other scholars too which gave verdicts sometimes a little different from the verdicts of the presentday imams, why is following their opinion wrong ? Show me a hadith that Prophet wanted just 4 madhab or predicted that

Who said it's wrong?
Your right there were other Imams who gave verdicts but their madhaib died out, many factors involved in them dying out I guess. There are no or close to no scholars today practicing the rulings of those imams so I guess when you have no resources to turn to you chose the madhab which has the most scholars and books and population in your region. That's how I see it.

[cricketplaya]

@Das_Reich

but the 12ers have survived ,** ismailis** have survived is that God's will too yet other schools of thought of ahle sunnah died out

Subanallah never heard of such rationalizations

and so have the so-called christians.

[Das_Reich]

@cricketplaya

and so have the so-called christians.

exactly my point , why it God has by natural selection choosen these madhabs then why hasnt the deviant ones died out

[Das_Reich]

[QUOTE]

@cricketplaya

Who said it's wrong? Your right there were other Imams who gave verdicts but their madhaib died out, many factors involved in them dying out I guess. There are no or close to no scholars today practicing the rulings of those imams so I guess when you have no resources to turn to you chose the madhab which has the most scholars and books and population in your region. That's how I see it./QUOTE]

I agree but then why do disagree with the rulings of others ( outside the 4 madhabs) who claim to follow the sunnah based on their understanding of ahadith

[cricketplaya]

@Das_Reich

exactly my point , why it God has by natural selection choosen these madhabs then why hasnt the deviant ones died out

because they have an unbroken silsila all the way to the prophet SAW. ismailis/12ers claim to but their practices n beliefs speak for themselves... anyway, this is about ahle sunnah, i guess is up to you to provide proofs that these madhaib are wrong and we should NOT be following them. :)

[Das_Reich]

[QUOTE]
because they have an unbroken silsila all the way to the prophet SAW.
[/QUOTE]

so did the other eariler extinct madhabs did

[QUOTE]
i guess is up to you to provide proofs that these madhaib are wrong and we should NOT be following them. :)
[/QUOTE]

who is saying that ? all 4 madhabs are valid but what is the proof that the schools of thought are limited to 4 only

[cricketplaya]

so did the other eariler extinct madhabs did

who is saying that ? all 4 madhabs are valid but what is the proof that the schools of thought are limited to 4 only

and nobody said they are limited to 4 only. I don't know where you get that from? Yes, if another school of thought had its tradition, scholars, resources carry on just like the 4 schools, that too would of been part of today's madhaib. :)