I’ve heard it said often that we should just pick one madhab and follow it. For example, many Pakistani’s follow the Hanafi madhab (whether or not they have actually studied it).
I have looked a little bit into the different madhabs and am going over the traditions of fiqh in each. What I have found is that I like a little bit of each. For example, I like the Maliki’s use of ijtihad, and the Shafi’i view of something else, and the Hanafi view on taking opinions of scholars, etc. (Not to say that all dont use some form of each.)
How do you reconsile yourself with just following one madhab? Or do you “pick and choose”? What if there is a scholar you really like, but you dont agree with 15% of what he says? Or do you just follow what your parents taught you and not look further into things?
I’d like replies from those that have actually considered doing this, and have done so, or have had difficulty in trying to do so. Thanks.
I'm a self-confessed "pick-and-chooser". Whilst principally Hanafi (cos that's what I was raised to be) I try to follow whoever I believe makes the most compelling argument where I see differing opinions.
Blindly following one individual despite perceiving a stronger opinion on a subject does not strike me as being right at all.
I believe there is a saying of the Exalted Rasul that whoever breaks Islam into sects is not one of us. How do you make yourself follow Imams and Muftis and whatnot. Why not follow the Quran and the authentic Hadees only?
whoever heard of following only Newton's Laws in Physics and ignoring others? If religion is the truth, ALL paths will eventually lead to it and provide an affirmation of that truth..
seek knowledge.. that's what Allah wants us to do.. seek it and the right religion will come to you itself.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by funguy: *
I believe there is a saying of the Exalted Rasul that whoever breaks Islam into sects is not one of us. How do you make yourself follow Imams and Muftis and whatnot. Why not follow the Quran and the authentic Hadees only?
[/QUOTE]
funguy, if you study even a little bit of fiqh(as i've studied very little myself), you will come to realize (insha'Allah) that Shafi'i, Hanbali, Hanafi, etc, are not sects. It is really beautiful how each scholar explained the slight differences in their opinions, and how they never put down another scholar(as people sometimes do now). They all followed what they believed to be "authentic/sound hadith", it was the interpretation that differed, and one imam for example put more importance on ijtihad than another, etc. I have some tapes to suggest to you, if you'd be interested. It will explain the matter more clearly. smile
rvikz, the masjid I go to has pakistani's, arabs, black american's, white american's, indian's, malaysians, west indian's, etc. Mash'Allah its a mixed masjid. smile
Jalaluddin Rumi narrated in his Mathnavi “These four (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Hanbal, and Shafaai) have carved four religions out of one Islam. They have created irreconcilable divisions in Islam”.
And I can point to many books where each imam made the other insignificant. Where is their mutual harmony? It is important to break the ‘Idol of Indisputable Scholarship’ that exists today among the Ummah in order to free our minds from blind reverence. It will be difficult, if not impossible to find a single book of the Imams without lofty prefaces or introductions by the publishers and presenters. These are filled with fabricated accounts of the Imams’ miraculous memories, marathon ibadat sessions, and angelic character. The idea is to portray the Imams as superhumans and to render them indisputable.
Let us not be dazzled by this extravaganza and examine their “greatness” with a critical mind in the light of the Qur’an.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by funguy: *
Jalaluddin Rumi narrated in his Mathnavi “These four (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Hanbal, and Shafaai) have carved four religions out of one Islam. They have created irreconcilable divisions in Islam”.
And I can point to many books where each imam made the other insignificant. Where is their mutual harmony? It is important to break the ‘Idol of Indisputable Scholarship’ that exists today among the Ummah in order to free our minds from blind reverence. It will be difficult, if not impossible to find a single book of the Imams without lofty prefaces or introductions by the publishers and presenters. These are filled with fabricated accounts of the Imams’ miraculous memories, marathon ibadat sessions, and angelic character. The idea is to portray the Imams as superhumans and to render them indisputable.
Let us not be dazzled by this extravaganza and examine their “greatness” with a critical mind in the light of the Qur’an.
[/QUOTE]
funguy, most muslims I know consider Rumi to be a Sufi, following mysticism, which itself is considered a sect in Islam.
I have to disagree with what you have mentioned above, not for argument sake, but simply because my sources do not state what you have claimed there. The four imams spoke very well of eachother, and I have evidence to this effect. But I will not argue this point further.
I would like to know how you go about interpreting the "authentic hadith" you come across. That is, if you are willing to share this information.
I would also like to know how other guppies go about reconsiling this. Thanks.
in my personal view, the scholars who are well known and respected by majority really are pious and learned individuals and there is no harm in following their fatawas. i might be called a salafi, although i do not like to create divisions, but i think that so called salafis are the closest to the truth because they do not have fixed imams who they follow. if some imams differed on some issue, and both have some evidence, they will choose the imam whom they trust more, or who can provide an explanation why the other imam’s evidence is not so strong.
that way, only evidence is followed and no particular person is taken as a complete guide other than the rasul allah :saw:.
for determining which ahadith are shahih or not, i take the safe route and if it is not in the main sahih books, i take it as daef (weak) until proven sahih, also i accept hadiths that some major scholars of our time have authenticated, such as al-albani. that way i definately avoid the daef hadiths created by the grave worshipers and the ahlul biddah. inshallah.
but the most important aspect of guidance is to never rest and always ask allah :swt: to increase your iman , and guidance and give you istiqamah. never be content on what you already know and keep looking for knowledge, even from different “sects” to gain insight on truth. because inorder to really appreciate the truth, we gotta know what is a lie.
I do not follow any madhab in particular. I follow that which is closely related to Quran and authentic Sunnah.
However, I do have a few scholars that I hold in high esteem and usually try to get their answers whenever needed. And obviously they try to base their answers in the light of Quran and Sunnah.
In other words, I don't blindly follow a particular madhab, imaam, sheikh, etc.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MyStiCaL_MisS: *
I've found Hanafi school to be more easy and simple than others, so just follow Hanafi.
[/QUOTE]
i think following something just because it is "easy" is soooo wrong.
we need to follow the evidence and not what fits our whims and desires.
do you know imam abu hanifa has said that it is haram for any one to follow his fatwas unles they know where he got the evidence from?
you gotta understand the evidence and if some other imam has stronger evidence, reject the original imams fatwa and follow the stronger evidence
wallah o alam
^ That doesn't mean you take the path having less evidence and leave the path having more evidence. That's just silly.
An old lady is struggling to carry her shopping up a hill. It's easy just to walk right past her, but more difficult to stop and help carry her stuff for her. I take it you are suggesting the easier option is better?
Then ThandyMazaq's point is proven. Choosing the easier option with no regard for the evidence isn't really an option.
[quote]
yes it is. If its more authentic and easy, then theres no harm in following it.
[/quote]
Refer to my example... which of the two options is the easier? You've also now added the words "more authentic" which again shows that something being easier or not has little to do with it... it all boils down to the strongest evidence (the very point ThandyMazaq was making i believe).