Its good to know that your personal take is no different. In hanafi maslak, makrooh is as bad as haraam. If there is a shadow of doubt then according to hanafi's you better avoid that. That is all what Khanbaba was saying (was it Khanbaba who said that)? And he mentioned that its Hanafi Maslak. He did not passed an absolute judgement on that
so if I follow the hanafi school of thought (sorry man the word madhab gives me palpitations), can I change into a diff school of thought, lets say maliki at dinner time?
No, you cannot pick and chose. Is terha tau deen choo-choo ka murabba ban jayey ga :).
You have to seek expert opinion first.
so if I follow the hanafi school of thought (sorry man the word madhab gives me palpitations), can I change into a diff school of thought, lets say maliki at dinner time?
Kabhee fiqh kee koee kitab perh kei deikh lia karein. Pls refer to my last post in this thread. It may help clearing up the confusion.
sir ji, I completely understand what you are saying. but to answer these questions we must use the right terms and explain more.
an interesting fiqh book I read was titled "The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh Before the Classical Schools " written by harald Motzki. actually its quite a good book, read it if you get a chance.
PS: please dont let my approach fool you that I am some plebe with no knowledge
PS2: I am a plebe with no knowledge but dont let the approach make you think that :)
No, you cannot pick and chose. Is terha tau deen choo-choo ka murabba ban jayey ga :).
You have to seek expert opinion first.
sarkaar
its just interpretatiosn right, I dont have to pick one complete set of interpretations. The gentlemen in question are trying their best to interpret certain things which may be ambiguous. Now either we have to come out and say all of them or some of them are wrong, and if we are not willing to do so, and say theya re all just different interpretations, then you go with the interpretation that you like or feel is the right one.
I think if we say these are mutually exclusive formal divisions in islam, then we are making it a choo choo ka muarabba
so if I follow the hanafi school of thought (sorry man the word madhab gives me palpitations), can I change into a diff school of thought, lets say maliki at dinner time?
I also did not use the word Madhab. I said Maslak. Why do you have to wait till diner time? Do it at tea time and enjoy lobster pakora:)
On the serious note, I dont know why are you asking these questions ? If you follow one school of thought then the operative word is "follow". If you switch back and forth then the concept of "following" really goes flying outside the window
The simplest definition is that one that uses the beak to pick food is halal. The one that uses the claws to do that is not. That rules out eagles, Crows and what not (I think that you knew that. It almost looks like that you are leading me into a trap, here. What is the agenda here Cheetah Sahib? :halo: )
I think one cannot just interpret based on common sense. One has to be equipped with a depth of knowledge in fiqh and the principles governing. One probably need to be adept at Tafseer-e-Quran and Ilm-ul-Hadith too.
sarkaar
its just interpretatiosn right, I dont have to pick one complete set of interpretations. The gentlemen in question are trying their best to interpret certain things which may be ambiguous. Now either we have to come out and say all of them or some of them are wrong, and if we are not willing to do so, and say theya re all just different interpretations, then you go with the interpretation that you like or feel is the right one.
I think if we say these are mutually exclusive formal divisions in islam, then we are making it a choo choo ka muarabba
I also did not use the word Madhab. I said Maslak. Why do you have to wait till diner time? Do it at tea time and enjoy lobster pakora:)
On the serious note, I dont know why are you asking these questions ? If you follow one school of thought then the operative word is "follow". If you switch back and forth then the concept of "following" really goes flying outside the window
and that is why I dont even consider them schools of thought but collections of interpretations.
so I can pick one interpretations from one scholar, one from another. or niether..maybe they were all wrong on some counts
No need to have mutually exclusive divisions within Islam. is there?
I think one cannot just interpret based on common sense. One has to be equipped with a depth of knowledge in fiqh and the principles governing. One probably need to be adept at Tafseer-e-Quran and Ilm-ul-Hadith too.
I am not interpreting, the gentlemen on whose names these maslaks are based on did.
so,
we have to either accept that one or more of these gentlemen were wrong, in which case no one should be following the wrong interpretations.
or,
if they are all right, then why does it matter whose interpretation I follow for one issue and whose interpretation I follow for another issue, after all they are all correct interpretations..right?
and that is why I dont even consider them schools of thought but collections of interpretations.
Your considerations are not word of law, so it does not matter what you consider right or wrong. 1500 years of islamic history does not require your considerations for its authenticity.
so I can pick one interpretations from one scholar, one from another. or niether..maybe they were all wrong on some counts
No need to have mutually exclusive divisions within Islam. is there?
One clarification. Just because they are different does not mean that they are wrong and right. When it comes to 4 Maslaks, they all consider each and everyone right as they all based on authentic hadith.
There is no problem in choosing from one over the other or use your own discretion. It just requires immense knowledge to do that. If you think that you have that knowledge than its OK. In Islamic protocol, such person is termed as Faqeeh. Majority of muslims think that Abu Hanifa, Imam Shaafi, Malik and Hanbal were Faqeeh and they already did the job of picking the right set of hadith for us. Technically, there is always room for the fifth faqeeh who can go through the whole collection of hadith and create another set which might be slightly different from rest of the four.
Ulema agrees that there is a 99% similarity in these maslaks. So if one creates another fiqh, it will be 99% similar to the other ones. Not much of an achievemnet to be troubled for (but you have my permission, anyway :) )
P.S Again as you said in your reply to someone *"if they are all right, then why does it matter whose interpretation I follow for one issue and whose interpretation I follow for another issue", *you can do that. Its better to be consistent with in choosing. Means, if you choose to stand like Shaafis' when you say prayers but choose not to say Aamin out loud, like Hanafis then its better to be consistent in each namaz and do it the same way every time.
Again as you said in your reply to someone *"if they are all right, then why does it matter whose interpretation I follow for one issue and whose interpretation I follow for another issue", *you can do that.
good so I can be a hanbali at prayer time and a maliki at dinner time.
now if i can only be a jaffari during travel ;)
I see we've gone off on a tangent...I still don't have answer to my question guys.
The fact of the matter is that the Quran is very specific when it comes to al-Haraam... According to 5:3, Pig-meat is prohibited for consumption purposes, and something that is sacreficed to an idol. Also forbidden for consumption is blood, and meat from an already dead carcus, or anything that has fallen or is beaten to death, or an animal half-eaten by another animal predator. Beyond that there is NO restriction/Haraam in the Quran.
So you can keep following interpretation of those to whom these so-called schools of thought are attributed, or you follow what has been made clear to you in the Quran.
I know we can eat fish. But I am confused about other stuff, like Lobster/Crab/Scallops. Some people say its HARAM, that's it...anything that is able to eat with its hands/claws etc is haram. But is this so? Any able to provide reference in the quran? Then others say that rule only applies to land animals, not sea.
Then some people say it is makrooh. Please guide me.
In Hanafi fiqh its Haram and others Fiqhs say that its makrooh.
But in all cases it should be avoided..caz its either haraam or makrooh.
Why would we go for makrooh things when we have halaal sea food like fish?
A lot of Muslims mostly living abroad eat it...as a sea food delicacy..caz back in Pakistan only the rich people can afford this makrooh specie . Its costly....back home but not so expensive in Canada and USA
Imaan say yaar, dil to mear bhi karta hai to be jaffari during travel per begum say bohat dar lagta hai (apni begum say) :D
The fact of the matter is that the Quran is very specific when it comes to al-Haraam... According to 5:3, Pig-meat is prohibited for consumption purposes, and something that is sacreficed to an idol. Also forbidden for consumption is blood, and meat from an already dead carcus, or anything that has fallen or is beaten to death, or an animal half-eaten by another animal predator. Beyond that there is NO restriction/Haraam in the Quran.
So you can keep following interpretation of those to whom these so-called schools of thought are attributed, or you follow what has been made clear to you in the Quran.
Accha Mufti Hypnotix, you think that we dont need hadith, just Quran is enough. The whole Ilm of Fiqh (your so called school of thought) is based on the collective understanding of Quran and Hadith.
If you really think that Quran is enough, could you tell me where it says in Quran that Buffalo is Halal. Quran only talks about cows, but we also eat buffalo. Why?
In Hanafi fiqh its Haram and others Fiqhs say that its makrooh.
But in all cases it should be avoided..caz its either haraam or makrooh.
Why would we go for makrooh things when we have halaal sea food like fish?
A lot of Muslims mostly living abroad eat it...as a sea food delicacy..caz back in Pakistan only the rich people can afford this makrooh specie . Its costly....back home but not so expensive in Canada and USA
Accha Mufti Hypnotix, you think that we dont need hadith, just Quran is enough. The whole Ilm of Fiqh (your so called school of thought) is based on the collective understanding of Quran and Hadith.
If you really think that Quran is enough, could you tell me where it says in Quran that Buffalo is Halal. Quran only talks about cows, but we also eat buffalo. Why?
I am no mufti... and I thank God for it. Please use your common sense as far as a buffalo is concerned...
Please use your common sense as far as a buffalo is concerned...
You were the one refering to Quran's saying. You seem to be very knowledgable about that. Could you tell me where Quran says that use your common sense? I always though that Islam is more about obediance than using common sense. But after reading your posts, it is becoming obvious how wrong I was
ya akhi, i lived in KSA and those guys ate crabs like they needed to finsh the species off. and they wer enot even living abroad.
Now, so lets put aside lobster and crab, but shrimp/prawns fall under the same category and they are widely eaten in Pakistan..atleast in karachi, jheenga biryani, jhinga masala, sweet and sour prawns, etc etc etc.
so please dont make us farangi musalman the scapebakra