AA,
hmmmm....this is rather interesting. I never pictured myself having a blog and ranting about my day but here i am. Well, i actually dont feel that geeky since i met few Maulanas recently who also have their own blogs. 21st century Maulanas, they are hip, they got the beards and the blogs to fulfill all your islamic needs. So why should i be any different? disclaimer: I am not a maulana (not yet atleast ;) )
So anyways, I was reading jinz's blog about switching to the maliki madhab. Jinz if you are reading this, thats pretty interesting stuff bro. But here is where i disagree. But in order to get to my point, lets first examine the issue at hand - the concepts of madhaahib and the feeling of necessity of changing ones madhab.
First of all, to me, at the end of the day, a madhab is nothing but the set of usuls or principles its founded on. Thats what defines what that madhab is. Not necessarily its dominant fiqh rulings. Why do I say that? Because in any madhab, there are plenly of differences of opinions with in. The biggest proof of that is how Imam Abu Yusuf would often disagree with Imam Abu Hanifah on certain issues (and sometimes even usul) but that didnt lead him to create the Yusufi Madhab. Imam Abu Yusuf just sucked up all his differences and worked to make the Hanafi madhab the state adopted madhab. It surprizes me that someone as knowledgeable as Imam Abu Yusuf would have so much respect and love for his teacher Imam Abu Hanifah that he didnt invent a whole new madhab of his own though he was surely fit to do so. Well, if he didnt have that much respect for his teachers, he probably wouldnt have gotten to where he was to begin with.
Hence, unless I disagree with a particular madhab on its usuls or principles, I wouldnt switch to another madhab. Because as long as those usuls are sound, scholars can work within that framework and come up with different rulings on the same issue. I can follow which ever ruling I feel is stronger or leave whichever ruling i feel is sort of wack and doesnt portray the proper solution in accordance to the time we are living in.
So, if a person wants to read surah fatihah behind the imam they can while being in the hanafi madhab. Because that opinion also exists with in the madhab. We need to understand that due to the mercy of Allah, not too much of the religion that we practice and call Islam is written in stone. A lot of it is the educated opinions of committee of scholars and generation of scholars, and their fatwaas are religiously non-binding. But why re-invent the wheel and leave chances of mistakes?
But again, its not a sin to switch madhabs. Heck, i dont even know if its a sin to be ghayr-madhab. But there are things which makes more sense intellectually, and since our scholars have given Islam all of their attention, we have learnt the ins and outs of intellectual stability in our religion and how madhabs can keep a sence of intellectual stability with in one's religious practices.
And as far as ghayr-madhabis are concerned, you guys need to suck it up and pick a madhab, you guys have too much instablity in your usuls.
hmmmm....this is rather interesting. I never pictured myself having a blog and ranting about my day but here i am. Well, i actually dont feel that geeky since i met few Maulanas recently who also have their own blogs. 21st century Maulanas, they are hip, they got the beards and the blogs to fulfill all your islamic needs. So why should i be any different? disclaimer: I am not a maulana (not yet atleast ;) )
So anyways, I was reading jinz's blog about switching to the maliki madhab. Jinz if you are reading this, thats pretty interesting stuff bro. But here is where i disagree. But in order to get to my point, lets first examine the issue at hand - the concepts of madhaahib and the feeling of necessity of changing ones madhab.
First of all, to me, at the end of the day, a madhab is nothing but the set of usuls or principles its founded on. Thats what defines what that madhab is. Not necessarily its dominant fiqh rulings. Why do I say that? Because in any madhab, there are plenly of differences of opinions with in. The biggest proof of that is how Imam Abu Yusuf would often disagree with Imam Abu Hanifah on certain issues (and sometimes even usul) but that didnt lead him to create the Yusufi Madhab. Imam Abu Yusuf just sucked up all his differences and worked to make the Hanafi madhab the state adopted madhab. It surprizes me that someone as knowledgeable as Imam Abu Yusuf would have so much respect and love for his teacher Imam Abu Hanifah that he didnt invent a whole new madhab of his own though he was surely fit to do so. Well, if he didnt have that much respect for his teachers, he probably wouldnt have gotten to where he was to begin with.
Hence, unless I disagree with a particular madhab on its usuls or principles, I wouldnt switch to another madhab. Because as long as those usuls are sound, scholars can work within that framework and come up with different rulings on the same issue. I can follow which ever ruling I feel is stronger or leave whichever ruling i feel is sort of wack and doesnt portray the proper solution in accordance to the time we are living in.
So, if a person wants to read surah fatihah behind the imam they can while being in the hanafi madhab. Because that opinion also exists with in the madhab. We need to understand that due to the mercy of Allah, not too much of the religion that we practice and call Islam is written in stone. A lot of it is the educated opinions of committee of scholars and generation of scholars, and their fatwaas are religiously non-binding. But why re-invent the wheel and leave chances of mistakes?
But again, its not a sin to switch madhabs. Heck, i dont even know if its a sin to be ghayr-madhab. But there are things which makes more sense intellectually, and since our scholars have given Islam all of their attention, we have learnt the ins and outs of intellectual stability in our religion and how madhabs can keep a sence of intellectual stability with in one's religious practices.
And as far as ghayr-madhabis are concerned, you guys need to suck it up and pick a madhab, you guys have too much instablity in your usuls.
Assalamu alaikum
Nice blog. :)
One of the reasons why I decided to join the Maliki madhab is because I felt that their Usool was superior. I didn't explicitly state it.
Anyhow, I agree. A person shouldn't switch madhaib based on rulings alone. However, we have to keep in mind that the differences of the 'Ulema is a rahmah. If one scholastic path is too difficult to adhere to, there are other paths that are just as legitimate.
masalama
Posted by
Jinnzaman |
10:42 AM
salaam brother :D
u got a blog too! cool
Posted by
brotherhood |
10:59 AM
Salams,
Interesting perspective.
Masalam.
Posted by
S. |
1:48 PM
Rules of logic don't allow someone to emulate in matters of 'usul', which is the point which you are trying to make.
By disagreeing on matters of fiqh is tricky. First of all again logic doesn't allow someone to switch madhabs because they disagree with a ruling on a particular ruling. But see if you disagree on 'usul al fiqh' or the principles of jurisprudence. i.e. the way the rulins are derived, then yea you should switch.
And I can't agree more about the people who are ghayr madhabs, they need to find a madhab? When you don't have a leader, shaytan becomes your leader.
Posted by
Majnoon |
10:36 PM