We need to find out where the rulings came from and extract our rulings
on that basis as opposed to extracting our rulings solely based on the
statements of scholars.
The opinion of human beings can be given equal weight if we feel one is
more correct than the other. But if a Hadith is clear and supports one side then that is the
criteria everyone should go by.
The students of the Imams followed this same tradition and had no
qualms about overriding the rulings of their teachers.
For example, Abu Yusuf and Muhammed ibn alHasan
differed from Abu Hanifa in about 1/3rd of the rulings of their
Madhhab.
AlMuzani and others differed with Ash-Shafi'i on many of his rulings as well.
Muhammad ibn AlHasan, found new evidences when he studied Imam Maliks AlMuwatta, which led him to contradict more than twenty major rulings of Imam Hanifa.
This even extended to the later scholars of the Hanafi school. Students of the students of Abu Hanifa, for example, differed in issues with both the students of Abu Hanifa and Abu Hanifa himself. They didn’t feel an obligation to stick the rulings of their teacher.
The spirit of the Madhhab of the early scholars was a flexible spirit,
one in which the scholars had no qualms in going from scholar to scholar until
they were convinced by the evidence. It is often said today that if you shop
around you will be misguided. As a fundamental principle, it is
quite permissible, however if one is Fatwa shopping in the sense he has something he wants to do and is looking for a Scholar who says its okay, then this is considered misguidance. In this instance he isn't looking for the truth, but someone to support him. But when you move from scholar to scholar seeking to get a better understanding of the truth, it's perfectly legitimate.
Q. Does this mean that
everyone should go to the sources of Islam and extract rulings themselves?
A. Most people don’t have sufficient knowledge and information to do this. This is not required of them. For them to follow the efforts made by the early scholars to clarify how these evidences have to be used is something praiseworthy. But the idea of collecting all his rulings on the basis that people have to follow them is rejected. No matter how great a scholar is, he doesn’t know everything.
We don’t have the ability and knowledge so we have to rely on
scholars. There is nothing wrong with getting
information from them. What's wrong is blind following, where regardless of the evidence that comes to you, you follow your Madhhab. That is factionalism and
Madhhab fanaticism. The basic principle is that if a Hadith is Saheeh, it should
be the Madhhab of everyone.
Also, one can ask the scholars for evidences supporting their opinions. The Prophet encouraged this type of questioning.
The mass of people get their knowledge from books, tapes, and lectures, since not everyone has access to scholars to sit under. In this case, it's important to work with books which have explanations as well as evidences, not just books which say do and don't do.
E.g. Fiqh-us-Sunnah by Sayyid Sabiq. He presents the various positions by
scholars in a subtle way and focuses on Hadiths as the basis for
explaining Fiqh.
In a nutshell:
-> Most Muslims are not aware that blind following opposes the teachings
of the Imams of the various Madhhabs.
-> All of the Imams and their students opposed blind following.
They repeatedly emphasized the importance of referring back to the primary
source.
-> The Imams and their students continuously emphasized that their rulings
were subject to error. One could not depend on them 100%. Evidence may come to
the contrary.
-> Hadith should be given precedence over personal opinion. If we have an
issue to decide on and have an opinion on it, we should not use our opinion and
attack the Hadith; if the Hadith is authentic we should conform with it.
-> Muslims in general are required to follow the scholars who follow the
scholars (..who follow the scholars, etc.) who follow the Prophet. This is how Islam was conveyed to us.
Comments
Post a Comment