Misconceptions some salafis have regarding following a madh-hab
I found this excellent article on the internet in relation to the so-called Salafi madhabf of fiqh. The reality of the matter is that there is no such madhhab of fiqh. This article also deals with the issue of following a madhhab. One not necessarily not a Salafi for following a madhab. This misconception is widely spread throughout the land. This lead some of the anti-Salafis to slander Salafis and to refer to out as laa-madhhabis. There is an excellent book in this regard that Shaykh Muhsin Al-'Abbad wrote answering Ar-Rifa' and Al-Buti's claims that Saudi Arabia has abandoned to Hanbali madhhab for the Salafi "La-Madhhabi" madhhab.
I challenge anyone non-Salafi or Salafi to bring me proof that Salafiyyah is a school of fiqh!!
Khalil Alpuertorikani
Misconceptions some salafis have regarding following a madh-hab
by Shaykh Yusuf al-Ghafees1
Translated by: Hisham Assing
The article in Arabic:
http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/inde...=138061#138064
He said in his explanation of shaykhul-Islaam's statement from al-Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah:
...And this is why they are called ahlul-Kitaab was-Sunnah and ahlul-Jama'ah because the Jama'ah is united body which is the opposite of division even though the word Jama'ah could mean a united body of people.
“....What we mean by this statement is that sometimes some salafi brothers because of their enthusiasm to precisely follow the salafi madh-hab and to distinguish it from innovations, they restrict the salafi madh-hab to such a degree that it dictates that most of the people of Ahlus-sunnah wal-jama'ah cannot be included in it. This is why you find them including subsidiary issues (مسائل فرعية) in the madh-hab of the salaf. For example, some of them would say the salafi way to pray is that you place your hands on your chest when raising from ruku' or that the salafi way is that you place them on the sides2; this is incorrect. One cannot ascribe this to the salaf. Yes this is what some of them did, hence one should ascribe these acts to them on an individual basis. Even if it was said that this is the opinion of the majority of them– (as with) the issue of women giving zakaat on their jewelry – the majority of the salaf from the fuqahaa and the muhaditheen are of the opinion that they are not obligated to give zakaat on their jewelry. Thus no one has the right to say it is from the rulings of the salaf that women are not obligated to give zakaat on their jewelry. Even though Maalik, as-Shaafi'ee, Ahmad, and the scholars of hadeeth are of the view that it is not an obligation. Except that there exist a difference of opinion and this is with Abu Hanifah, the scholars from al-Kufa, and other than them. The point of the issue is wherein the salaf differed and one of the scholars gave precedence to a particular opinion, if a person ascribes this opinion to some of the imaams of the salaf, then this is his right. However one cannot say this is from the distinguishing characteristics of the salafi madh-hab, for this would mean that that particular imaam or those imaaams (who differed) were not salafis in the true sense.
He then went on to say, “The salaf we said are the sahabahs, the three praiseworthy generations and those who follow them. Now one finds some brothers follow certain fiqh opinions and they consider anyone who follows these opinions to be salafi and those who do not then they are not considered salafi. Some of them may even sometimes say; he is salafi in 'aqeedah but not salafi in fiqh. This categorisation is incorrect, for indeed the issues that should be ascribed to the salaf are those issues where there exists 'ijmaa (consensus)3. These are the matters that shaykhul-Islaam affirmed (in his fatawa i.e.), and lack of properly understanding these two issues (i.e. issues of fiqh wherein there are valid differences of opinion and issues of ijmaa') is what lead to the division amongst the salafis. Hence every group of salafis claims what they are upon is the complete truth, and this stems from a particular understanding that is based on ijtihaad, however they made it (that particular ijtihaad) to be from the principles of salafiyyah. Whereas the truth of the matter is that issues of ijtihaad has nothing to the with appellation of salafi. Salafiyyah is based on aqeedah and usool, as for differences in ijtihaad, then this falls under the hadeeth, “Whenever ruler makes an ijtihaad and he is correct he gets two rewards and if he is incorrect he gets one reward.”4
Praiseworthy and blameworthy following of a madh-hab
If a person were to say: The way of the salaf is that they approved of following a madh-hab. No one would be able to object to this. Thus there is a difference between saying the way of the salaf is that they approved of following a madh-hab and saying the way of the salaf is that they made it an end goal and highly encouraged it. We are only speaking about it from the angle of their approval.
The reality of following a madh-hab is that it is something that is done from the point organizing one's approach to seeking knowledge and not as an act of worship. So whoever ascribes himself to Imaam Ahmad as an act of worship, for example as some of the Shi'ah and some of the Sufis do when they ascribe themselves to particular individuals, then no doubt this is an innovation. However, the one who ascribes himself to Imaam Ahmad because this is whom he took his knowledge from and not Imaam as-Shaafi'ee per se, or he read his books but he did not read the books of the Shaafi'ee madh-hab, or he believes that Imaam Ahmad is more knowledgeable about the sunnah. Or the one who knows from the life of Imaam as-Shaafi'ee that he took his knowledge from both the fuqahaa and the muhaditheen, that he had a vast understanding of the Arabic language, and he sees that his principles of fiqh are closer to the evidences, thus he becomes a Shaafi'ee. Likewise the one who becomes a Hanafi because he follows the fiqh of Imaam Abu Haneefah. Therefore the issue is one of properly structuring one's approach to 'ilm. As with the statement of the Messenger (عليه الصلاة والسلام), “If you obey Abu Bakr and Umar you will be guided.”5 Why should we obey Abu Bakr and Umar? Is it because they have the ability to legislate (in the religion)? No, but this is in order for one to properly structuring his approach to 'ilm; that the one who has less 'ilm follows the one with more 'ilm.
However, whenever a person blindly adheres to the opinion of Imaam Ahmad or Imaam as-Shaafi'ee, we say he is wrong. But to say that a salafi is someone who does not follow a madh-hab, this is not correct. Therefore when it comes to following a madh-hab there are the two extremes and middle path. Thus whenever those who follow a madh-hab and become fanatical in their adherence to their madh-hab to the point that they refuse to look at the evidences and their main concern is only to defend their madh-hab, then no doubt this is a bidah that took place amongst the latter generation of some of the fuqahaa.
The shaykh then finalized his comment on this particular issue by stating, “The truth is that the eminent scholars from the salaf such ibn 'Abdul-Bar, Shaykhul-Islaam, those before them and those who came after them from the contemporary scholars of recent times such as shaykh Muhammad 'Abdul-Wahaab and the shuyookh of the da'wah, they all followed a madh-hab6, but very distant from diehard madh-hab fanaticism. Indeed what they did was choose the fiqh principles of Ahmad, or as-Shaafi'ee, or Abu Hanifah. The point is that when speaking about following a madh-hab it must be a balanced statement. It is not permissible to support a madh-hab based on partisanship, nor is it permissible to object to (the concept of following) a madh-hab. This does not mean that following a madh-hab is a sunnah that the Muslims must adhere to, rather there must be ijtihaad because the ummah is in need of ijtihaad for there are issue that have occurred that the fuqahaa of the past have never discussed. What is meant is that these issue should be approached in the correct manner. Thus making ijtihaad does not negate following a madh-hab, and likewise being salafi does not contradict following a madh-hab. For indeed the imaams of those madhaahib are the imaams of the salaf and many of their prominent followers were upon the aqeedah of the salaf.”
http://audio.islamweb.net/audio/down...audioid=138061
___ Footnotes___
1 He is a former member of the Standing Committee for Research and Fatwa, an affiliate of the Commission of Senior scholars.
2 Meaning this is how the salaf as a whole used to pray.
3An example the shaykh gave of this point is the ijmaa' of the salaf that eemaan consists of a firm belief, statements, and actions, whereby the one who states or believes otherwise would be contradicting the madh-hab of the salaf as it relates to the definition of eemaan.
4Al-Bukhaaree (6919) and Muslim (1716)
5Muslim (1594)
6Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan states his explanation of Kitaabb at-Tawheed, “And here you have the imaams from the great scholars of hadeeth who used to follow a madh-hab. Shaykhul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Qayyim were Hanbalees, imaam an-Nawawi and ibn Hajr were Shaafi'ees, imaam at-Tahaawi was a Hanafi, and imaam ibn 'Abdul-Bar was a Maaliki. Following a madh-hab from one of the four madhaahib is not a misguidance whereby some can be critcised for ffollowing it. Nor does it mean that a person lacks knowledge. In fact the one who goes outside of the realm of the statements of well qualified fuqahaa and he is unqualified to make ijtihaad, he is the one who is considered misguided and on the fringe.” ('Ianatul-Mustafeed: 1/7)
__________________
