الرئيسية
Pubblicazioni
التسجيل
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
نحمده ونصلي ونسلم على رسوله الكريم
أما بعد
I am sure many of the respected brothers and sisters here on SF are familiar with brother Ismail Ibrahim Patel (aka Harris Hammam) of the UK.
He writes on Arabic forums under the pen-name حارث همام, which he somehow managed to transliterate as Harris Hammam!
The Miskin (poor soul) is apparently a grad of the Wahhabi University of Madinah and while he is infamous for his hatred of the Ulama of Deoband, a legacy that he seems to share with many of his colleagues at Madinah Uni, he has however taken this one step further, behaving as if divinely appointed for the guidance of all the “poor, misguided Deo’s” out there!
The most laughable part of all this is his modus operandi; he feels the only way to “convert” us is through insulting and humiliating us into submission, until we realise that his decorum-bereft Wahhabi manhaj is the “Sirat al-Mustaqim”. It is to this end that he has notched up hundreds of posts on the Wahhabi forum he frequents, all sterling examples of the non-existent level of decorum he has learnt from his teachers.
It is clear that he adopted these nefarious ways from his Wahhabi mentors, as a classmate of his from Dewsbury (where he apparently spent a few years) described him as “very full of respect” and “hardly ever speaking”. He is another prime example of what happens to upright muslims with good character once the Wahhabi’s get their hands on them.
[snip]
His present occupation seems to be teaching Mukhtasar al-Quduri at Tayyibun institute, to unsuspecting Hanafi’s.
Patel’s latest “research”
I will divide his list into two:
1- Those authorities that have no place on the list
2- Those that might held this opinion to a certain degree, however their opinion is a minority view holding no weight in the madhab
1- Those authorities that have no place on the list
Here are the Ulama that definitely didn’t hold the view Patel ascribed to them, as his quotes either
1- Have nothing to do with the obligation of taqlid shakhsi, or
2- Contrary to the established position of those Ulama, or
3- From Ulama who have absolutely no authority in the Hanafi madhab
The miskin has misunderstood this text.
It applies to the following two situations:
1- A layman who didn’t have a madhab. Is he allowed to now adopt any madhab or is he obliged to follow the one he has the most trust in? Jassas ar-Razi explains that he has to follow the one he has more confidence in.
2- A layman who does follow a madhab, when faced with an issue in his madhab, could he ask any scholar of his madhab or does he have to follow the one in whose knowledge he has more confidence? Jassas states the latter to be the correct view.
It is clear that nothing in this text is advocating a layman not following one madhab.
4. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī ál-Ḥanafī (died 436 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-2, ál-Bahr ál-Muhīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah 1992/1413):
Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī fatwā that if a Walī is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī Madhhab. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allah has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿi, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."
I am beginning to wonder if Patel’s comprehension skills are as terrible as his manners!
Let us put the part of the incident concerning as-Saymari into a layman’s English:
A person came to as-Saymari al-Hanafi informing him that he had married his wife in a marriage that was valid in the Hanafi madhab and invalid in the Shafi’i madhab. He now divorced her thrice. The Shafi’is informed him that due to his nikah being invalid, the divorce was also invalid, so he could now marry her. As-Saymari gave him the Hanafi view, saying that while the Shafi’is say you were engaged in an invalid marriage, thus she is now permissible for you, we say that she was halal for you previously (due to the validity of the marriage) and is now haram for you (due to the divorces being valid).
There is absolutely nothing here to even faintly indicate that as-Saymari felt that a layman isn’t obliged to follow a madhab, as if the questioner was a Hanafi, then he was informed of his madhab, while if he was a Shafi’i then too the early Hanafi books are clear that when a Hanafi is asked a question by a follower of another madhab, he should answer according to the Hanafi madhab, which is exactly what as-Saymari did.
So another name falsely added to this list.
5. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].
Another quote that has absolutely nothing to do with taqlid shakhsi. All it is saying is that a layman must choose the madhab he finds to be the best.
6. Abū 'l-Thanā' Mahmud bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dar 'l-Gharb ál-Islamī Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the Salaf, otherwise not.
Another quote probably added just to make the list look big and frightening to us terrified Deo’s!
All that is being said is that if one has reached the level of Ijtihad he may pass verdicts according to his own research and if not, then he can only answer if quoting earlier scholars. Something found in any fatawa manual, and totally agreed upon.
7. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Hameed ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Nazr Fī ál-Usūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabat Dar 'l-Turath Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
If another Muftī has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] Muftī can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.
Again, referring to two mufti’s in a madhab, both following different valid views in the madhab that are based on Ijtihad. Each one is allowed to give his followers a choice to either follow his view or the contrary one.
Nothing in here to indicate taqlid of one madhab not being necessary.
Putting al-Babarti’s name on this list is a huge joke. While in his commentary of this non-Hanafi usul work, he may have indicated to this point, he is infamous for authoring a book to prove that it is necessary for everyone to follow the Hanafi madhab!
Patel is undoubetedly aware of this, as the book he quotes in no.10 was written in refutation of al-Babarti’s one.
This quote from this “heavy-weight” (in Miskin’s opinion) is again referring to fatwa within the madhab. If a person gets contradictory answers from two Mufti’s and implements one, he cannot later abandon this one, in favour of the latter.
I was in fact asked about a talaq scenario of this sort just yesterday and answered with the answer given here.
So another one off the list!
بل غاية ما يقول: إنه يسوغ أو ينبغي أو يجب على العامي أن يقلد واحداً من الأئمة من غير تعيين زيد أو عمرو
For those who don’t know, this is the infamous Ibn Abi al-‘Izz, the so-called Hanafi, who is loved by the Wahhabi’s due to his approval of their deviant beliefs and for his constant attacks on the Hanafi madhab. Patel might as well add Albani to the list, he is as much of a “Hanafi authority” as Ibn Abi al-‘Izz.
24. Wahabah ál-Zuhaylī said (Usul ál-Fiqh ál-Islami, 2/1166):
This is the correct opinion. (He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: ) It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.
The Miskin is so desperate to fill up his list that he includes a contemporary Shafi’i in his list of “Hanafi Authorities”!
He might submit in his defence that he made blind taqlid of some of his beguiled Wahhabi brothers who labour under the misconception that Sh. Wahbah is a Hanafi, however they are wrong. I personally spoke to Sh. Wahbah on the phone on Saturday, where he confirmed being a Shafi’i Ash’ari.
This is sufficient for numbers 1-10 as well as no. 24.
As for Ibn al-Humam and those after him (no’s 11- 23), they all fall into one category which we shall now address.
2- Those that might held this opinion to a certain degree, however their opinion is a minority view holding no weight in the madhab
Before tackling each quote, some background to the issue would be of benefit:
Allamah Kamal ibn Al-Humam was a great Hanafi scholar of the 9th Century Hijri. While most Fuqaha were masters in the fields of fiqh and usul al-fiqh, Ibn al-Humam was also a master in Hadith. Due to his mastery in many fields, he very often reached a conclusion, through his research, contrary to the fatwa position of the madhab, even at times going completely out of the madhab. While Ulama respect his right to hold these views, they would make it clear that these views of Ibn al-Humam do not represent the Hanafi madhab in any way.
The very students of Ibn al-Humam, who were great Fuqaha of their times, took pains to highlight this point, to prevent distortion of the madhab.
At the forefront, was Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha – another who had combined mastery of Fiqh and Hadith- who inspite of being a very close student of Ibn al-Humam cautioned us saying: “Those researches of our teacher Ibn al-Humam that are contrary to the madhab would not be followed!”
This warning was recorded by the Hanafi Fuqaha thereafter, such as Ibn Nujaym in Bahr al-Raiq and Ibn Abidin in Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti and Radd al-Muhtar etc.
Unfortunately, in spite of warning others against following Ibn al-Humam when he opposes the madhab, both Ibn Nujaym and Ibn Abidin have at times inadvertently still committed the error of following such views of Ibn al-Humam.
Ibn Abidin in his Ifta Manual “Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti” mentions that at times one would find an incorrect judgement recorded in 20 books or so of the later Ulama of the madhab, the cause of which was that a faqih issued an incorrect judgement, which was then recorded by all those after him, who quoted it without verifying its authenticity!
Ibn Nujaym has also mentioned something similar in Bahr.
Ibn Abidin then gave examples of masail, wherein an incorrect judgment from one book was recorded in dozens of later works, even in the books of Ibn Nujaym, inspite of it being completely contradictory to the madhab! Some went so far to claim that this is the view of the latter-scholars of the madhab, which is completely baseless!
Unfortunately examples of this sort are many, such that a good researcher would find examples of masail where one faqih incorrectly recorded a mas’alah as Zahir ar-Riwayah, which then resulted in dozen of fuqaha passing fatwa on the view, including Ibn Abidin and after him most contemporary Mufti’s who blindly rely on him.
The issue under discussion here could be a textbook example of many later scholars following Ibn al-Humam’s research contrary to the madhab, as we shall show how the clear ruling of the madhab for over 1000 years has been strict obligation of sticking to the madhab for a layman.
This should suffice for the quotes from these and other later Ulama who might have held the same view but weren’t included on Patel’s list, however we will still discuss the individual quotes:
11. Ibn 'l-Humam (died 861 A.H.) said (Fath 'l-Qadeer, Sharh 'l-Hidayah, Chapter on Judge Conduct):
If this ‘sticking to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Dhikr if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of sticking to a Madhhab or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or Shariah text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the Shariah against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his Ummah.
Clear proof of this being Ibn al-Humam’s personal opinion, not that of the madhab is provided in the line prior to the one Patel started with, where Ibn al-Humam quotes the Fuqaha of the madhab as saying that one engaging in madhab-hopping (choosing views from different madhab) is liable to be punished! He then differs with them.
Ibn al-Humam didn’t stop at allowing a layman to choose views across the madhahib, but even allowed talfiq ie. Combining multiple views in one actions, a view declared as batil and contrary to Ijma by many fuqaha. This is ample proof of his views on this issue not being representative of the madhab at all.
12. Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a Madhhab" - said (Ál-Taqreer Wa-'l-Tahbeer, Sharh 'l-Tahreer, Chapter on Taqlīd):
... because a Madhab is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the Madhāhib as he is capable, or one who read a text on the Furū' of that Madhab and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imam and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imam of the Madhab he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imam's Madhab? To the contrary, his ascription to a Madhab would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a Madhab. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one Madhab, like that of Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to stick to that Madhab, because Allah made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allah or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a Madhab.
This is a student of Ibn al-Humam, who authored a commentary on Ibn al-Humam’s Usul work, wherein he followed Ibn al-Humam’s view and didn’t back it up with the view of other Hanafi fuqaha, as it was contrary to the view of the madhab.
13. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.) said (Ál-Bahr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Matbaʿah ál-ʿImiyyah, Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...
He is quoting Ibn al-Humam and relying on him, without any discussion on the madhab’s stance. He has been thoroughly refuted by the Mufti of Makkah, Allamah Ibrahim Biri
14. Ameer Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the above in the other commentary of ál-Tahreer (4/253, Tayseer 'l-Tahreer, Maktabat 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403/1983 ed.).
Followed Ibn al-Humam 100%.
15. Mulla ‘Alī ál-Qarī (died 1040 A.H.) said:
It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Ḥanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shāfi’i, or a Ḥanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl ál-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl ál-Dhikr.
Interestingly, he has “forgotten” to mention the source for this, but regardless of that, Mulla Ali Qari held many views that were contrary to the madhab, this is one of them.
16. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAdheem ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadeed Fī Baʿd Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
Know that Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmed bin Ḥanbal are all Ahl 'l-Dhikr who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafis]...
This book has been printed multiple times, yet Patel is using a manuscript.
This book was written to prove talfiq as permissible, relying on the research of Ibn al-Humam etc and was solidly refuted by his contemporary, the Mufti of Makkah, Allamah Ibrahim Biri.
17. Hasan bin ʿAmmar ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of the famous Nur 'l-Idah, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Fareed Li-Bayan 'l-Rajih Min 'l-Khilaf Fī Jawaz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars )
Shurunbulali’s going out of the madhab is very well known and documented by many Hanafi authorities. His risalah is full of quotes from non-Hanafi authorities, clearly not representing the Hanafi view.
This work is also printed more than once, yet Patel quotes an inferior manuscript edition!
18. Ahmed bin Muhammad ál-Hamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Nazā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Fareed Fī Bayan Hukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 327244, page 9):
It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular Madhhab... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars)
Relied only on Ibn al-Humam and non-Hanafi sources.
19-20. The author of the Matn, Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muhibb 'llah bin Abd 'l-Shakur ál-Bihāri. The commentator on the book, ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātih 'l-Rahamūt, said (vol. 2 pg. 438):
'It is not necessary to stay on the Madhhab, and it is correct to move away to another, and this is the Haqq that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is Haram in both adopting a Madhhab and in other issues of Fiqh'. He refers some later extremist Ḥanafis in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as Mutakallifeen who did Tashaddud.
As above, followed Ibn al-Humam.
He refers some later extremist Ḥanafis in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as Mutakallifeen who did Tashaddud.
This is either a lie from Patel or due to his terrible comprehension skills. وأحلاهما مرٌ
The author was attacking those few partisan Hanafi’s whose ta’assub reached the stage that they declared that if a Hanafi becomes a Shafi’i he should be punished (and not vice-versa). This is a terribly incorrect view, which was never a mainstream Hanafi one, Alhamdulillah.
He was not attacking those who follow the mainstream Hanafi view of Madhab-hopping being impermissible.
21. Shah Waliyyullah (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Insaf):
... if he is in the Haramain [or any place where there are scholars of multiple Madhhab, then he may ask any scholar]...
Relying on Ibn al-Humam etc, plus with all the different phases Shah Wali Allah went through in aqidah and fiqh, it is difficult to firmly attribute any such opinion to him.
22-23. In the footnotes of ál-Ihkam by ál-Qarafī (page 231), Abd 'l-Fattah Abū Ghuddah (died 1417 A.H.) quotes Ibn ʿĀbideen (died 1252 A.H.), who quotes Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj, the commentator on Ibn ál-Humam's ál-Tahreer:
If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanifah or ál-Shāfi'i, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to stick to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to stick to it]", and this is more correct.
Again relying on Ibn al-Humam etc and not portraying the Hanafi view.
As for Sh. Abd al-Fattah, unfortunately his views on Taqlid and Talfiq were so lax that even the Wahhabi’s have venomously attacked him for it!
As for Allamah Ibn Abidin, his views on the issue seem contradictory. While here he has adopted Ibn al-Humam’s view – whom he relies totally on in Usul al-Fiqh- in his Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti he has warned severely against acting on a weak view within the madhab except if the need is very severe. He has also shown that his personal practice was not to leave the madhab at all, even when it put him into severe difficulty. He preferred acted upon a weak view in the madhab, then later repeated every salah performed in the state of acting upon that view!
There are then clear quotes from Ibn Abidin obliging sticking to one madhab, to the extent of his stating that a muqallid has to follow his Imam in everything; if he doesn’t, then he has disobeyed Allah and his Rasul sallallahu alayhi wasallam!
Hanafi Ulama who obligated sticking to one madhab
Our Hanafi fuqaha have over the last 1000 odd years clearly shown that it is the responsibility of every Muslim to hold fast to one madhab and he is only permitted to leave it in the event of dire need, under the guidance of an experienced Mufti.
This obligation is mentioned in dozens of Hanafi fiqh as well as Usul al-Fiqh works.
I don’t have the time now to post all the quotes as well as translate them, so I will suffice on just listing the authorities that have mentioned this obligation. I have left out those whose quotes weren’t 100% clear or those whose authenticity I couldn’t verify. I ask Allah to grant me the opportunity to prepare a proper article with all these quotes in the near future.
Here are some of the Hanafi authorities who have clearly obligated a layman to stick to one madhab:
1. ad-Dabusi (d. 430 AH)
2. an-Natifi (d. 446 AH)
3. Zahir ad-Din al-Marghinani al-Kabir (d. 506 AH)
4. Al-Arsabandi (d. 512 AH)
5. Rukn ad-Din Al-Kirmani (d. 543 AH)
6. Al-Wabari (pre 550 AH)
7. Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rashid al-Kirmani (d. 565 AH)
8. al-Marghinani-author of al-Hidayah (d. 593 AH)
9. al-Karabisi (pre 600 AH)
10. al-Ushrusani (d. 632 AH)
11. at-Tarjumani (d. 645 AH)
12. az-Zahidi (d. 658 AH)
13. Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari (d. 730 AH)
14. al-Qirshahri (d. after 734 AH)
15. as-Samanqani (d. 746 AH)
16. Ibn Qadi Simawnah (d. 823 AH)
17. al-Fanari (d. 834 AH)
18. at-Tarablusi (d. 844 AH)
19. al-Humaydi (860 AH)
20. Rukn ad-Din an-Naguri ( pre 900 AH)
21. Author of Fawaid al-Fatawa (pre 950 AH)
22. al-Quhustani (d. 950 AH)
23. al-Biri (d. 1099 AH)
24. Ilahi Zada (d. 1086 AH)
25. Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad Ata Allah (d. 1127 AH)
26. Al-Ardarumi (d. 1173 AH)
The Mufti of Makkah al-Mukarramah, Shaykh Ibrahim Biri (d. 1099 AH) has authored a number of works on this topic and after refuting all contradictory claims has shown that the Hanafi madhab does not allow a person to pick and choose between madhahib. I am currently editing these works for publication.
نحمده ونصلي ونسلم على رسوله الكريم
أما بعد
I am sure many of the respected brothers and sisters here on SF are familiar with brother Ismail Ibrahim Patel (aka Harris Hammam) of the UK.
He writes on Arabic forums under the pen-name حارث همام, which he somehow managed to transliterate as Harris Hammam!
The Miskin (poor soul) is apparently a grad of the Wahhabi University of Madinah and while he is infamous for his hatred of the Ulama of Deoband, a legacy that he seems to share with many of his colleagues at Madinah Uni, he has however taken this one step further, behaving as if divinely appointed for the guidance of all the “poor, misguided Deo’s” out there!
The most laughable part of all this is his modus operandi; he feels the only way to “convert” us is through insulting and humiliating us into submission, until we realise that his decorum-bereft Wahhabi manhaj is the “Sirat al-Mustaqim”. It is to this end that he has notched up hundreds of posts on the Wahhabi forum he frequents, all sterling examples of the non-existent level of decorum he has learnt from his teachers.
It is clear that he adopted these nefarious ways from his Wahhabi mentors, as a classmate of his from Dewsbury (where he apparently spent a few years) described him as “very full of respect” and “hardly ever speaking”. He is another prime example of what happens to upright muslims with good character once the Wahhabi’s get their hands on them.
[snip]
His present occupation seems to be teaching Mukhtasar al-Quduri at Tayyibun institute, to unsuspecting Hanafi’s.
Patel’s latest “research”
is a collection of quotes from 22 Hanafi authorities who supposedly didn’t oblige a layman to stick to one madhab ie. they allowed madhab hopping.
He is so puffed-up with pride over his “tahqiq” that I write this response with a tinge of sadness, over the grief he will feel when his bubble is burst.
Now, to address the matter under discussion.
Here is his “research”:
INCOMPLETE LIST OF ḤANAFĪ AUTHORITIES WHO DID NOT OBLIGE THE LAYMAN TO ADHERE TO ONE MADHHAB
1. Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1994/1414):
Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the best [note that there is no choice of asking the scholars of his own Madhhab]... some said that he must ask the best... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.
2. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī ál-Ḥanafī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Bahr ál-Muhīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah 1992/1413):
When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...
3. Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī ál-Ḥanafī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392, Dar 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st ed. 2001/1421):
Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
4. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī ál-Ḥanafī (died 436 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-2, ál-Bahr ál-Muhīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah 1992/1413):
Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī fatwā that if a Walī is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī Madhhab. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allah has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿi, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."
5. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].
6. Abū 'l-Thanā' Mahmud bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dar 'l-Gharb ál-Islamī Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the Salaf, otherwise not.
7. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Hameed ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Nazr Fī ál-Usūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabat Dar 'l-Turath Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
If another Muftī has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] Muftī can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.
8. Ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd, 2/732, Maktabat 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.
9. ʿAlā' 'l-Deen Abū Bakr bin Masʿud ál-Kasanī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badāiʿī 'l-Sanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dar 'l-Kitab ál-ʿArabi, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because sticking to what one implements is obligatory.
10. Alī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.) said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabah ál-Salafiyyah, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imams without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.
11. Ibn 'l-Humam (died 861 A.H.) said (Fath 'l-Qadeer, Sharh 'l-Hidayah, Chapter on Judge Conduct):
If this ‘sticking to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Dhikr if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of sticking to a Madhhab or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or Shariah text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the Shariah against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his Ummah.
12. Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a Madhhab" - said (Ál-Taqreer Wa-'l-Tahbeer, Sharh 'l-Tahreer, Chapter on Taqlīd):
... because a Madhab is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the Madhāhib as he is capable, or one who read a text on the Furū' of that Madhab and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imam and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imam of the Madhab he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imam's Madhab? To the contrary, his ascription to a Madhab would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a Madhab. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one Madhab, like that of Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to stick to that Madhab, because Allah made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allah or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a Madhab.
13. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.) said (Ál-Bahr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Matbaʿah ál-ʿImiyyah, Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...
14. Ameer Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the above in the other commentary of ál-Tahreer (4/253, Tayseer 'l-Tahreer, Maktabat 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403/1983 ed.).
15. Mulla ‘Alī ál-Qarī (died 1040 A.H.) said:
It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Ḥanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shāfi’i, or a Ḥanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl ál-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl ál-Dhikr.
16. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAdheem ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadeed Fī Baʿd Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 301789, pg. 4):
Know that Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmed bin Ḥanbal are all Ahl 'l-Dhikr who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafis]...
17. Hasan bin ʿAmmar ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of the famous Nur 'l-Idah, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Fareed Li-Bayan 'l-Rajih Min 'l-Khilaf Fī Jawaz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars )
18. Ahmed bin Muhammad ál-Hamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Nazā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Fareed Fī Bayan Hukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 327244, page 9):
It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular Madhhab... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars)
19-20. The author of the Matn, Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muhibb 'llah bin Abd 'l-Shakur ál-Bihāri. The commentator on the book, ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātih 'l-Rahamūt, said (vol. 2 pg. 438):
'It is not necessary to stay on the Madhhab, and it is correct to move away to another, and this is the Haqq that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is Haram in both adopting a Madhhab and in other issues of Fiqh'. He refers some later extremist Ḥanafis in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as Mutakallifeen who did Tashaddud.
21. Shah Waliyyullah (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Insaf):
... if he is in the Haramain [or any place where there are scholars of multiple Madhhab, then he may ask any scholar]...
22-23. In the footnotes of ál-Ihkam by ál-Qarafī (page 231), Abd 'l-Fattah Abū Ghuddah (died 1417 A.H.) quotes Ibn ʿĀbideen (died 1252 A.H.), who quotes Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj, the commentator on Ibn ál-Humam's ál-Tahreer:
If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanifah or ál-Shāfi'i, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to stick to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to stick to it]", and this is more correct.
24. Wahabah ál-Zuhaylī said (Usul ál-Fiqh ál-Islami, 2/1166):
This is the correct opinion. (He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: ) It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.
I will divide his list into two:
1- Those authorities that have no place on the list
2- Those that might held this opinion to a certain degree, however their opinion is a minority view holding no weight in the madhab
1- Those authorities that have no place on the list
Here are the Ulama that definitely didn’t hold the view Patel ascribed to them, as his quotes either
1- Have nothing to do with the obligation of taqlid shakhsi, or
2- Contrary to the established position of those Ulama, or
3- From Ulama who have absolutely no authority in the Hanafi madhab
1. Abū Bakr ál-Jaṣṣāṣ ál-Rāzī (died 370 A.H.) said (Ál-Fuṣūl Fī ál-Uṣūl, 4/282-3, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs, Kuwait, 2nd edition, 1994/1414):
Because it is established that a layman must ask scholars, then either he has a choice of asking any, or he should do Ijtihād and ask the best [note that there is no choice of asking the scholars of his own Madhhab]... some said that he must ask the best... and this is the correct opinion according to us... then it is impermissible for him... to do Taqlīd without Ijtihād, because [surely] he possesses this type of Ijtihād.
The miskin has misunderstood this text.
It applies to the following two situations:
1- A layman who didn’t have a madhab. Is he allowed to now adopt any madhab or is he obliged to follow the one he has the most trust in? Jassas ar-Razi explains that he has to follow the one he has more confidence in.
2- A layman who does follow a madhab, when faced with an issue in his madhab, could he ask any scholar of his madhab or does he have to follow the one in whose knowledge he has more confidence? Jassas states the latter to be the correct view.
It is clear that nothing in this text is advocating a layman not following one madhab.
This Miskin somehow managed to miss a clear discussion from ad-Dabusi further in the same book, where he stresses upon the obligation of every layman sticking to one madhab and the harms of his not doing so. So putting ad-Dabusi’s name on the list is a huge lie against him!2. Abū 'l-Ḥusayn ál-Qudūrī ál-Ḥanafī (died 428 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/312, ál-Bahr ál-Muhīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah 1992/1413):
When we have established that the layman can perform Ijtihād in choosing Muftis, can he now perform Ijtihād in verdicts themselves in which he is to perform Taqlīd, i.e. if he thinks that a particular verdict of a particular jurist is more stronger, does he have to follow that verdict? Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and ál-Qudūrī differed over this: ál-Qudūrī obligated this...
Firstly, there is no trace of this view of al-Quduri (if it implies what Patel claims) in any Hanafi Usul work or in any of the available works of al-Quduri, so attribution of this view to al-Quduri – contrary to the established Hanafi view- would be problematic.
Al-Bahr al-Muhit is a Shafi’i usul work which is ascribing this view to a Hanafi, while it is accepted that cross-madhab ascriptions of this type are very often incorrect, as it clear from the ascription of the permissibility of Mut’ah to Imam Malik in al-Hidayah.
Secondly, al-Quduri’s quote seems to be referring to a follower of a madhab, who generally sticks to the view of one Mufti in his madhab. Is he allowed to follow the view of another Mufti in his madhab, if he finds his view to be stronger? al-Quduri implies that it would be permissible.
This isn’t referring to a layman following different views across madhahib. The great Hanafi faqih, Al-Natifi (d. 446 AH) has clearly stated this this refers to multiple Mufti's all giving fatwa according to different views within the madhab and doesn't apply to views outside the madhab.
3. Abū Zayd ál-Dabūsī ál-Ḥanafī (died 430 A.H.), explaining that even laymen are not completely free from doing Ijtihād, said (Taqwīm 'l-Adillaħ, pg. 392, Dar 'l-Kutub ál-Jahliyyah Beirut, 1st ed. 2001/1421):
Taqlīd is of four types: 1) Believing in the Prophet, 2) Believing in a scholar who is qualified to pass verdicts, 3) For the laymen to believe in the scholars of their era, 4) Sons believing their forefathers and minors believing the majors of this world. The first three are correct as they require at least some sort of effort (Istidlāl)...
This quote is probably the most ridiculous of the 22! There is absoloutely nothing in here to show that ad-Dabusi feels that a layman doesn’t need to stick to a madhab, instead it just shows that layman are capable of a certain level of reasoning, a point completely agreed upon.
4. Abū ʿAbd 'llāh ál-Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī ál-Ṣaymarī ál-Ḥanafī (died 436 A.H.) is referred to by ál-Zarkashī (6/311-2, ál-Bahr ál-Muhīṭ, Ministry of Awqāf & Islāmic Affairs Kuwait; 2nd edition reprint Dār 'l-Ṣafwaħ Hurghadah 1992/1413):
Abū Isḥāq ál-Shīrāzī said: A man came to the Ḥanafī jurist ál-Ṣaymarī with the Shāfiʿī fatwā that if a Walī is a sinner and her husband divorced her thrice that the divorce would not pass, and may marry her with a new contract [as the previous contracted never existed]. Ál-Ṣaymarī said, "They have told you that, all this time, you were with an illegal pudenda, and that she can become legal for you today [with a new contract]! I am telling you that she was legal for you all this time until you divorced her, and now she is illegal for you!" By this, ál-Ṣaymarī intended to sway the layman to the Ḥanafī Madhhab. (Abū Isḥāq says) I came to Abū 'l-Ṭayyib ál-Ṭabarī and told him he story. He replied, "... but Allah has not ordained the layman to follow ál-Ṣaymarī; rather he has ordained him to follow any scholar he wishes, so when the layman follows a trustworthy Shāfiʿi, he would have liberated himself of sin and liability until the Day of Judgement."
I am beginning to wonder if Patel’s comprehension skills are as terrible as his manners!
Let us put the part of the incident concerning as-Saymari into a layman’s English:
A person came to as-Saymari al-Hanafi informing him that he had married his wife in a marriage that was valid in the Hanafi madhab and invalid in the Shafi’i madhab. He now divorced her thrice. The Shafi’is informed him that due to his nikah being invalid, the divorce was also invalid, so he could now marry her. As-Saymari gave him the Hanafi view, saying that while the Shafi’is say you were engaged in an invalid marriage, thus she is now permissible for you, we say that she was halal for you previously (due to the validity of the marriage) and is now haram for you (due to the divorces being valid).
There is absolutely nothing here to even faintly indicate that as-Saymari felt that a layman isn’t obliged to follow a madhab, as if the questioner was a Hanafi, then he was informed of his madhab, while if he was a Shafi’i then too the early Hanafi books are clear that when a Hanafi is asked a question by a follower of another madhab, he should answer according to the Hanafi madhab, which is exactly what as-Saymari did.
So another name falsely added to this list.
5. Muḥammad bin Aḥmad ál-Samarqandī (died 539 A.H.) said (Mīzān 'l-Uṣūl Fī Natā'ij 'l-ʿUqūl, pg. 1017, Umm 'l-Qurā University Makkah, PhD thesis, 1404 A.H.):
As for Taqlīd in legal issues, it is impermissible except for laymen and those students of knowledge who are like laymen until as long as they do not reach the level of Ijtihād. This is due to necessity. However, they must follow whoever is the most knowledgeable and the most fearful in their estimation. [This can be ascertained] via hearing out for fame [in the scholar].
Another quote that has absolutely nothing to do with taqlid shakhsi. All it is saying is that a layman must choose the madhab he finds to be the best.
6. Abū 'l-Thanā' Mahmud bin Zayd ál-Lāmishī (was alive 539 A.H.) said (pg. 201, unnamed Usūl book, Dar 'l-Gharb ál-Islamī Beirut, 1st edition, 1415 A.H.):
When he reaches this limit that we have mentioned, it would be legal for him to pass legal verdicts to whoever questions him via his personal opinion and Ijtihād. But if he has not reached this level and was asked in an issue, then he may answer if he knows the statement of the Salaf, otherwise not.
Another quote probably added just to make the list look big and frightening to us terrified Deo’s!
All that is being said is that if one has reached the level of Ijtihad he may pass verdicts according to his own research and if not, then he can only answer if quoting earlier scholars. Something found in any fatawa manual, and totally agreed upon.
7. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-Hameed ál-Usmandī (died 552 A.H.), said (Badhl 'l-Nazr Fī ál-Usūl, pg. 693-694, Maktabat Dar 'l-Turath Cairo, 1st edition, 1412 A.H.):
If another Muftī has a difference of opinion with [the layman's] Mufti, the [layman's] Muftī can give the layman a choice whether he wants to take his opinion or the other Mufti's opinion, because both opinions are from Ijtihād.
Again, referring to two mufti’s in a madhab, both following different valid views in the madhab that are based on Ijtihad. Each one is allowed to give his followers a choice to either follow his view or the contrary one.
Nothing in here to indicate taqlid of one madhab not being necessary.
8. Ál-Bābartī (died 786 A.H.) said (Ál-Rudūd Wa-'l-Nuqūd, 2/732, Maktabat 'l-Rushd, Riyadh, 1426 A.H. edition):
The preferable opinion is that it is permissible [to take another Mujtahid's opinion]... because laymen have always done Taqlīd of one Mujtahid in one issue and another in another issue, and this was never condemned, so therefore this is a consensus on its permissibility.
Putting al-Babarti’s name on this list is a huge joke. While in his commentary of this non-Hanafi usul work, he may have indicated to this point, he is infamous for authoring a book to prove that it is necessary for everyone to follow the Hanafi madhab!
Patel is undoubetedly aware of this, as the book he quotes in no.10 was written in refutation of al-Babarti’s one.
9. ʿAlā' 'l-Deen Abū Bakr bin Masʿud ál-Kasanī (died 787 A.H.) said (Badāiʿī 'l-Sanā'iʿ, 7/6, Dar 'l-Kitab ál-ʿArabi, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1394 A.H.):
Also, if a person is not a jurist, and he asked a jurist about something and he gave him his opinion of lawfulness or illegality, and he did not implement that opinion, then another jurist gave him a different opinion and he took it and implemented it in his wife [vis-a-vis divorce (etc.)], then this non-jurist cannot abandon the opinion he implemented in favour of the first jurist's opinion, because sticking to what one implements is obligatory.
This quote from this “heavy-weight” (in Miskin’s opinion) is again referring to fatwa within the madhab. If a person gets contradictory answers from two Mufti’s and implements one, he cannot later abandon this one, in favour of the latter.
I was in fact asked about a talaq scenario of this sort just yesterday and answered with the answer given here.
So another one off the list!
10. Alī Ibn Abī 'l-ʿIzz (died 792 A.H.) said (Ál-Ittibāʿ, pg. 80, ál-Maktabah ál-Salafiyyah, Lahore, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.):
The most that can be said is that it is permissible or appropriate or obligatory for the layman to do Taqlīd of one of the Imams without specification of any Zayd or ʿAmr.
بل غاية ما يقول: إنه يسوغ أو ينبغي أو يجب على العامي أن يقلد واحداً من الأئمة من غير تعيين زيد أو عمرو
For those who don’t know, this is the infamous Ibn Abi al-‘Izz, the so-called Hanafi, who is loved by the Wahhabi’s due to his approval of their deviant beliefs and for his constant attacks on the Hanafi madhab. Patel might as well add Albani to the list, he is as much of a “Hanafi authority” as Ibn Abi al-‘Izz.
24. Wahabah ál-Zuhaylī said (Usul ál-Fiqh ál-Islami, 2/1166):
This is the correct opinion. (He further adds, in the footnote of the same page, about the layman, that: ) It is not correct for him to have a Madhab, even if he adheres to it.
The Miskin is so desperate to fill up his list that he includes a contemporary Shafi’i in his list of “Hanafi Authorities”!
He might submit in his defence that he made blind taqlid of some of his beguiled Wahhabi brothers who labour under the misconception that Sh. Wahbah is a Hanafi, however they are wrong. I personally spoke to Sh. Wahbah on the phone on Saturday, where he confirmed being a Shafi’i Ash’ari.
This is sufficient for numbers 1-10 as well as no. 24.
As for Ibn al-Humam and those after him (no’s 11- 23), they all fall into one category which we shall now address.
2- Those that might held this opinion to a certain degree, however their opinion is a minority view holding no weight in the madhab
Before tackling each quote, some background to the issue would be of benefit:
Allamah Kamal ibn Al-Humam was a great Hanafi scholar of the 9th Century Hijri. While most Fuqaha were masters in the fields of fiqh and usul al-fiqh, Ibn al-Humam was also a master in Hadith. Due to his mastery in many fields, he very often reached a conclusion, through his research, contrary to the fatwa position of the madhab, even at times going completely out of the madhab. While Ulama respect his right to hold these views, they would make it clear that these views of Ibn al-Humam do not represent the Hanafi madhab in any way.
The very students of Ibn al-Humam, who were great Fuqaha of their times, took pains to highlight this point, to prevent distortion of the madhab.
At the forefront, was Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha – another who had combined mastery of Fiqh and Hadith- who inspite of being a very close student of Ibn al-Humam cautioned us saying: “Those researches of our teacher Ibn al-Humam that are contrary to the madhab would not be followed!”
This warning was recorded by the Hanafi Fuqaha thereafter, such as Ibn Nujaym in Bahr al-Raiq and Ibn Abidin in Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti and Radd al-Muhtar etc.
Unfortunately, in spite of warning others against following Ibn al-Humam when he opposes the madhab, both Ibn Nujaym and Ibn Abidin have at times inadvertently still committed the error of following such views of Ibn al-Humam.
Ibn Abidin in his Ifta Manual “Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti” mentions that at times one would find an incorrect judgement recorded in 20 books or so of the later Ulama of the madhab, the cause of which was that a faqih issued an incorrect judgement, which was then recorded by all those after him, who quoted it without verifying its authenticity!
Ibn Nujaym has also mentioned something similar in Bahr.
Ibn Abidin then gave examples of masail, wherein an incorrect judgment from one book was recorded in dozens of later works, even in the books of Ibn Nujaym, inspite of it being completely contradictory to the madhab! Some went so far to claim that this is the view of the latter-scholars of the madhab, which is completely baseless!
Unfortunately examples of this sort are many, such that a good researcher would find examples of masail where one faqih incorrectly recorded a mas’alah as Zahir ar-Riwayah, which then resulted in dozen of fuqaha passing fatwa on the view, including Ibn Abidin and after him most contemporary Mufti’s who blindly rely on him.
The issue under discussion here could be a textbook example of many later scholars following Ibn al-Humam’s research contrary to the madhab, as we shall show how the clear ruling of the madhab for over 1000 years has been strict obligation of sticking to the madhab for a layman.
This should suffice for the quotes from these and other later Ulama who might have held the same view but weren’t included on Patel’s list, however we will still discuss the individual quotes:
11. Ibn 'l-Humam (died 861 A.H.) said (Fath 'l-Qadeer, Sharh 'l-Hidayah, Chapter on Judge Conduct):
If this ‘sticking to’ is meant, then [realise that] there is no legal evidence that obligates following one particular Mujtahid by virtue of obligating it upon one’s own self either via explicating it or by intending it; rather such an obligation is only via evidence and the necessity of implementing the ruling of the Mujtahid in what arises for him as is pointed out in the verse of ‘Ask the People of Dhikr if you do not know’, and [the obligation of] ‘asking’ only arises when the particular situation [requiring the ruling] arises. In this case, if the Mujtahid’s verdict is established to him, he must implement it. Usually, such self-obligations [of sticking to a Madhhab or a Mujtahid] are done due to prevent people from following up specifically on dispensations; otherwise the layman would take the easiest opinion in every issue. However, I don’t know what logic or Shariah text actually prohibits this, and I don’t know of any condemnation from the Shariah against a person who follows up on dispensations via the verdicts of qualified Mujtahids who can be followed. Also, the Prophet loved to make it affairs easy for his Ummah.
Clear proof of this being Ibn al-Humam’s personal opinion, not that of the madhab is provided in the line prior to the one Patel started with, where Ibn al-Humam quotes the Fuqaha of the madhab as saying that one engaging in madhab-hopping (choosing views from different madhab) is liable to be punished! He then differs with them.
Ibn al-Humam didn’t stop at allowing a layman to choose views across the madhahib, but even allowed talfiq ie. Combining multiple views in one actions, a view declared as batil and contrary to Ijma by many fuqaha. This is ample proof of his views on this issue not being representative of the madhab at all.
12. Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj (died 879 A.H.) - explaining "The layman not possessing a Madhhab" - said (Ál-Taqreer Wa-'l-Tahbeer, Sharh 'l-Tahreer, Chapter on Taqlīd):
... because a Madhab is only for that person who has a degree of analysis, ability to evidence and have an insight of the Madhāhib as he is capable, or one who read a text on the Furū' of that Madhab and becomes acquainted with the verdicts of his Imam and his statements... As the layman is ignorant of the modus operandi of the Imam of the Madhab he is ascribing himself to, and as long as he is ignorant of his methodology, how can this layman ascribe himself to the Imam's Madhab? To the contrary, his ascription to a Madhab would be a mere claim, and it would be a statement that is void of any real meaning... There is consensus that a Muslim can do Taqlīd of whichever scholar he wishes without restriction. Whoever says anything to the contrary, the burden of proof is on them... It is not correct for a layman to ascribe himself to a Madhab. Such a person would not be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali, even if he claims to be a Ḥanafi, Maliki, Shāfi'ī or Ḥanbali... If a layman took it upon himself to follow one Madhab, like that of Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfi'ī or Ahmed, it would not be obligatory upon him to stick to that Madhab, because Allah made no such obligations upon him, nor did Allah or His Prophet ever ordered anyone to adopt a Madhab.
This is a student of Ibn al-Humam, who authored a commentary on Ibn al-Humam’s Usul work, wherein he followed Ibn al-Humam’s view and didn’t back it up with the view of other Hanafi fuqaha, as it was contrary to the view of the madhab.
13. Ibn Nujaym (died 970 A.H.) said (Ál-Bahr ál-Rā'iq, 6/292, ál-Matbaʿah ál-ʿImiyyah, Cairo, 1st edition, 1311 A.H.)
Chapter: "It is permissible to follow any Mujtahid one wishes", even when the schools of law are compiled (as is the case today), and he can also change from his [previously-adopted] legal position, but not out of constantly following up on dispensations...
He is quoting Ibn al-Humam and relying on him, without any discussion on the madhab’s stance. He has been thoroughly refuted by the Mufti of Makkah, Allamah Ibrahim Biri
14. Ameer Bādshāh (died 972 A.H.?) reproduced the above in the other commentary of ál-Tahreer (4/253, Tayseer 'l-Tahreer, Maktabat 'l-Maʿārif, Riyadh, 1403/1983 ed.).
Followed Ibn al-Humam 100%.
15. Mulla ‘Alī ál-Qarī (died 1040 A.H.) said:
It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Ḥanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shāfi’i, or a Ḥanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl ál-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl ál-Dhikr.
Interestingly, he has “forgotten” to mention the source for this, but regardless of that, Mulla Ali Qari held many views that were contrary to the madhab, this is one of them.
16. Muhammad bin ʿAbd 'l-ʿAdheem ál-Makkī (died 1061 A.H.) said (Ál-Qawl ál-Sadeed Fī Baʿd Masā'il 'l-Ijtihād Wa-'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 301789, pg. 4)
Know that Abū Hanifah, Malik, ál-Shāfiʿī and Ahmed bin Ḥanbal are all Ahl 'l-Dhikr who must be asked and followed by whom who is not a Mujtahid. If any Muqallid implements in his purity or prayer or anything else the opinion of any one of these, either out of Taqlīd, or without even knowing he had implemented it when he was doing what he did... then he would have discharged his obligation. No Muqallid or even Mujtahid can condemn him for doing so, as has been well documented in more than one book as is the case according to us [Ḥanafis]...
This book has been printed multiple times, yet Patel is using a manuscript.
This book was written to prove talfiq as permissible, relying on the research of Ibn al-Humam etc and was solidly refuted by his contemporary, the Mufti of Makkah, Allamah Ibrahim Biri.
17. Hasan bin ʿAmmar ál-Shurunbulālī (died 1069 A.H.), author of the famous Nur 'l-Idah, said (Ál-ʿIqd ál-Fareed Li-Bayan 'l-Rajih Min 'l-Khilaf Fī Jawaz 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 324506, pg. 11):
... because [a layman's] adherence [to one Mujtahid] is not something that is legally obligated... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars )
Shurunbulali’s going out of the madhab is very well known and documented by many Hanafi authorities. His risalah is full of quotes from non-Hanafi authorities, clearly not representing the Hanafi view.
This work is also printed more than once, yet Patel quotes an inferior manuscript edition!
18. Ahmed bin Muhammad ál-Hamawī (died 1098), the commentator on Ibn Nujaym ál-Ashbāh Wa-'l-Nazā'ir, said (Ál-Durr ál-Fareed Fī Bayan Hukm 'l-Taqlīd, Azhar University manuscript number 327244, page 9):
It is gained from what we have said that a person does not have to adhere to one particular Madhhab... (basically the whole book is an attack on Restricted Taqlīd, either directly or indirectly, with quotes from previous scholars)
Relied only on Ibn al-Humam and non-Hanafi sources.
19-20. The author of the Matn, Musallam 'l-Thubūt (died 1119 A.H.) was Muhibb 'llah bin Abd 'l-Shakur ál-Bihāri. The commentator on the book, ál-Sahālawī (died 1225 A.H.) in Fawātih 'l-Rahamūt, said (vol. 2 pg. 438):
'It is not necessary to stay on the Madhhab, and it is correct to move away to another, and this is the Haqq that should be believed in, but changing should not be done out of desires, as following desires is Haram in both adopting a Madhhab and in other issues of Fiqh'. He refers some later extremist Ḥanafis in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as Mutakallifeen who did Tashaddud.
As above, followed Ibn al-Humam.
He refers some later extremist Ḥanafis in the other opinion (who said that it is not allowed) as Mutakallifeen who did Tashaddud.
This is either a lie from Patel or due to his terrible comprehension skills. وأحلاهما مرٌ
The author was attacking those few partisan Hanafi’s whose ta’assub reached the stage that they declared that if a Hanafi becomes a Shafi’i he should be punished (and not vice-versa). This is a terribly incorrect view, which was never a mainstream Hanafi one, Alhamdulillah.
He was not attacking those who follow the mainstream Hanafi view of Madhab-hopping being impermissible.
21. Shah Waliyyullah (died 1180 A.H.) said (Ál-Insaf):
... if he is in the Haramain [or any place where there are scholars of multiple Madhhab, then he may ask any scholar]...
Relying on Ibn al-Humam etc, plus with all the different phases Shah Wali Allah went through in aqidah and fiqh, it is difficult to firmly attribute any such opinion to him.
22-23. In the footnotes of ál-Ihkam by ál-Qarafī (page 231), Abd 'l-Fattah Abū Ghuddah (died 1417 A.H.) quotes Ibn ʿĀbideen (died 1252 A.H.), who quotes Ibn Ameer 'l-Hāj, the commentator on Ibn ál-Humam's ál-Tahreer:
If [a layman] adopts a particular school of law, like that of Abū Hanifah or ál-Shāfi'i, then it has been said: "It will be upon him to stick to it". It has [also] been said: "[It will] not [be upon him to stick to it]", and this is more correct.
Again relying on Ibn al-Humam etc and not portraying the Hanafi view.
As for Sh. Abd al-Fattah, unfortunately his views on Taqlid and Talfiq were so lax that even the Wahhabi’s have venomously attacked him for it!
As for Allamah Ibn Abidin, his views on the issue seem contradictory. While here he has adopted Ibn al-Humam’s view – whom he relies totally on in Usul al-Fiqh- in his Sharh Uqud Rasm al-Mufti he has warned severely against acting on a weak view within the madhab except if the need is very severe. He has also shown that his personal practice was not to leave the madhab at all, even when it put him into severe difficulty. He preferred acted upon a weak view in the madhab, then later repeated every salah performed in the state of acting upon that view!
There are then clear quotes from Ibn Abidin obliging sticking to one madhab, to the extent of his stating that a muqallid has to follow his Imam in everything; if he doesn’t, then he has disobeyed Allah and his Rasul sallallahu alayhi wasallam!
Hanafi Ulama who obligated sticking to one madhab
Our Hanafi fuqaha have over the last 1000 odd years clearly shown that it is the responsibility of every Muslim to hold fast to one madhab and he is only permitted to leave it in the event of dire need, under the guidance of an experienced Mufti.
This obligation is mentioned in dozens of Hanafi fiqh as well as Usul al-Fiqh works.
I don’t have the time now to post all the quotes as well as translate them, so I will suffice on just listing the authorities that have mentioned this obligation. I have left out those whose quotes weren’t 100% clear or those whose authenticity I couldn’t verify. I ask Allah to grant me the opportunity to prepare a proper article with all these quotes in the near future.
Here are some of the Hanafi authorities who have clearly obligated a layman to stick to one madhab:
1. ad-Dabusi (d. 430 AH)
2. an-Natifi (d. 446 AH)
3. Zahir ad-Din al-Marghinani al-Kabir (d. 506 AH)
4. Al-Arsabandi (d. 512 AH)
5. Rukn ad-Din Al-Kirmani (d. 543 AH)
6. Al-Wabari (pre 550 AH)
7. Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rashid al-Kirmani (d. 565 AH)
8. al-Marghinani-author of al-Hidayah (d. 593 AH)
9. al-Karabisi (pre 600 AH)
10. al-Ushrusani (d. 632 AH)
11. at-Tarjumani (d. 645 AH)
12. az-Zahidi (d. 658 AH)
13. Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari (d. 730 AH)
14. al-Qirshahri (d. after 734 AH)
15. as-Samanqani (d. 746 AH)
16. Ibn Qadi Simawnah (d. 823 AH)
17. al-Fanari (d. 834 AH)
18. at-Tarablusi (d. 844 AH)
19. al-Humaydi (860 AH)
20. Rukn ad-Din an-Naguri ( pre 900 AH)
21. Author of Fawaid al-Fatawa (pre 950 AH)
22. al-Quhustani (d. 950 AH)
23. al-Biri (d. 1099 AH)
24. Ilahi Zada (d. 1086 AH)
25. Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad Ata Allah (d. 1127 AH)
26. Al-Ardarumi (d. 1173 AH)
The Mufti of Makkah al-Mukarramah, Shaykh Ibrahim Biri (d. 1099 AH) has authored a number of works on this topic and after refuting all contradictory claims has shown that the Hanafi madhab does not allow a person to pick and choose between madhahib. I am currently editing these works for publication.
