Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Layman Has No Madhab.  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Layman Has No Madhab.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
minuteman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Joined: 25 March 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1642
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote minuteman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2007 at 11:21pm


 The first and second post by Abu Mujahid had many erroneous ideas as pointe dout by Rami. The posts are only discouraging any one to follow a scholar or Imam. If the mazhab makes a sect then what about ahle Hadith who talk too much against the mazahib?? Are they not a sect??

Al Wardah has rightly said that we should follow Allah and His messenger. But the problem arises in the approach. Is there any intermediary (teacher) or not?? I am sure that there is no harm if some one relies on an Imam and follows in his footsteps, it makes things easy for him.

 That matter concerns the Muqallid. Why those who do not have any Imam should object to that?? They can mind their own business. If asked, "Who is your Imam?" they reply, "Our Imam is the prophet himself". That is a clever way of saying thing.

Alwardah may please add something to the formula of good guided life. Try to understand about the Sunnah that it first constitutes the actual practice of the Holy prophet and not his words or books of Hadith. The words (sayings found in the books of Hadith) come after the practice of the Holy prophet s.a.w.s.  Thanks.

Back to Top
rami View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Joined: 01 March 2000
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rami Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 August 2007 at 6:44am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

What Brother Abu Mujahid posted is one view and what you posted is another. In my opinion both views although different are correct.

Can you outline how this is possible at all?

You cant believe la illaha illah llah and la illaha illah shiva at the same time one is correct while the other isnt, the conclusions and arguments made by combining them is false so i dont think it is possible that both arguments are equaly correct.

and I meant the same rule will apply to it if a sunni asked a question………refering to your post, that is the only point

I understood that, and i pointed out that this is wrong becouse you have the made up context and you have the original and intended context one is conjecture the other original is fact and not subjective.

There has to be a proper context, you cant say both are equally correct.

I was not attacking your comments or your post. If fact I said: “Masha Allah another opinion………” maybe you don’t know the meaning of Masha Allah.

If you say something wrong, like what you said about sects in islam and i correct it with the right understanding according to the ijma of sunni scholars how am i attcking you sister?

My reply was not an attack, you perceived it as such.

Brother I have said that the only logical step will be to follow a Madhhab or study them all. Why the do the quran and sunnah speak to you?

sorry that was funny the way you put it.

look at what i quoted beffore that comment "

As Muslims all we need to do is follow the teachings as per the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah."

If you read the link i provided which is a basic explanation of the language you are using by a qualified shaykh then you will understand the intended meaning of those words.

but unfortunately today the situation is different. The Sunnis are divided into sects and the same with Shia they have their sects too. You don’t hear people say that I am a Sunni Muslim anymore. They don't even say they are Muslims. No today people say I am Hanafi, Shafie or Salafie. How sad? Today people ask me to which Sunni sect do I belong.

no it isnt you are dead wrong on this. the proof is the original article look at the names of the shaykhs, al shafii, al hanafi, they used to clearly define which madhhab they followed, how many people do you know today will legally put there madhhab in there last name as is the tradition of all past scholars. You only perceive a devision based on madhhabs and even if it was real Islam is based on ilm not gossip or feelings we dont change the ENTIRE definition of a word based on what YOU perceive as a person. It is rather insulting to here someone label people a sect when clearly they are not.

If you even understood the word properly you would never say Sunni's are a sect and this is according to the defanition of the word, sorry for the sturn words but there is no your opinion and my opinion on this point just wrong understanding.

Lastely are salafi's a sect the same way shia are a so why are they even being mentioned in the same grouping.

You know brother Rami you read my response completely out of text. Before you use statements like “false logic” and “double-edge swords” I advise you to lighten up a bit and you should take a deep breathe.

Youre right on that sister.

I don’t need to go to the sites you mentioned. There are thousands of sites criticising the Sunni scholars and how they are deviated just as there are thousands of sites criticising the Wahhabi or Salafi scholars and calling them extremist.

well if you had bothered to even go you will see salafis are not mentioned and the topics have mostly nothing to do with them, what i was trying to get you to see was these same quotes or ones similar to them being used in the correct context by real scholars. If you dont want to even see that then how can you judge properly on anything.

Fiqh al-Shafi`i or Fiqh al-Sunna?

At least click on this and stare at the screen for 10 seconds to see it isnt what you think!

Btw just for your information brother Rami, I hold all scholars in high esteem.

It wasnt a question of respect since you havnt disrespected any scholars in the past like others have.


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our shortcomings and bless us with useful knowledge. Ameen!


Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
Back to Top
Alwardah View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Joined: 25 March 2005
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alwardah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 August 2007 at 12:40am

As Salamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu Brother Rami


To imply that I was saying Allah and shiva are one just because I say that we don’t need to follow any Madhhab and at the same time we need to refer to scholars ……. Audho Billahe minash Shaitanir-Rajim!


What surprised me most is that you say both are not equally correct yet in almost all issues of fiqh we have different opinions and we are told all are correct. (here I am referring to the 4 Madhhabs). You just added to my confusion. Actually I am not confused as I have adapted my own way of seeking knowledge. Alhamdulillah! I know I don’t have to refer to scholars on each and every issue and I also know the importance of referring to scholars.


Let me give you an example: If a person died, he left ¼ of his estate to a charitable organisation, and he is survived by a wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters. We don’t need to refer to any scholar on this issue as the full division of inheritance is found in Surah An-Nisa’ (4). However if there is a problem, like any step-daughters (his wife’s daughters thru another marriage) step-brothers or step-mother etc then yes we need to refer to the Sunnah and by extension to the scholars and maybe we will need to get a Fatawa before dividing the estate.


Let’s say someone, a sister, is studying the Hadith and reads this Hadith:


Narrated by Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf (Radhi Allahu Anhu): That in the year he performed Hajj, he heard Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, who was on the pulpit and was taking a tuft of hair from one of his guards, saying, "Where are your religious learned men? I heard Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) forbidding this (false hair) and saying, 'The children of Israel were destroyed when their women started using this.'"


Narrated Abu Hurairah (Radhi Allahu Anhu): The Prophet said, "Allah has cursed the lady who artificially lengthens (her or someone else's) hair and the one who gets her hair lengthened and the One who tattoos (herself or someone else) and the one who gets herself tattooed" (Al-Bukhari)


This sister uses false hair so does she need to see what the scholars of fiqh are saying about this or stop doing it immediately to prevent Allah’s curse upon her. I would stop immediately without referring to any scholar as we are already told that the most authentic book on Ahadith is Sahih Bukhari.


Just two simple examples to show that we can make decisions based on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah without referring to scholars for a ruling.


Regarding the word Sect, this word is understood differently today and that is what I tried to explain. You know in some countries if a Shafie married a Hanafi the Imams call this marriage Zina - not acceptable from an Islamic prospective. During my travels I have come across many brothers and sisters who faced this type of problem. Their parents will not let them marry anyone who is not from their Madhhab. This, brother Rami, is the real world - not what you and I would like it to be. Everything looks great in print but in reality life is very different. To be able to communicate with the masses we need to understand these terms according to their understanding. Maybe I quoted that Hadith incorrectly, so what are the 73 sects that the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) refers to. Maybe the Arabic word is translated incorrectly as sect. Allah knows best.


Well brother Rami, I don’t have anything more to add.


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from our whims and desires and keep our feet firm on His Siratul-Mustaqeem. Ameen!


Wa Alaikum Salam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu


“Verily your Lord is quick in punishment; yet He is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful (Surah Al-An’am 6:165)
"Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him is our return" (Surah Baqarah 2: 155)
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 August 2007 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Abu Mujahid Abu Mujahid wrote:

Assalamu alaikum

I struggled whether this will go under the topic of picking up Madhab or not. I concluded it is better to have a new topic. The writer debated the background of the topic in very informative way. You may not agree with him everything he wrote but he said it all in very convincing way.


See how some madhab fanatics went extreme to defend their madhab without prove from Quran and sunnah let alone four madhabs founders. The whole city was burned to ashes, marriage was banned or endangered and destructive words were used to make madhab whole deen.  

May Allah reward the writer khair. Enjoy it



The Opinion of the Majority: The Layman Has No Madhab:
This is the opinion of the majority of the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis, according to Ibn Taymiyah.

It is also widely reported in Shafi¡¦i sources, that Abu al-Fath al-Harawi - from the students of al-Shafi¡¦i - said: ¡§The Madhab of the generality of the followers (of al-Shafi¡¦i), is that the layman has no Madhab. Hence, if he finds a Mujtahid, he makes Taqleed of him; and if he is unable to find one, but finds instead one who is well-acquainted with a Madhab, he makes Taqleed of him¡¨

Al-Imam al-Nawawi says: ¡§What is dictated by the evidence is that a person is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab; rather he should ask whoever he wishes.¡¨

Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i says in his al-Tahqiqat, ¡§The truth is that it is not incumbent to adhere to a Madhab; Rather, a person should ask whoever he likes, but without seeking allowances (tatabbu¡¦ al-rukhas).¡¨

Mulla ¡¥Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says (as reported by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§It is not obligatory upon anyone from the Ummah to be a Hanafi, or a Maliki, or a Shafi¡¦i, or a Hanbali; rather, it is obligatory upon everyone, if he is not a scholar, to ask someone from Ahl al-Dhikr (people of knowledge), and the four Imams are from amongst the Ahl al-Dhikr.¡¨

Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi says in his Tahrir (as quoted by al-Ma¡¦sumi): ¡§Adhering to a particular Madhab is not obligatory, according to the correct opinion, since nothing becomes obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ has commanded; and Allah and His Messenger ƒâ did not oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of any particular individual from the Ummah, to make Taqleed of all that he says and to leave the sayings of everyone else. Surely, the blessed generations passed without obliging anyone to adhere to a particular Madhab.¡¨

This is also the opinion of some of the leading Hanafi jurists of modern times, such as ¡¥Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah - may Allah have mercy on him, (see his comments on al-Ihkam by al-Qarafi p. 231) in addition to Al-Zuhaili who says in his Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166 that 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.¡¨

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, in al-Furu¡¦, mentions the difference of opinion amongst the Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, saying: ¡§It not being obligatory is the most famous opinion¡¨. Al-Mardawi comments: ¡§And this is the correct opinion¡¨.

Ibn al-Najjar al-Hanbali says: ¡§A layman is not obliged to adhere to a Madhab¡K¡¨

Ibn al-Qayyim says: ¡§This is definitely the correct opinion, since there is nothing obligatory, except that which Allah and His Messenger ƒâ made obligatory. And never did Allah or His Messenger ƒâ oblige anyone to adhere to the Madhab of one of the Imams, to make Taqleed of one and leave the others.¡¨

Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§If a Muslim faces an event without precedence, then he should ask the one he believes issues verdicts in accordance with Allah¡¦s and His Messenger¡¦s ƒâ Shari¡¦ah, irrespective of which Madhab he is from. It is not incumbent upon any Muslim to make Taqleed of a particular person amongst the scholars in everything he says¡¨ - to his words - ¡§For one to follow someone¡¦s Madhab due to his incapacity to find out the Shar¡¦i ruling from other than him, then that is only permissible, and not something obligatory upon everyone if it becomes possible for one to obtain the knowledge of Shar¡¦ through different means. In fact, everyone is obliged to fear Allah to his utmost, and seek the knowledge of what Allah and His Messenger ƒâ have ordained, so that he may perform the ordered and abstain from the prohibited.¡¨

He also says: ¡§There are two opinions [with regards to this issue] amongst the followers of Ahmad, as well as amongst the followers of al-Shafi¡¦i, and the majority from both groups do not oblige [adherence to one of the Madhabs]. And those who oblige it say: If one adheres to a Madhab, it is not possible for him to oppose it, so long as he is an adherent, or as long as it does not become clear to him that another Madhab is more worthy of being followed.¡¨

He then discusses the issue of changing Madhabs and saying that if one changes his Madhab for worldly reasons, or merely seeking allowances, then that is, without doubt, condemned; it is like the companion who was known as ¡¥the migrant for Umm Qais¡¦, who migrated from Makkah to Madinah to marry a woman, about which the Prophet ƒâ said: ¡§Indeed actions are based on intentions¡K¡¨. As for the one who changes his Madhab due to religious reasons, or leaves an opinion in his Madhab when opinion of another Madhab appears stronger to him, then that is not only praiseworthy, but also obligatory, as no one has the right to oppose the verdict of Allah and His Messenger ƒâ.

Hence, our conclusion is that, it is not obligatory on a layman to follow a Madhab, but it is still allowed for the one who finds no way but this, to obtain Allah¡¦s ruling on an issue.

Prohibition of Devising Opinions and Following Allowances:
By ¡¥devising opinions¡¦ (Talfiq), we mean the practice of selecting various opinions in a particular issue from the different Madhabs and combining them, such that the end result is considered invalid in the sight of all the Madhabs. An example of this would be for a person to wipe only a part of his head in Wudu, in accordance with the Shafi¡¦i opinion, and then to touch a woman, while believing that does not break Wudu, following the Maliki opinion. Such Wudu, however, is invalid according to both Malikis and Shafi¡¦is, because the Malikis believe in wiping the head in its entireity, whilst the Shafi¡¦is believe that to touch a woman, even without desire, breaks one Wudu.

Although the majority of the latter scholars from the Malikis, Shafi¡¦is and Hanbalis prohibit Talfiq absolutely, most of the Hanafis allow it. They argue that the phenomenon of Talfiq did not exist at the time of the Companions, as there were many occasions where a Companion would be asked about an issue yet he would not forbid the Mustafti from seeking Fatwa from other than him. Albani al-Husaini mentions many examples from the four Imams and their followers of practicing Talfiq, not to mention praying behind each other, in spite holding different opinions concerning the conditions of Wudu. In addition, many times a layman would ask numerous Muftis, without knowing the Madhabs they adhered to, about different aspect of prayer, which may often result in Talfiq, yet none considered their acts of worship to be invalid.

However, those who permit Talfiq, do not allow all of its types, and moreover, they stipulate further conditions. Therefore, the type of Talfiq they deem to be prohibited is when the end result in and of itself is Haram, such as the consumption of alcohol or fornication. An example of this is for a person to marry without a guardian, following the Hanafi opinion, and without any witnesses, following the Maliki opinion; The end result of such Talfiq is marrying a woman without guardian nor witnesses, which is essentially fornication, an act clearly forbidden by all scholars. Another type of prohibited Tafliq is that which is prohibited due to additional factors; for example to deliberately hunt out the most lenient opinions from the Madhabs, without any need or excuse. This is very brief discussion of the issue of Talfiq, and if the reader desires to know more of the issue, then the best resource would be Albani al-Husaini¡¦s book ¡§¡¦Umdat al-Tahqiq Fi al-Taqlid wa al-Talfiq¡¨.

Following allowances (Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas) is for a person to ¡§pick and choose from every Madhab the most lenient opinion for himself¡¨, as stated Ibn Qawan al-Shafi¡¦i. That is, as Imam Ahmad said: ¡§If a person were to act on the opinion of people of Kufa in [permissibility] of Wine (Nabidh), and the opinion of people of Madinah in [permissibility] of music, and the opinion of the people of Makkah in [permissibility] of temporary marriage (mut¡¦ah), he would be considered a Fasiq¡¨. Sulayman al-Taimi said: ¡§If you were to take allowances of every scholar, all the evil will be gathered in you¡¨.

The one who seeks and follows allowances is considered a Fasiq, according to the correct opinion, which has been expressed explicitly byAhmad (nass), as well as an opinion amongst Shafi¡¦is. Ibn Taymiyah says that if it is allowed for the layman to make Taqleed of whomever he wishes, then what the statements of our [Hanbali] scholars indicate is that it is not permissible for him to seek and follow allowances in any circumstance. Al-Mardawi says that: ¡§Ibn ¡¥Abdil-Bar mentioned consensus (Ijma¡¦) on this issue, and such a person is regarded to be a Fasiq in the opinion of Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - as well as others¡¨. Although the consensus mentioned by ibn ¡¥Abdil-Barr is not definitely established, the prohibition of following allowances remains to be the opinion of the vast majority of the scholars. Even the minority who permit it - that is, the majority of the Hanafis - only do so in certain situations, such as a person facing extreme hardship, or a person affected with constant whispering from the devil (wiswas). This is understood from the statement of al-Zuhaili in the section on the occasions when Talfiq is prohibited: ¡§Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas (following allowances) intentionally, that is, for one to deliberately select the most lenient opinion from every Madhab without any necessity or excuse, is forbidden, in order to prevent the means (Sadd al-Dhara¡¦i) which would absolve one of their Shar¡¦i responsibility.¡¨

However, the correct opinion - and Allah knows best - is that which has been favoured by the majority of the scholars, namely, that Tatabbu¡¦ al-Rukhas is forbidden under all circumstances; since a Muslim is obliged to follow the orders of Allah, and not merely the most lenient opinion, for that entails following desires, and not revelation.

Point of Benefit:
Those who oblige every layman to make Ijtihad and abandon Taqleed usually use statements of the four Imams that indicate absolute prohibition of Taqleed in support of their position, such as the statement of Abu Hanifah: ¡§It is not allowed for anyone to follow our opinion if he does not know from where we obtained it¡¨; or that of Malik: ¡§I am only a human being, who is correct and errs. Hence, look into my opinions, and all that which corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah, follow it. And all that conflicts with the Book and the Sunnah, leave it¡¨; or that of al-Shafi¡¦i: ¡§If you find in my book that which opposes the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ƒâ then follow the Sunnah Messenger of Allah ƒâ and leave what I said¡¨; or that of Ahmad: ¡§Do not make Taqleed of me, nor Malik, nor al-Shafi¡¦i, nor al-Awza¡¦i, nor al-Thawri. Rather take from where they took¡¨.

All these statements are correct, but they were not intended for every layman, rather they were addressed to the students of these Imams, while barely any of them was a Mujtahid Mutlaq. They were, however, able to derive rulings from the sources of Islam and assess and evaluate evidences. In this regard, Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah says: ¡§[Imam Ahmad] would order the layman to ask (yustafti) Ishaq, Abu ¡¥Ubaid, Abu Thawr, Abu Mus¡¦ab, whilst he would forbid the scholars from his followers, such as Abu Dawud (the compiler of Sunan), ¡¥Uthman ibn Sa¡¦id, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu Zur¡¦ah, Abu Hatim al-Sajistani, Muslim (the compiler of Sahih) and others, from making Taqleed of anyone from the scholars. He would say to them: You must refer to the sources, to the Book and the Sunnah.¡¨

(See al-Manhaj 373-376, al-Tahqiqat 643-645, Majmu¡¦ah 20/116, 124-126, al-Mustadrak 2/241, 258, al-Furu¡¦ 6/492, al-Insaf 11/147, I¡¦lam 6/203-205, Mukhtasar al-Tahrir 103, Hal al-Muslim Mulzam¡K 14, Rawdhat al-Talibin 11/117, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami 2/1166)

Ibn al-Jawzi on the Ash'arites:¡¥The heretics claim; i) there is no god in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur¡¦an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave;¡¥your three shameful facets¡¦¡¦



Abu Mujahid

These two pieces are nothing more than the usual "wahabi" drivel which over emphasizes the use of comments from Ibn Taymiyyan and his (not a big surprise) student. The over infatuation and over preoccupation of these two characters is central to the wahbabi thesis. So now, according to this unknown author, Muslims who are "laymen", should follow something other than the only established methods for jurisprudence, which leaves, not surprisingly, the “wahabi” ideals as the "other thing". It is like a “bait and switch” fraud put forth by bad businesses. The wahabis advertise to the unsuspecting that they do not need to follow a madhhab, which, alludes to the weary that we are able to follow nothing (nafs), but when the layman figures out that he cannot reasonably traverse the wilderness of primary tetxts through “ijtihad by naafs” (the advertised product given as bait), the "nothing other than the established madhhabs" become switched with the pseudo methodology of the “wahabis”. Even their clerics need followers. This piece wreaks of the usual “bait and switch” routine, and what makes it even worse is that the entire thesis of the “unknown author” (in terms of scholarship or any authority) is all on the grounds of what Ibn Taymiyyah and his student have to say (as if there is any big surprise). The author also attempts to use a “truth as a means to teach a falsehood”, which refers to the use of quotes from certain ulema and present them out of context from their actual meanings and then allow these quotes to allude to his fallacious conclusion.

The huge gaping fallacy in the argument is a non sequitur, large and dubious. The author tries to assert that a layman does not have to follow a madhhab, but uses evidence to show that we do not have to follow any “particular” madhhab. Not following a madhhab is not the same as not following any particular madhhab. In other words, the quotes from the great ulema do not tell us to follow a particular madhhab, but this does not conclude that we not follow any madhhab. Although no Sunni scholar will tell you that you can never use a ruling from another madhhab that is not from the madhhab you follow, this fact remains silent in this juvenile piece as the author “alludes” to an untrue idea about “following a madhhab”.


Edited by Andalus
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.