Following One Particular Imam In Every Juristic Issue It is generally believed that each one of the four schools (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali), all being possible interpretations of the Sharia, are correct and none of them can be held as something in contradiction with the Sharia. However, a nonprofessional who lacks the ability to compare between the arguments of each school cannot pick and mix between different views to satisfy his personal desires.The reason for this approach is twofold. Allah has empathically ordered in a number of verses of the Holy Quran to follow the guidance of the sharia, and has made it strictly prohibited for one to follow ones desires vis-a.-vis the rules of the Sharia. The Muslim jurists, when interpreting the sources of the Sharia, attempt never to satisfy their personal desires. They attempt to make their best effort to discover the spirit of Sharia, and they base their opinions on the force of evidence and not merely on the search for convenience. They do not choose an interpretation on the basis of its suitability to their personal fancies; they choose it only on the basis of the strength of the evidence before them. Now, if someone who has not studied Islamic law is allowed to choose any juristic view without consulting the arguments pertaining to those views, he will be at liberty to select only those views which seem to be more fulfilling to his personal requirements. This attitude will lead him to follow his own desires and not the guidance-a practice totally condemned in the Holy Quran. For example, Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) is of the opinion that bleeding from any part of the body breaks the wudu, while Imam Shafi (ra) believes that bleeding does not break the wudu: On the other hand, Imam Shafi (ra) says that if a man touches a woman, his wudustands broken and he is obligated to make fresh wudubefore offering prayer, while Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) insists that merely touching a woman does not break the wudu. How can the practice of pick-and-mix be allowed? A layman may well choose the Hanafi opinion in the matter of touching a woman and the Shafi view in the matter of bleeding. Consequently, he will deem his wudu unbroken even when experiencing both situations together (i.e. he has bled and happened to touch a women) even though his wudustands broken now according to both Hanafi and Shafi opinions. Similarly, according to the Shafi view, a traveller can combine the two prayers of Zuhr and Asr. However, at the same time, if a traveller makes up his mind to stay in a town for four days, he is no longer regarded as a traveller in the Shafi view. Hence, he cannot avail himself of the concession of shortening the prayers [qasr] nor of combining two prayers. On the other hand, the period of travel, according to the Hanafi view, is fourteen days, and a person can continue to shorten his prayers as long as he does not resolve to stay in a town for more than fourteen days. A traveler who has entered a city to stay there for five days, cannot combine two prayers, according to both Imam Shafi and Imam Abu Hanifa (raa). This is because, by staying for five days, he cannot use the two concessions of qasr and of combining two prayers according to Imam Shafi, and because combining two prayers is not allowed according to Imam Abu Hanifa. Nevertheless, the approach of pick and mix still leads some people to adopt the Shafi view in the matter of combining prayers and the Hanafi view in the matter of the period of journey. It is evident from these examples that the selection of different views in different cases is not based on the force of arguments leading to them, but on the facility provided by each. Obviously this practice is tantamount to following ones desires, which is totally prohibited by the Holy Quran. If such an attitude is permitted, it will render the Sharia a plaything in the hands of the ignorant, and no rule of Sharia will remain immune to distortion. This is why the practice of pick-and-mix has been condemned by all the renowned scholars of Sharia. Imam Ibn Taymiya (ra), the famous hadith scholar and jurist, says in his Fatawa: Some people follow at one time an Imam who holds marriage invalid, and at another time they follow an Imam who holds it valid. They do so only to serve their individual purpose and satisfy their desires. Such a practice is impermissible according to the consensus of all the Imams. (Fatawa Ibn Taymiya 2: 285-286). This was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists, who made it necessary for the common people to adopt a particular school in its totality. If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), then one should adopt it in all matters and with all its details. However, if one prefers another madhhab one should adopt that one in full. One should not pick and mix between the different views of the schools for ones own benefit. The benefit of the validity of the madhhabs, according to the jurists, is that a person can elect to follow anyone of them. But once a person has adopted a particular madhhab, then he should not follow any other madhhab in any matter, whether it be to seek convenience or to satisfy his personal choices, both of which are based on his desires and not on the force of argument. Thus, the policy of allegiance to a particular school was a preventive measure adopted by the jurists to preclude anarchy in the matter of the Sharia. However, this policy is meant for those who cannot carry out ijtihad themselves or cannot evaluate the arguments advanced by all the madhhabs in support of their views. For such people, the best approach is to follow one particular school as a credible interpretation of the Sharia. Nevertheless, those equipped with the necessary qualifications of ijtihad need not follow a particular school [madhhab]. They can derive the rules of Sharia directly from the original sources. Similarly, those who are not fully qualified for the exercise of deriving rulings [ijtihadJ, but are so well-versed in the Islamic disciplines that they can evaluate the different juristic views on purely academic grounds (Le. without being motivated by their personal desires), are not forbidden from preferring one school over the other in a particular matter. There are many Hanafi jurists who, despite their allegiance to Imam Abu Hanifa, have adopted the view of some other jurist in some juristic issues. Nevertheless, they are considered Hanafis. This partial departure from the view of Imam Abu Hanifa could be based on either of the following grounds: sometimes jurists, after an honest and comprehensive study of the relevant material, come to the conclusion that the view of another Imam is stronger. Jurists may also find that the view of Imam Abu Hanifa, although based on analogy, does not conform to an authentic hadith, which is usually due to its not having been conveyed to the Imam; otherwise he most probably would have adopted a view in conformance with that hadith also. Another case in which jurists have departed from the view of their Imam is when they have felt it a necessity for the collective good of the Umma. These jurists would follow another Imam not in pursuance of their personal desires, but to meet the collective needs of the Umma and in view of the changed circumstances prevailing in their time. These examples are sufficient to show that the followers of a particular school do not take their school as a substitute for the Sharta or as its sole version to the exclusion of every other madhhab. Followers of a madhhab do not give any madhhab a higher place than it actually deserves within the framework of Sharia. I would like to clarify another point which is extremely important in this context. Some people who have no systematic knowledge of Islamic disciplines often become deluded by their superficial knowledge based on self-study (in many cases, it being only through the translation of the Holy Qur an and hadiths). Following this kind of cursory study, they assume themselves to be masters of Islamic learning and begin criticizing the former Muslim jurists. This attitude is based on ignorance and has no justification. The extraction of juridical rules from the Holy Quran and Sunna is a very meticulous process that cannot be carried out on the basis of sketchy study. While studying a particular juristic subject, one has to collect all the relevant material from the Quran and hadiths found in the various chapters and books and undertake a combined study of the scattered material. One must examine the veracity of the relevant hadiths in light of the well-established principles of the science of hadith [usul al-hadith]. One must study the historical background of the relevant verses and traditions. In short, one has to first resolve a number of complicated issues involved. This whole exercise requires very intensive and extensive knowledge which is seldom found in the contemporary scholars who have specialized themselves in the subject, let alone the common people who have no direct access to the original sources of Sharta. The conclusion of the above discussion is that since all the four schools are based on solid grounds, it is permissible for a competent scholar to adopt another schools juristic view, if he has the required knowledge and ability to undersrand the merits of each madhhab on the basis of adequate academic research, without being indulged in pursuing his personal desires. The people who do not fulfill these conditions should not dare to do so, because it could lead to anarchy in the matter of Sharia.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:44:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015