Page 18:
WHY WE FOLLOW THE HANAFI SCHOOL:
7.1 We live in an area where the Hanafi School is prevalent. Scholars and books of this school are freely found. Had we chosen another school then it would have been difficult to ascertain the laws applicable to daily use. This is because scholars do not possess the same depth of understanding and insight into another school as they do in their own. Because of their study and engrossment in the study and teaching of their school, they cannot achieve the same expertise in another school. This happens even though the study of the books of other schools is possible which is known to the people of knowledge (Ahl al-‘Ilm)
7.2 The factors in choosing a school for those who embrace Islam or who are guided by Allah after plodding the path of Salafism and misguidance to taqleed and Sunnah are:
1. Presence of reliable and knowledgeable scholars who are accessible for reference for one’s daily juristic issues.
2. Adequate literature on the school.
8. The doubt: IS TAQLEED PROHIBITED BY THE QUR’AN?
8.1 A query: The Qur’an censures blind following in the verse, “When it is said to the disbelievers: ‘Follow the laws revealed by Allah, they answer………This shows that it is evil to follow the ways of one’s predecessors when we have the Qur’an and hadith. Also, it is stated in another verse that when you have a dispute refer it to Allah and his Messenger. So, we should not refer to an Imam/Mujtahid.
ANSWER: The mere translation of the verse shows that the taqleed of the disbelievers has no affinity with the taqleed under discussion. The following of the disbelievers has been condemned for two reasons:
They would reject the Verses and Commandments saying, ‘We do not accept it. We would rather prefer following our predecessors.’ Secondly their elders lacked understanding of the religion and guidance. These two factors are non-existent in the taqleed under discussion. The followers of the schools do not reject the Verses and Narrations. Rather, the Muqallid says, ‘Our religion (Deen) is the Qur’an and hadith. However being ignorant (lacking knowledge/competence) in legal reasoning (ijtihad) and extraction of rules (istinbat), I have a good opinion of a certain scholar who was thoroughly versed in the words and meanings of the verses and narrations. Thus I consider his opinions based on the Qur’an and hadith to be the most correct and strongest. I am therefore, acting on the sources under his guidance.’
Page 19 ends.
Page 20:
In short, no follower rejects the Qur’an and narrations. And the Imam he chose does not lack guidance or knowledge as is proven through reliable, continuous transmission from generation to generation (tawatur). Because both reasons for censure are absent here, the taqleed under discussion be beyond the ambit of this verse. And how could following the schools be the purport of the verse? Then the verse would be in clear contradiction to those traditions that establish the validity of taqleed.
9. REFUTING THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MUQALLIDIN REJECT OR DISCARD AHADITH:
9.1 Just as it is permissible to deduce Islamic laws through legal reasoning, similarly it is also permissible to subject a narration to rationale and to act in accordance with that rationale. This might entail specifying the sphere of the command (Ahkam) or placing it in one of several possibilities or restricting a general rule or acting on the inner meaning rather than the obvious meaning. This is not in conflict with the narrations nor does it amount to rejecting it. Such ijtihad is permissible and taqleed of such ijtihad too.
9.2 Imam Bukhari narrates in his Sahih from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said to the Companions after the battle of Ahzab: ‘None of you should offer ‘Asr before reaching Bani Qurayda.’ ‘Asr came while some companions were still on the way. They were split on the issue.
Page 20 ends.
Page 21:
Some said that they would offer prayer because this was not the purport of what the Prophet (saw) said – rather, he was emphasizing speed and haste in reaching there before ‘Asr. This incident was brought to the Prophet’s notice. He did not reprimand or criticize anyone. During this incident, some understood the actual meaning by their quwwat-e-ijtihadiyya (power to reason legally). The meaning that they understood was one of two possibilities and they performed the prayer. Huzur (saw) did not reprimand them saying, ‘Why did you discard the obvious meaning?’ Nor did he declare them to be rejecters of hadith.
9.3 To object to any masa’la saying that it is in conflict to the narrations depends on 3 things:
1. The meaning and purport of the juristic issue is properly understood by the objector.
2. Its evidence is known.
3. The Imam’s procedure of inference is known.
If any of these factors remain obscure to the objector, then his judgment will be erroneous. E.g. Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement that Salah al-Istisqa’ is not Sunna is well-known. The apparent meaning of this opinion seems to be in conflict with the narrations because it is mentioned there that the Prophet (saw) performed Istisqa’. But the meaning of the statement of the Imam is that it is not Sunna al-Muakkada. Once the Prophet (saw) performed prayer and supplicated for rain. On other occasions he just supplicated without performing this prayer. So, we find the following narration in Bukhari,
Page 21 ends here.
Page 22:
“Anas (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was delivering the sermon on the day of Friday (Juma’) when a man stood up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Horses and goats have perished. Pray to Allah for rain.’ The Prophet of Allah stretched out his hands and made supplication.
The purport of the saying of Imam Abu Hanifa is further revealed by the following text of Hidaya, ‘We (Ahnaf) say that he (saw) did it on one occasion and omitted it on another. Therefore, it is not Sunna.’ ‘Awwalayn.
Once the correct meaning is understood, the question of opposition is dispelled. Similar is the case when the proof is obscure. For e.g. many ahadith are reported for one mas’ala. Now by merely looking at one of the narrations it will be wrong to aver that a Mujtahid has opposed the narration. The Mujtahid has drawn a ruling from the other hadith and presented a valid interpretation for this one. An example of this is the question of reciting Fatiha behind the Imam (Qira’h Fatiha Khalf al-Imam). The traditions in this regard differ.
Sometimes a single narration holds scope for several varying possibilities. The Mujtahid understands a certain possibility (within that hadith) to be stronger on the basis of his (power of) legal reasoning. He then makes an inference. This too is not in conflict with the hadith. An example of this is that it is reported that if a person passes in front of you while you are in prayer then you should ward him off. One meaning is that the literal meaning applies. The other possibility taking into account other principles and rules is that this hadith is by way of warning and a deterrent for passing in front of a Musalli.
Page 22 ends.
Page 23:
If a Mujtahid prefers the second possibility then it cannot be argued that he has discarded the hadith. In fact his practice is precisely in keeping with the hadith.
Similarly if the procedure of inference is obscure then too the judgment of conflict will be erroneous. For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa says that the period of breastfeeding extends till 2 ½ years. The proof which is the Qur’anic verse, “Its carrying and weaning…” is well-known but its popular explanation is exceptionally faulty. In ‘Madaarik’ the tafseer of “hamluhu” is reported from the Imam as “bil akuf” (with hands). By this explanation all objections are dispelled. The meaning of the ayat then is that after birth, the maximum period of the baby being carried around in the arms and its weaning is 30 months. There is no problem with this exegesis and the view of the Imam is easily substantiated.
In conclusion, judging a juristic issue to be in conflict with the traditions is the prerogative of a person who is well-versed in the traditions and also possesses keen insight with strong perception. A scholar with one attribute but not the other is not capable to proclaiming that the juristic decision is in violation of the narrations.
It is proven in hadith (refer 10.3) that one does not qualify for being a Mujtahid just by being a Hafiz of Hadith. The unbiased reader can understand from this that when a traditionist can be ignorant to the details and procedure of inference then how can the illiterate of today fathom all the various ways which a Mujtahid employs in his deduction of issues. Indeed it is the most audacious stupidity to call the Muqallid a discarder or rejecter of traditions. May Allah reform their condition.
Page 23 ends.
Page 24.
In this regard whenever experts have found any statement in conflict with a Shari’ proof they have omitted the statement at once. Examples of this are the issues of the prohibition of consuming even a small quantity of an intoxicant and farming on a profit-share basis (muzara’at). It is clear in the books of the Hanafis that in these two issues the view of Imam Abu Hanifa is discarded. The number of such discarded views probably does not even reach ten. In this regard, this lowly servant (Hakim al-Ummah) made an investigation and besides five or six issues in which I had some reservations, not a single answer was found to be against the narrations. I even recorded the various ways in which the juristic answers correspond to the traditions in a treatise. Unfortunately the work was lost.
Even then, it is unlawful to revile a Mujtahid because his error is unintentional. It is a juristic (ijtihadi) mistake and he will be rewarded for this too as is in the narrations.
This we have said according to our knowledge. Otherwise it is quite possible that Imam Abu Hanifa had access to a narration that we are unaware of.
9.4 Ibn Taymiyya says in Raf’ al-Malaam ani’l ‘Aimmah al-‘Alaam that the forms of inferences from the traditions and Qur’anic verses are so many that no Mujtahid can be attacked for his inference. This book is worth a read. (Al-Ifaadat al-Yawmiyya)
9.5 Even if we were to assume that some narrations did not reach Imam Abu Hanifa we find Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Zufar ibn Hudayl, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hasan ibn Ziyad and other eminent students of Imam Abu Hanifa living in the era of the hadith compilation.
Page 25 ends.
Page 26
Following them came Imam Tahaawi, Karkhi, Haakim (author of Kaafi), ‘Abd al-Baqi ibn Qani’, Mustaghri, Ibn al-Sharqi, Zayla’i and other memorizers and critics of traditions among the Hanafis who flourished during the age of perfection of the standards of examining the narrations of the Prophet (saw). They were completely aware of the rigorously authenticated (sahih), weak (da’if), well-known (mashhur) and single-chained (aahad) narrations.Thus they omitted any analogical deduction of Imam Abu Hanifa that they perceived to be in conflict with the traditions.
Jurists of the caliber of Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan, Abu Yusuf, Zufar and Hasan differed (with the Imam) in a significant portion of his school. The Hanafi school of Law is based on the collective statements of Imam Abu Hanifa and these students and associates. (Muqaddima ‘Ila al-Sunan, Fawaaid-u-Shatta)
10. The objection: The Qur’an and traditions are before us. We can refer directly to them.
10.1 He who does not possess Quwwat-e-Ijtihadiyya (see no.11) has no right to resort to ijtihad.
10.2 Hadrat ‘Adiyy ibn Hatim (ra) narrated that when the verse, “And eat and drink…” was revealed he took a white thread and a black thread and kept it. During the night he looked at it but the two threads were not distinguishable from each other. In the morning he informed the Prophet (saw) who replied, “Your pillow is exceptionally large for the white and black threads (which actually imply the dawn light and darkness of the night) to be under it.”
Notwithstanding the fact that this noble Companion was an Arab who spoke Arabic he erred in understanding the purport of the Qur’anic verse because of not possessing the ability of ijtihad. The Prophet (saw) brought this to his notice in a humorous way. In other traditions he did not voice his disapproval of Ijtihaad from certain Companions. This shows that the Companion in question did not possess the ability for ijtihad and so the Prophet (saw) did not credit him for his opinion and perception.
10.3 Hadrat Ibn Mas’ud(ra) narrated that the Prophet (saw) said, “May Allah keep that person happy and prosperous who listens to my traditions, retains it and passes it on to others. Indeed how many of those who pass on knowledge are not versed in it themselves and often a man passes on knowledge to one who understands it better than the one who delivered it.
Imam Shafi’, Bayhaqi in al-Madhkal, Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah and Darimi who narrated this from Hadrat Zayd ibn Thabit (ra).
There is clarity in this hadith that some memorizers of hadith may not understand the meanings of the narrations or possess (deep) understanding of it.
10.4 A simple, straightforward test of this matter is to take a 100 bylaws at random from a book of Islamic jurisprudence in which the source evidences are not mentioned and trace their sources in the Qur’an and hadith.
Page 26 ends.
Page 27:
Furthermore the principles governing the bylaws should be proven from the sources or indications of the Qur’an and narrations or with sound rational arguments. Then will one understand the limits of one’s own intelligence and the worth of the Faqih’s understanding. Allah willing, this will become evident and in the future no one will venture to make preposterous claims.
10.5 ‘Abdullah ibn Mubarak (rah) said, “Were it not that Allah rescued me with Abu Hanifa and Sufyan, I would have been just like the others.”
In other words, Allah saved him through Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Sufyan Thawri from the perplexity and confusion in which a narrator is embroiled in when seeing conflicting and opposing narrations. The Imams would show him how the two (seemingly opposing traditions) are reconciled or which one enjoys first preference, thus explaining the meanings of the two to him.
Indeed this was the case with many narrators who were rescued by none other than the Fuqaha-e-Muhadditheen, those who were experts in both narration and reasoning (diraayat).
Qadi Iyad narrated the following in Tadreeb al-Madaarik under the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb Qurayshi Misri, the student of Imam Malik (rah) – v3, pp. 231/6:
Yusuf ibn ‘Adiyy said, “I found some people to be jurists, not traditionists and some to be traditionists and not jurists. Only ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb did I find to be a jurist, traditionist and ascetic.”
Ibn Wahb said, “Had Allah not rescued me through Malik and Layth, I would have gone astray.” He was asked, “How is that?” He answered, “I immersed myself in narrations and became perplexed. I would present my doubts to Malik and Layth who would tell me which tradition to take and which to leave (due to unreliability, abrogation or some other factor). End of Qadi Iyad’s note.
Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr also documented this in Intiqa’ with a similar text. Our Shaykh, the research scholar (Muhaqqiq) al-Kawthari annotated it with the following words:
“Ibn ‘Asaakir’s text with his chain upto Ibn Wahb is: ‘Had it not been for Malik ibn Anas and Layth ibn Sa’ad, I would have perished. I was under the impression that everything narrated from the Prophet (saw) had to be carried out.’ In one narration he says, ‘I would have gone astray.’ i.e. in view of the conflict between the traditions which happens to many narrators who are strangers to Islamic jurisprudence and cannot distinguish between a tradition that enjoys practical status from one that is the opposite.”
There are 2 kinds of hadith. While both are authentic, it is not necessary that practical expression is given to all narrations just on the basis of their authenticity. Some lack the ability to distinguish between these two types and it is not within everyone’s understanding to differentiate between the ones’ for practical use and the ones’ which are not.
For instance, it comes in the narrations that one who consumes liquor for the fourth time should be killed (Mishkat). This view is not held by any scholar.
Page 28 ends here.
Page 29:
This tradition is abrogated as it is reliably reported that a person was brought to the Prophet (saw) after having consumed liquor for the fourth time but he was not put to death. (Mirqat al-Mafatih)
10.6 Qadi Bishr ibn Walid said, “We would be with Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna when a problematic juristic issue would come to us. He would ask, ‘Is there anyone from the companions of Abu Hanifa here?’ My name would be taken. He would say to me, ‘Answer.’ I would then answer. Then he would remark, ‘Safety in Deen is to refer to the fuqaha’.’”
11. What is Quwwat-e-Ijtihadiyya?
11.1 Now hear the traditions from which the meaning of Quwwat-e-Ijtihadiyya will become clear.
a. ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “The Qur’an was revealed in seven readings. Every verse has an apparent meaning and an inner meaning. And for every horizon is a view.” Mishkat al-Masabih from Sharh al-Sunna.
In other words, the apparent meaning of the verse can be understood through the Arabic language and the hidden meaning through intellectual and reasoning powers adorned with the fear of Allah.
Page 29 ends.
Page 30:
b. Narrated 'Urwa: I asked 'Aisha : "How do you interpret the statement of Allah,. : Verily! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah, and whoever performs the Hajj to the Ka'ba or performs 'Umra, it is not harmful for him to perform Tawaf between them (Safa and Marwa.) (2.158). By Allah! (it is evident from this revelation) there is no harm if one does not perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa." 'Aisha said, "O, my nephew! Your interpretation is not true. Had this interpretation of yours been correct, the statement of Allah should have been, 'It is not harmful for him if he does not perform Tawaf between them.'
The Shaykhayn, Muwatta’ Malik, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Nasaa’i.
c. Speaking on the virtues of the Companions, Hadrat Ibn Mas’ud said, “They are the most virtuous of the entire Muslim nation, their hearts are pure, possessed of the most profound knowledge they were (yet) very open and informal. “
Razin.
d. Hadrat Ibn Juhayfa narrated, “I asked `Ali (ra): Do you have some knowledge that is not in the Qur’an?” He answered, “I swear by that Being who split the seed and created life, we do not have any (extra) knowledge except for a distinct perception in (understanding) the Qur’an which Allah gives to whoever he pleases.”
Sahih al-Bukhari, Sunan Tirmidhi and Sunan Nasaa’i.
e. Hadrat Zayd ibn Thabit narrated, “During the battle with the people of Yamama, Abu Bakr sent someone to call me.
Page 30 ends.
Page 31:
When I came to him, I saw ‘Umar with him. Abu Bakr spoke to me, “’Umar came to me and informed me that many recitors of the Qur’an fell.” He said, “I fear that if this continues then a large portion of the Qur’an will be lost to us. Therefore I advise you to instruct that the Qur’an be collected (in book form).” I answered, “How can I do something which the Messenger of Allah never did?” ‘Umar replied, “By Allah, there is only good in this.” He repeated this again and again until I became satisfied and understood what he had understood.”
Sahih al-Bukhari and Jame’ Tirmidhi.
Collectively from the five quoted traditions, the following points become clear:
Some meanings of the text sources are obvious while some are hidden and subtle. The latter are mysteries, wisdom and reasons.
The level of understanding the texts varies from people to people. Some only understand the apparent while others fathom the deeper meanings.
In this disparity in comprehension virtue and merit are not due to a mere difference in understanding but this is exclusive to a special level of depth and penetration which is worthy of consideration.
This special understanding is a bestowal of Allah and is not the result of human effort.
The summary of Quwwat-e-Ijtihadi's nature (from the above mentioned narrations) is that it is an exclusive ability of understanding and deduction by which its possessors discover the deeper, subtle meanings of the source-texts (Nusus) and the mysteries and reasons for the commands pertaining to practice and belief in a convincing manner. Others cannot reach where they have reached.
Page 31 ends.
Sometimes their hearts would become content with another view and they retracted from their first opinion. This ability is called 'fahm', 'fiqh', 'ijtihad' and 'istinbat'. Other terms are also used for it in the Qur'an and narrations.
12. Did the Imams prohibit their taqleed?
12.1 Query: The Imams themselves have said that it is unlawful to adopt their view until the proof is known. Those you make taqleed of, therefore prohibit this selfsame taqleed.
Answer: The audience of the Imams is not those who do not possess the capacity for Ijtihad. Otherwise this statement will clash with those narrations that permit it and also with their own practice and other statements. The clash with their practice is that it is not documented anywhere that the Mujtahid offered proof when answering every question. Similarly there was no strictness or insistence in recording the proofs of their Edicts which they compiled e.g. Al-Jami' al-Saghir etc. It is obvious that an answer is given for practice whether it be verbal or in a book. So the practice of the Imams is taqleed per se.
page 32 ends.
page 33:
A ruling of Imam Abu Yusuf on a juristic issue effectively counters the contention (of the anti-taqleed choir) that the Imams forbade Taqleed. It is reported in Hidaya, 'Awwalayn from Abu Yusuf that if a person has blood removed from his body while fasting and then he intentionally eats and drinks thinking that his fast has broken on the basis of the narration, "The fast of both, the cupper and the cupped is broken", then such a person will have to necessarily keep Kaffara. Presenting the argument for the issue, he said, "It is obligatory for the layman to follow the jurists as he has no understanding of the narrations."
This statement clearly shows that the earlier statements of the Imams is addressed to people who can perform Ijtihad, not those who cannot. Accordingly , pondering on the statement reveals this restriction, 'until the proof is known' which shows that they were speaking to scholars who could understand the proofs. He who lacks the ability for Ijtihad may hear the proof but he cannot understand it. Imposing the comprehension of proofs on a person who lacks the capacity for it is takleef ma laa yutaaq (imposing the unbearable) which is null and void in the Shari'ah. So it is clear that this address is to the Sahib-e-Ijtihad and not laymen.
Page 33 ends.
Page 34:
12.2 Ibn Taymiyya said, "The Imams barring taqleed is only for the one who has the ability to derive commandments from the proof."
Fatawa ibn Taymiyya*
13. The error of judging the narrations of the Jurists on the criteria of the Traditionists:
13.1 Coming to those narrations that are weak on the criteria of the traditionists, firstly all those rules and principles are presumptive on which the tradionists have based the strength and weakness of the narrations, the main factor being the credentials of the narrator. In certain principles, therefore the traditionists are themselves divided.
Similarly a narrator being reliable or unreliable is also presumptive (speculative, non-categorical). Therefore the scholars of hadith differ in many narrators. Also the condition for declaring a narrator weak is conditional to many restrictions and it is not conceded that all conditions are found everywhere. Books on this subject confirm this. When these rules and principles are presumptive then how can they be binding on all? The jurists have formulated principles to judge the strength and weakness of the narrations on the basis of evidence which is presented in the works of principles of jurisprudence. So it is possible for a narration to be unreliable for the hadith collectors but worthy of being used as a basis for commandments according to the Jurists.
*Al-Kalam al-Mufeed fi Ithbaat al-Taqleed, pg.233.
Page 34 ends.
Page 35:
Secondly weakness (dhu’f) is not an inherent quality in the hadith. It is due to the narrator. Thus it is quite possible that the Mujtahid received the hadith with an authentic chain and it (the chain) was later tarnished by the addition of a weak narrator. This later weakness does not harm the earlier contention and proof of the Imam.
Once a Mujtahid has employed a narration in his argument – bearing in mind that using the narration for this is dependent on its authenticity- then he has actually authenticated the tradition. This is the purport of the statement of the scholars, “When a Mujtahid advances a hadith in an argument, its authenticity is implied.” (In fact its authenticity is a necessary corollary stemming from his acceptance of the narration as the basis of formulation of a Law)
13.2 It is fitting to mention here that the Thulathiyyat (traditions in which there are only three links/narrators to the Prophet [saw]) narrated by Imam Bukhari (rah) and other hadith scholars are very few. (Such narrations are much prized by hadith scholars) This can be judged from the fact that in the whole of Sahih al-Bukhari, there are not more than 20-22 thulathiyat.
Page 35 ends.
Page 36:
Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) by virtue of being a tabi’i and being born earlier has narrations that are predominantly thulathiyat. In fact, there are even Thunaiyyat (ahadith with only two narrators up to the Prophet [saw]) to his credit. Hence Imam Sha’rani al-Shafi’i writes, “I have studied authentic copies of the three masanid of Imam Abu Hanifa endorsed by the Huffaz of hadith. I found every hadith to be of the excellent and righteous tabi’un, the likes of Aswad, ‘Alqama, ‘Ata’, Ikrima, Mujahid, Makhul, Hasan al-Basri and others.”
Thus between the Imam and the office of Prophethood all the narrators were upright and righteous scholars and they were eminently saintly people. None of them was a liar or accused of mendacity. This is the reason that the Imams of Hadith and the scholars have concluded that the ahadith with which the Mujtahid Imams have formulated (schools of) Fiqh are much more reliable and trustworthy than the later ahadith because these eminent fuqaha’ were the teachers (mentors and in fact asatizah of the asatizah) of the later hadith scholars (muhadditheen). Further they were closer in time to the era of Prophethood and the Companions. Falsehood had not become widespread during the best of times (Khayr al-Quroon). Therefore whatever weakness (dhu’f) developed due to the narrators (ruwaat) was the harvest of later generations. (Malfuzat-e-Muhaddith Kashmiri, pp 147/8)
Page 36 ends here.
No comments:
Post a Comment