Post by Zameel on Nov 3, 2015 19:33:37 GMT
Some general counter-responses to Ismail Ibrahim (aka Harris Hammam)’s response on the structure of the Ḥanafī madhhab have been mentioned in the original thread where this was discussed:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/380/anaf-muft-today-transmitters-capable
I have been asked to address some of the specific academic points in his response that may be a source of confusion for some. To avoid cluttering the thread, I have created this new thread.
All quotes are from Ismail Ibrahim's response to the opening post in the above thread.
The fatwā is unfortunate and overlooks some basic principles of fatwā in the Ḥanafī madhhab. It concedes the earlier fatwā of the same institute was that Witr behind a non-Ḥanafī imām is only permissible if he does not do anything that invalidates the ṣalāh in the Ḥanafī madhhab.
Moreover, Mufti Taqi Usmani himself in his published fatwās presents only the established view of the Ḥanafī madhhab: that it is only permissible to pray behind a non-Ḥanafī imām if he does not do anything that invalidates the ṣalāh according to the muqtadī’s madhhab. (Fatāwā ‘Uthmānī, Maktabah Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān, 1:473-4)
His signed approval of this new fatwā is, therefore, unfortunate. The fatwā does not represent the Ḥanafī position.
These quotes were presented to show that a general acceptance emerged from around the tenth century onwards that the Ḥanafī scholars of that period were “pure muqallids” and only transmitters. Their claims were not contested. Ibn ‘Ābidīn makes it clear what he means by “pure muqallids” and “transmitters” in the following passage that I quoted:
“The mashāyikh inspected the evidences of Imām [Abū Ḥanīfah] and had recognition of the sources of his views, and they inspected the evidences of his disciples. Thus, at times they gave tarjīḥ to the evidence of his disciples over his evidence and thus gave fatwā on it…Since we are not capable of inspecting the evidence, and we have not reached their rank in fulfilling the preconditions for extracting [new masā’il] and finding patterns [in the transmitted masā’il], we must relate what they opined, because they are the [true] followers of the madhhab, who erected themselves to explain it and to refine it using their ijtihād.”
These scholars (i.e. Shurunbulālī, Bīrī, Ibn ‘Ābidīn) were describing a reality of their times: that there are no longer any Ḥanafī scholars capable of independent tarjīḥ based on evidences. They were not expressing a fiqhī position.
In Ibn ‘Ābidīn and Shurunbulālī's position on taqlīd, however, it is contested by the clear pronouncements of the earlier fuqahā’ of the madhhab. There was no change in situation or circumstance that demanded a different view is adopted in the later period. If anything, the reasons which the earlier fuqahā’ gave for limiting oneself to a single madhhab became more pronounced. Hence, the personal opinions of Shurunbulālī and Ibn ‘Ābidīn in this issue is not accepted.
Ibn ‘Ābidīn made it very clear what he meant. See the above statement. And he does not say mujtahids came to an end after the four imāms. Mujtahids within the madhhab continued all the way until the eighth and ninth centuries.
These points are very clear from the original article.
This is incorrect, as Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad are both mujtahid muṭlaqs, though affiliated to the madhhab of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
The Ḥanafī mujtahids in the madhhab were muqallids of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (and his students), and they set themselves up to explain his madhhab, as Ibn ‘Ābidīn stated. These mujtahids themselves explained why they were limited to the madhhab:
This is famous as one of Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī’s “tafarrudāt” (isolated opinions). His view was refuted in detail by Mufti Taqi Usmani (Fiqhī Maqālāt, 2:40-56) Tarāwīḥ is an exception to the prohibition of nafl congregation. In some books, Tarāwīḥ is referred to as “qiyām Ramaḍān”, which Mawlānā Madanī mistook to mean any nafl congregation in the night of Ramaḍān. Mufti Taqi Usmani showed from a number of clear passages from the fuqahā’ that his understanding was incorrect. If this was in fact an “ijtihādī preference” of Mawlānā Madanī, why was his opinion countered by reference to the Ḥanafī texts and not the evidences of Sharī‘ah?
This was not an axiom that Imām Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā made up, but is based on the consensus of the fuqahā’ that when there are conflicting views one must exercise tarjīḥ and act on the rājiḥ, while discarding the marjūḥ. Ibn ‘Ābidīn quotes alongside this statement of Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā a number of other statements from the earlier fuqahā’ that support it.
Imām Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā did not say they are non-existent or completely rejected, but that they are to be treated as such by the one who views another view as rājiḥ.
This is one of the issues in which there is conflict within the madhhab. The view that ‘Asr starts at one-shadow length is the view of Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad as mentioned in the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah and also one view from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself as transmitted by al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād; the famous view of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, however, as mentioned in the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, is that it starts at two-shadow length. Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī quotes both views from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and favours one-shadow length. His preference was recorded in later Ḥanafī works. Both views have been referred to as “muftā bihī.”
One of the most famous fuqahā’ of the subcontinent, Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī, does not give a clear verdict on which he believes is the stronger view in the madhhab. Caution obviously dictates that Ẓuhr is prayed before one-shadow length and ‘Asr after two-shadow lengths, and this has been reported from one of the earlier jurists, Shaykh al-Islām Khāhar Zādah.
The obligation of limiting one’s taqlīd to a single madhhab (in the Ḥanafī madhhab) does not rest upon the view of Ibrāhīm Bīrī, but on those he quotes and others, like Fakhr al-Quḍāt al-Arsābandī (d. 512), Abu al-‘Abbās al-Nāṭifī (d. 446), al-Asrūshanī (d. 632), Fakhr al-Dīn (d. 570), Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d. 430), Ẓahīr al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d. 506) and Burhān al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d. 593). Their statements are already available.
He felt fatwā should be given on the view that the finger should not be raised in tashahhud (وهذا الذي ينبغي التعويل عليه فى الحكم), and claimed this is what is found in Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah. The Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, in fact, does not say this. It just doesn't mention raising the finger.
Raising the finger in tashahhud has in fact been narrated from all three of the imāms outside of the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, as Bīrī himself acknowledged. This is why Ibn al-Humām (who is acknowledged as being from the mujtahids in the madhhab) said: “The view of not raising the finger is against transmission [from the imāms].” And Najm al-Dīn al-Zāhidī (d. 658 H) said: “Since the transmissions from all our founders [Abū Ḥanīfah, Muḥammad and Abū Yūsuf] are in agreement on it being sunnah, and also from the Kufans and the Madinans, and the reports and narrations are very many, practising on it is superior.” Shams al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 788 H) even said fatwā is on the position of raising the finger in tasahhaud in his work Durar al-Biḥār. Bīrī’s mistake (in imitation of some who came before him) was to treat the omission in Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah as outright negation, which is incorrect.
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/380/anaf-muft-today-transmitters-capable
I have been asked to address some of the specific academic points in his response that may be a source of confusion for some. To avoid cluttering the thread, I have created this new thread.
All quotes are from Ismail Ibrahim's response to the opening post in the above thread.
Mufti Taqi has had ‘other’ things to say in related matters, such as DU Karachi’s fatwa that the Witr of a Hanafi behind a non-Hanafi is permissible
The fatwā is unfortunate and overlooks some basic principles of fatwā in the Ḥanafī madhhab. It concedes the earlier fatwā of the same institute was that Witr behind a non-Ḥanafī imām is only permissible if he does not do anything that invalidates the ṣalāh in the Ḥanafī madhhab.
Moreover, Mufti Taqi Usmani himself in his published fatwās presents only the established view of the Ḥanafī madhhab: that it is only permissible to pray behind a non-Ḥanafī imām if he does not do anything that invalidates the ṣalāh according to the muqtadī’s madhhab. (Fatāwā ‘Uthmānī, Maktabah Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān, 1:473-4)
His signed approval of this new fatwā is, therefore, unfortunate. The fatwā does not represent the Ḥanafī position.
If the named scholars [i.e. Ibn Abidin and Shurunbulali] are now such authorities in the usage of the term “Muqallid”, why not also accept their stance on Taqlid Mutlaq?
These quotes were presented to show that a general acceptance emerged from around the tenth century onwards that the Ḥanafī scholars of that period were “pure muqallids” and only transmitters. Their claims were not contested. Ibn ‘Ābidīn makes it clear what he means by “pure muqallids” and “transmitters” in the following passage that I quoted:
“The mashāyikh inspected the evidences of Imām [Abū Ḥanīfah] and had recognition of the sources of his views, and they inspected the evidences of his disciples. Thus, at times they gave tarjīḥ to the evidence of his disciples over his evidence and thus gave fatwā on it…Since we are not capable of inspecting the evidence, and we have not reached their rank in fulfilling the preconditions for extracting [new masā’il] and finding patterns [in the transmitted masā’il], we must relate what they opined, because they are the [true] followers of the madhhab, who erected themselves to explain it and to refine it using their ijtihād.”
These scholars (i.e. Shurunbulālī, Bīrī, Ibn ‘Ābidīn) were describing a reality of their times: that there are no longer any Ḥanafī scholars capable of independent tarjīḥ based on evidences. They were not expressing a fiqhī position.
In Ibn ‘Ābidīn and Shurunbulālī's position on taqlīd, however, it is contested by the clear pronouncements of the earlier fuqahā’ of the madhhab. There was no change in situation or circumstance that demanded a different view is adopted in the later period. If anything, the reasons which the earlier fuqahā’ gave for limiting oneself to a single madhhab became more pronounced. Hence, the personal opinions of Shurunbulālī and Ibn ‘Ābidīn in this issue is not accepted.
Whether al-Shurunbulali or Ibn `Abidin did not identify any jurist as a Mujtahid post-The Four Imams is another matter altogether. It would be a heavy claim to say that they didn’t.
Ibn ‘Ābidīn made it very clear what he meant. See the above statement. And he does not say mujtahids came to an end after the four imāms. Mujtahids within the madhhab continued all the way until the eighth and ninth centuries.
These points are very clear from the original article.
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and others used “Muqallid” to denote anyone who was not a Mujtahid Mutlaq. So Abu Yusuf and Muhammad are Muqallids as per this definition
This is incorrect, as Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad are both mujtahid muṭlaqs, though affiliated to the madhhab of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
The article says Hanafis can do Tarjih by looking into evidences when their own verdicts differ. I ask: What is the basis for this arbitrary distinction, between conflicting verdicts internal to the Madhhab where Ijtihad is supposedly allowed, and Hanafi verdicts conflicting with other Madhhabs where Ijtihad isn't supposedly allowed?
The Ḥanafī mujtahids in the madhhab were muqallids of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (and his students), and they set themselves up to explain his madhhab, as Ibn ‘Ābidīn stated. These mujtahids themselves explained why they were limited to the madhhab:
لم يأذنوا فى الاجتهاد فيما خرج عن المذهب بالكلية مما اتفق عليه أئمتنا، لأن اجتهادهم أقوى من اجتهاده، فالظاهر أنهم رأوا دليلا أرجح مما رآه حتى لم يعملوا به، ولهذا قال العلامة قاسم في حق شيخه خاتمة المحققين الكمال بن الهمام: لا يعمل بأبحاث شيخنا التي تخالف المذهب، وقال في تصحيحه على القدوري: قال الإمام العلامة الحسن بن منصور بن محمود الأوزجندي المعروف بقاضي خان في كتاب الفتاوى: فصل في رسم المفتي، المفتي في زماننا من أصحابنا إذا استفتي في مسألة، إن كانت مروية عن أصحابنا فى الروايات الظاهرة بلا خلاف بينهم فإنه يميل إليه ولا يخالفهم برأيه وإن كان مجتهدا متقنا، لأن الظاهر أن يكون الحق مع أصحابنا لا يعدوهم، واجتهاده لا يبلغ اجتهادهم، ولا ينظر إلى قول من خالفهم، ولا تقبل حجته أيضا، لأنهم عرفوا الأدلة، وميزوا بين ما صح وثبت وبين ضده إلخ، ثم نقل نحوه عن شرح برهان الأئمة على أدب القاضي للخصاف (شرح عقود رسم المفتي، ص٣٥
Madani went against the practice of traditional Hanafis by doing extra congregational Qiyam in Ramadan, and many of his students have followed *his* practice
This is famous as one of Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī’s “tafarrudāt” (isolated opinions). His view was refuted in detail by Mufti Taqi Usmani (Fiqhī Maqālāt, 2:40-56) Tarāwīḥ is an exception to the prohibition of nafl congregation. In some books, Tarāwīḥ is referred to as “qiyām Ramaḍān”, which Mawlānā Madanī mistook to mean any nafl congregation in the night of Ramaḍān. Mufti Taqi Usmani showed from a number of clear passages from the fuqahā’ that his understanding was incorrect. If this was in fact an “ijtihādī preference” of Mawlānā Madanī, why was his opinion countered by reference to the Ḥanafī texts and not the evidences of Sharī‘ah?
Qasim bin Qutlubgha is also the proponent of many Usul in Ifta that are questionable. He proposed the المرجوح كالمعدوم axiom, which gave rise to later rigidity upon one opinion within the Madhhab to the exclusion of others.
This was not an axiom that Imām Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā made up, but is based on the consensus of the fuqahā’ that when there are conflicting views one must exercise tarjīḥ and act on the rājiḥ, while discarding the marjūḥ. Ibn ‘Ābidīn quotes alongside this statement of Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā a number of other statements from the earlier fuqahā’ that support it.
قال في زوائد الروضة: إنه لا يجوز للمفتي والعامل أن يفتي أو يعمل بما شاء من القولين أو الوجهين من غير نظر، وهذا لا خلاف فيه، وسبقه إلى حكاية الإجماع فيهما ابن الصلاح (شرح عقود رسم المفتي، مكتبة البشرى، ص٨
coincidentally, this has a flavour of contemporary Salafi attitudes of casting away weak Hadith as fabrications; since when did non-preferred opinions get cast aside as absolutely “non-existent” ones?
Imām Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā did not say they are non-existent or completely rejected, but that they are to be treated as such by the one who views another view as rājiḥ.
would al-Tahawi’s view of one-shadow length be considered inside the Hanafi Madhhab or outside it? The so-called ‘mufta bihi’ according to (most) Sub-Continent scholars is two-shadow lengths so where does that leave al-Tahawi’s view?
This is one of the issues in which there is conflict within the madhhab. The view that ‘Asr starts at one-shadow length is the view of Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad as mentioned in the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah and also one view from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself as transmitted by al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād; the famous view of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, however, as mentioned in the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, is that it starts at two-shadow length. Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī quotes both views from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and favours one-shadow length. His preference was recorded in later Ḥanafī works. Both views have been referred to as “muftā bihī.”
One of the most famous fuqahā’ of the subcontinent, Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī, does not give a clear verdict on which he believes is the stronger view in the madhhab. Caution obviously dictates that Ẓuhr is prayed before one-shadow length and ‘Asr after two-shadow lengths, and this has been reported from one of the earlier jurists, Shaykh al-Islām Khāhar Zādah.
I have obtained snippets of this Risalah from third-party texts. If anyone gets to Kuwait before me, here it is: library.kuniv.edu.kw/manuscr... - the entire 37 lines of it, upon which supposedly the entire structure of Hanafi Taqlid Shakhsi now rests upon”
The obligation of limiting one’s taqlīd to a single madhhab (in the Ḥanafī madhhab) does not rest upon the view of Ibrāhīm Bīrī, but on those he quotes and others, like Fakhr al-Quḍāt al-Arsābandī (d. 512), Abu al-‘Abbās al-Nāṭifī (d. 446), al-Asrūshanī (d. 632), Fakhr al-Dīn (d. 570), Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d. 430), Ẓahīr al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d. 506) and Burhān al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d. 593). Their statements are already available.
Also note that Birizadah was the one who forbade raising the finger in Tashahhud because it was not in Zahir 'l-Riwayah
He felt fatwā should be given on the view that the finger should not be raised in tashahhud (وهذا الذي ينبغي التعويل عليه فى الحكم), and claimed this is what is found in Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah. The Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, in fact, does not say this. It just doesn't mention raising the finger.
Raising the finger in tashahhud has in fact been narrated from all three of the imāms outside of the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, as Bīrī himself acknowledged. This is why Ibn al-Humām (who is acknowledged as being from the mujtahids in the madhhab) said: “The view of not raising the finger is against transmission [from the imāms].” And Najm al-Dīn al-Zāhidī (d. 658 H) said: “Since the transmissions from all our founders [Abū Ḥanīfah, Muḥammad and Abū Yūsuf] are in agreement on it being sunnah, and also from the Kufans and the Madinans, and the reports and narrations are very many, practising on it is superior.” Shams al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 788 H) even said fatwā is on the position of raising the finger in tasahhaud in his work Durar al-Biḥār. Bīrī’s mistake (in imitation of some who came before him) was to treat the omission in Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah as outright negation, which is incorrect.