Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi'i, Hanbali, we've all heard of it, but what are they exactly?
In Islam, a madhhab is a school of thought. To put it simply, there are four major scholars whose religious rulings are commonly referred to by Muslims seeking knowledge.
These scholars lived way back, and at the time they were not consciously creating these schools of thought. They simply happened to be among the most knowledgeable and pious (and Allah knows best) of their time, and thus when they shared the knowledge they had gathered over a lifetime, they attracted students and followers who hung on their every word.
Eventually those students and the ones who came after wrote down the advice, rulings, and musings of these scholars, and over time the points of view ossified into the four major mathaahib (plural of mathhab). The four major scholars who lent their names to these schools of thought were Imaams Abu Hanifah, Maalik, Shafi’i, and ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them).
Nowadays, over 1400 years after the time of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), almost every Muslim identifies at least marginally with one school of thought. If you are from a certain country in Africa, you will be Maaliki, or if your country is in a certain part of Asia, you might be a Shafi'i.
Now, the controversy arises due to the fact that since these scholars were human beings, they were correct in some instances and may have erred in some instances. Some Muslims say if you grew up learning within a particular school of thought, you have to adhere to it no matter what.
Others decry this “blind following” and stress that you have to follow the evidence. If scholar “A’s” point of view is weak, then even if your entire country follows him, if you find the evidence supports scholar “B”, you have to abandon the first and follow the one who is correct.
Some say this leads to “fatwa shopping” where a person will deliberately seek out a ruling that supports his internal desire. The squabbling over schools of thought has gone on for centuries and there are some Muslims who are quite fanatical about it.
But here is a simple explanation that will insha Allah lessen the confusion a bit and give you a clearer picture.
Your “mathhab”, your school of thought, will vary depending on YOU. Imagine that you are an illiterate peasant who lives in a rural farm in Egypt. You are not educated. When you have a question about Islam, you go to the local Imaam. HE is effectively your “mathhab” because since you are not educated you have to rely on what he tells you is right or wrong.
If you are the Imaam in that little village, you can read and write and you went for higher studies at the Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia. The teachers there taught strictly according to Hanbali fiqh (the mathhab of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal) so that is all that you learned. You are simply a village Imaam without a lot of resources so you always give advice based on your mathhab because that is what you know and you don’t have internet access or further chances to study because you are a farmer also so you are usually right next to everyone in the field. So your mathhab is Hanbali because that is what you know.
Now, imagine you are a scholar at Madinah University. You are highly educated, have the latest technology and you have the best scholars in the world on speed dial. You grew up in the Hanbali fiqh, but you are not a blind follower and when someone brings you a difficult question you access all your resources to find the best answer regardless of whose school of thought it comes from. You are mainly Hanbali in your outlook, but you are also open to other points of view. This is the correct position for someone with this level of education.
In our time and in the times before us, there are and were great scholars who ascribe to Madthabs, while, in reality, they followed the evidences. Their ascription to their Madthab only came because they studied that Madthab specifically, or that it was the one that was common in their land. Thus, they have been given the ascription to the Madthab, not because they were blind followers.
So it is said about:
• Ibn Taymiyah, for example, that he was a Hanbali.
• Ibn Al-Qayyim that he was a Hanbali, too.
• Ibn Hajr that he was a Shafi'i.
• Al-Laknawee that he was a Hanafi.
• Sheikh Bin Baz and Sheikh Ibn 'Uthaymin that they were Hanbalis.
• Sheikh Al-Fawzan that he is a Hanbali.
and the reality is that they all followed the evidences.
The Manhaj of all of these great scholars is to give verdicts according to the evidence. When the evidence came to them, they followed it. If they did not have the evidence, then they would give a verdict according to their Madthabs.
The most important thing to remember is ALL the scholars of the major schools were one hundred percent united when it came to the usool or foundations of the deen, Their aqeedah and manhaj were one and the same. They only differed regarding various fiqh issues. For example, one school might say to raise your arms higher when making takbir in salah. Another might say only to raise them to chest level. Each will have some sort of proof for his point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment