DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hereiamguy** · 05-27-2012, 02:29 PM

I would not call it a hardcore bias but there is a certain trend of unacceptability. The major problem with the deobandi approach is that they have a happy picture of the four madhabs. Mostly they are under the impression that the four madhabs are on the same page and they Imams have just disagreed in a few fiqh related issues. They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. It takes a further good amount of time to absorb this fact. The usual reaction is "They have ruined the madhab of Imam Ahmad and now folks like Abu Ja'ffar Al Hanbali are going to resurrect the real Hanbali madhab".

aoa,
the unacceptability is due to the fact the some 'hanbalis' are pseudo salafis. their 'methodology' is similar to lamadhabis. they may disregard, for example, a hanbali ruling that they deem to be against a saheeh hadith. how ridiculous. the saheeh hadith means its chain is saheeh not that it is always applicable. you need to be a mujtahid to make this 'update' to the fiqh. it is the methodology that is wrong. anyone who is athari and hanbali (following the classical books such as zad al mustaqni and others, under a teacher) is acceptable. but these people are few. rest are salafis. they even follow the edited classical books of hanbali fiqh (edited again by salafi scholars). this is why it is almost impossible to follow hanbali fiqh for what it was before salafis hijacked it.
believe me, i was hanbali once, i have seen this with my own eyes.

05-27-2012, 02:29 PM	#11
hereiamguy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 537 Senior Member	I would not call it a hardcore bias but there is a certain trend of unacceptability. The major problem with the deobandi approach is that they have a happy picture of the four madhabs. Mostly they are under the impression that the four madhabs are on the same page and they Imams have just disagreed in a few fiqh related issues. They concept propagated is that all the four are Ahli sunnah wal jamaat and the Salafis are the strangers in the town. It takes a good amount of time for them to realize that Salfis are an tributary of the Hanbalis and they Hanbalis have differed in Aqeedah from the Ashartites and maturidis through out the history. It takes a further good amount of time to absorb this fact. The usual reaction is "They have ruined the madhab of Imam Ahmad and now folks like Abu Ja'ffar Al Hanbali are going to resurrect the real Hanbali madhab". aoa, the unacceptability is due to the fact the some 'hanbalis' are pseudo salafis. their 'methodology' is similar to lamadhabis. they may disregard, for example, a hanbali ruling that they deem to be against a saheeh hadith. how ridiculous. the saheeh hadith means its chain is saheeh not that it is always applicable. you need to be a mujtahid to make this 'update' to the fiqh. it is the methodology that is wrong. anyone who is athari and hanbali (following the classical books such as zad al mustaqni and others, under a teacher) is acceptable. but these people are few. rest are salafis. they even follow the edited classical books of hanbali fiqh (edited again by salafi scholars). this is why it is almost impossible to follow hanbali fiqh for what it was before salafis hijacked it. believe me, i was hanbali once, i have seen this with my own eyes.
	Quote