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

**BuyCheapest** · 05-27-2012, 02:45 PM

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.

WS,

The main intention of this thread was not to provoke a discussion or debate. These issues have been several times discussed and i am sure that one can find a huge literature related to these issues with a few clicks. My understanding of it is that though we desire to see the things in a historic order but they almost never are. Our understandings have evolved with time relative to our social circumstances when it comes to the understanding of Islam. The madhab which you follow now has gone through the same evolution. If the texts were so much in order and the principals of Aqedah and fiqh were so universal , we would have never seen a Deobandi barelvi split as in pen both are Ashari/Maturidi Hanafis.

As far as the Aqeedah and Fiqh of the present day Salafis is concerned , it is inline with the historic Hanbali Madhab. There might be a few rulings which might be in contradiction with the classical hanbali literature like Al Mughni for example but the ruling can be justified from other works and opinions of the Hanbali scholars. Same is true for the Hanafi madhab. As a test case , you can mention any opinion of the present day Salafis related to Aqeedah and Fiqh and i will try to show you the similar opinion in the classical Hanbali texts.

05-27-2012, 02:45 PM	#13
BuyCheapest Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 625 Senior Member	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. WS, The main intention of this thread was not to provoke a discussion or debate. These issues have been several times discussed and i am sure that one can find a huge literature related to these issues with a few clicks. My understanding of it is that though we desire to see the things in a historic order but they almost never are. Our understandings have evolved with time relative to our social circumstances when it comes to the understanding of Islam. The madhab which you follow now has gone through the same evolution. If the texts were so much in order and the principals of Aqedah and fiqh were so universal , we would have never seen a Deobandi barelvi split as in pen both are Ashari/Maturidi Hanafis. As far as the Aqeedah and Fiqh of the present day Salafis is concerned , it is inline with the historic Hanbali Madhab. There might be a few rulings which might be in contradiction with the classical hanbali literature like Al Mughni for example but the ruling can be justified from other works and opinions of the Hanbali scholars. Same is true for the Hanafi madhab. As a test case , you can mention any opinion of the present day Salafis related to Aqeedah and Fiqh and i will try to show you the similar opinion in the classical Hanbali texts.
	Quote