Reply to Thread New Thread |
11-05-2011, 09:37 PM | #1 |
|
The tytle seemed to promise some in-depth analysis but unfortunately I don't have neither the knowledge nor the resources to do any.. I was just wondering about a common feature that you can notice amongst the various movements which across the 18th-19th century engaged at least up to a certain degree in the "Tajdid" of our Din, as: Shah Wali Allah al-Dihlawy & Shah Ismail Shahid (Subcontinent) Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio (Northern Nigeria) Emir Abdel Qadir (Algeria) Tariqah Sanussiyyah (Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi) (Algeria, then Lybia) And let's put also Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (Arabia) in the equation According to the limited information I have, of all of them (and I may be forgetting some of the moment) stressed the importance of Tawhid and fighted Shirk and Bid'ah; all of them called to Jihad and Islamic governance, all of them strived to reform Tasawwuf from innovations and wrong practises and deviated 'Aqaid.. but they also have in common another feature: some degree of critic towards "complete Taqlid", being instead in favour of (some degrees of?) Ijtihad. Now, I would like to ask those who have studied better their personalities and works: what's the degree of their critics? I'm almost sure they are not to the level of what claimed by al-Albani & co., nor by today's "Ahl-e-Hadith", nor they denounced the taqlid done by laymen.. Maybe their critics is similar to what - for example - Amir al-Forum, Mufti Husain Kadodia Sahab, was saying on this forum regarding the "blind following" of Ibn 'Abidin fatawa as fatwa reference, and so on? And thus, was their critic directed only to "extreme taqlid" by scholars who instead have reached some degree of Ijtihad, and for whom, thus, complete taqlid is wrong and forbidden - while they instead found the Ulama of their times just parrotting old fatawa and really "blind-following"? Please, let's not re-open here the usual taqlid vs. anti-taqlid polemics.. |
|
11-05-2011, 09:45 PM | #2 |
|
Bro Umar
Have u read Socio Political though of Shah Waliullah? It may answer ur queries, though not specific to taqleed i fear. Here u go... http://www.islamibayanaat.com/Englis...ofMuhammad.pdf |
|
11-05-2011, 09:56 PM | #3 |
|
Bro Umar I have that volume sleeping on my library shelf amongst many other who are - similarly - still waiting for me to read them.. :-D Anyway yeah, my question is pretty much focused on the issue of their opinion on Taqlid, only, even though I wouldn't mind if the brothers expand on other issues regarding these luminaries of Tajdid. After having tackled upon the point I'm asking about, obviously! :-D |
|
11-05-2011, 10:03 PM | #4 |
|
Posted by JayshAllah
Can I ask who exactly is Shah Ismail Shaheed to the Deobandis? Is he considered one of the Deobandi akabir? And what do Salafis consider him? Sorry for such a basic question. He was born on 12th of Rabi al-Awwal 1193 Hijri / 29 April 1779 in U.P India. Fathers' name was Shah Abdul Ghani Muhaddith Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) who was son of Imam Shah Waliuallah Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him). He studied under his uncle Imam Shah Abdul Aziz Delhwi (may Allah have mercy on him) as well as his uncle Shah Abdul Qadir Muhaddith Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him). He had memorized all the books that were part of the curriculum and also was hafidh of 30000 ahadith. He was Hanafi in fiqh and followed the Naqshbandi school of tasawwuf. He held few views that were contrary to the offical fatwa of Hanafi madhab like doing rafa al-yadain and this might be the reason why some ghayr muqallidins claim him to be one of them. During that time there were numerious biddahs that were considered to be part of Din. He stood up and did jihad bil-qalm against these biddahs and as a result of this certain individuals started to label him a Wahhabi. They knew that it is not possible to refute him with proofs but labelling him a Wahhabi would turn many laymen against him. After Shah Abdul Aziz declared India to be dar al-harb, he did bayat of jihad at the hands of Imam Sayyid Ahmad Shahidh (may Allah have mercy on him) and both were martyred in Balakot during a battle with Sikhs in 1831. Umar i think this is basic stuff for u. It may be useful to others visiting the thread inshaa Allah |
|
11-05-2011, 10:10 PM | #5 |
|
I don't konw any of them in details, except Shah Wali Ullah r.a.
You can read "Taqleed ki Shar'ee Hasiyat" by Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahab, in which he discussed, why the schcolar were inlcined to Quran, Hadith and retrospective study of rulings, instead of blindly following the "Fighi Mazhab". Ahle-Hadith is worst recation of blindly following of Fiqhi Mazahib. |
|
11-05-2011, 10:16 PM | #6 |
|
I don't konw any of them in details, except Shah Wali Ullah r.a. Anyway I don't have any doubt over Taqlid, nor over the fact that ghayr-muqallidin are completely wrong. The intention of starting this thread was instead to understand better the position of the personalities listed above in this regard.. |
|
11-05-2011, 10:28 PM | #7 |
|
GM aen't totally wrong,
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post567396 http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post567995 http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post567997 You can ask for English Translation, I think it has translation. I telling you that Shah Sahab r.a. did right thing regarding to Taqlid. We have been very much injured by Blind Taqleed. |
|
11-05-2011, 11:54 PM | #8 |
|
GM aen't totally wrong, Please, let's not re-open here the usual taqlid vs. anti-taqlid polemics.. |
|
11-06-2011, 02:37 AM | #9 |
|
Ok Shah wali ullah r.a is against following the mazhab without due research. He was "true" hanafi or you may say he was predecessor of current salfis or he was the essence of true deobandiat. He was not a fanatic hanafi or muqalid. * With fanatic hanafi*perspective he was out of hanafi mazhab. The true hanfi means following Quran and Hadith with the sense of salaf-e-saleheen (particularly imam Abu hanifa ra and his collaborator)* This is almost the essence of Taqi sahab's book "the legal status taqleed" or taqleed ki shar'ee hasiyat in my own words.* |
|
11-06-2011, 03:24 AM | #10 |
|
From my very limited/superficial knowledge about Shah Waliullah R.A, he somewhat saw a reconciliation between all the four mazaheb. And i think his foresight was very powerfull into this matter as he had studied for quiet sometime with ulema of different mazaheb in his time spent in Hijaz. With his vast exposure and high calibre with brilliant intellect, although in aamal he called himself hanafi, but when he writes he doesnt stick to hanafis positions only, infact he often prefers the Shafi positions. And even in Aqeeda he is known as ashari, but have praised the muhaditheen and does state in places that he prefers that taweel of sifat should not be done. But have done it in some places in Hujjatullahil Baaligha for explanation.
He holds Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymia R.A at a very high and lofty position, and sort of sided with him in some stances when it comes to Ilm eKalam. I think in the end he understood where everyone is comming from, what everyone intended, where there were miscommunication, and how ulema e haq with all their differences, land on the same page. Also, alot of people ask what was his tajdid, so basically, his tajdid was that he explained the whole deen with the logic and wisdom behind Allah's command, because what was happening in his time and the time to come was that he realized that people are asking questions based on intellect , and the attitude is changing, so he wrote Hujatullahil Baaligha which explained the Deen, not by simply stating the Ahkam, but by explaining the whole background scene, the logic and wisdom and the effects of our actions. And such explanation were all given from the quran and Hadeeth. And this results in the iman getting more stronger. Similarly, he explains the crux and jist of Tasawuff, and exactly tells what this science is about,and then the wisdom behind the Azkars. He provides a very clear understanding of the Deen , rather than just stating the Ahkam of deen. So overall, he was just brilliant, and a man who understood his deen and taught people a crystal clear deen, and through his explanations Iman on Quran and Sunnah become strong and was revived in the form of his Sons and students who affected the whole sub-continent and beyond. |
|
11-06-2011, 05:51 AM | #11 |
|
As-Salamu ´Alaykum,
Your topic of choice is an interesting one indeed, and I wish I had the time to deal with it at the moment. As a humble student of the living Shuyukh of Tariqa Sanusiyya, there is much I would like to say. The Imam's approach to Taqlid and Ijtihad was colored by the opinions of his murshid, Sayyidi al-Qutb Ahmad bin Idris, radiya'Llahu ´anhuma. Initially even al-Imam al-Sanusy was sceptical to what seemed to be a rejection of the madhaheb. This was not true in its totality, but they were critical of the rigid text-book parroting of many of the ´ulama of their age, and felt that those equipped to do Ijtihad should do so. It was, to them, intellectual stupidity for a high ranking scholar not to apply their knowledge, and instead to blindly parrot the words of the´ulama of yesterday when one is able to do their own research. To put it bluntly, do not raise the ´ulama (of both Fiqh and Suluk) to the levels of Anbiya' (´alayhim as-salam) in practice. They received a lot of rejection from the Ottoman ´ulama for this very reason. This shows that the call for ijtihad was not a purely "Wahhabi" call, rather from "our" very won ranks. And this has always been strongly connected to the Tariqa Muhammadiyya phenomenon. This is another type of Salafism, if I may say so, that is not within the ranks of the Wahhabiyya (in both Aqidah and over-zealousness), nor is it a pro-Afghani, Abduh or Rida "Salafism". Sayyidi Ahmad bin Idris even had close ties with the Wahhabiyya in Hijaz (and he exchanged letters with Shawkani), even though he disagreed with them on both their Aqidah and their excess in combating what they saw as bid´ah. To understand their approach to Taqlid and Ijtihad, read the words of Shaykh al-Akbar ibn al-´Arabi, qaddasa'Llahu sirruh. To sum it up, in reality, following the Sahih Hadith is not "Ijtihad", for it is Taqlid of the Prophet, salla'Llahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, which goes before the taqlid of any Imam, any day. In addition, they obviously had lower requirements than some modern ´ulama in terms of who can do ijtihad, which to my limited understanding is also more in line with the books of Usul. I touched on this topic a little bit on this thread: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/arch.../t-79158.html? wa'Llahu a'lam Eid Mubarak wassalam |
|
11-06-2011, 05:59 AM | #12 |
|
As-Salamu ´Alaykum, there are quotes from people like Habib Ahmad b. Hasan al-'Attas crticizing top-ranking 'ulama for simply regurgitating quotes of al-Haytami and ar-Ramli for this very reason. |
|
11-06-2011, 06:28 AM | #13 |
|
ma sha' Allah! |
|
11-06-2011, 06:32 AM | #14 |
|
I have a superficial study of Imam Shah Wali Ullah Rahimahullah. To understand his stances and discourses , one has to keep in mind the situation in which Shah Wali Ullah Rahimahullah lived his life. His father Shah Abur Raheem was an orthodox Sufi and Shah Wali Ullah Rahimahullah saw Tasawwuf in his surroundings when he was born. His father was a Hanafi as well and those days Hanafi Madhab did not have any opposition in the Sub continent. Then the turning tide of the life of Shah Wali Ullah Rahimahullah was his visit to Hijjaz where he studied Hadeeth under some very noble Shayookh and then returned to the Indian Sub continent. His vast knowledge and vast experience started demanding him to shout for a change in the staleness that was prevalent in the Indian Subcontinent then. The political situation of Sub continent were asking him for some practical steps , he had to reconcile his Madhab with the knowledge of Hadeeth he had acquired and then he had to deal with the issues pertaining to Tasawwuf as well where he had to deal with the Ta'rudhaat of Wahdat ul Wujood and Wahdat Ul Shuhood. He had developed a great respect for Shaykh Ul Islam Rahimahullah but there was Ibn Arabi as well and if somehow he could do some Tatbeeq between these two , there was Mujadid Alif Thani as well. He had some oceans of fire to cross before reaching a reconciliation.I think Shah Wali Ullah had some clear options but taking any option was like negating the other and negating any meant the loss of the whole treasures of knowledge associated with the option being negated. Any such harsh negation could have resulted into a turmoil as well. Thats where Shah Wali Ullah Rahimahullah came up with some brilliant solutions.
He took them all and negated none. He drew some lines inbetween them very carefully and whenever necessary he trimmed the edges as well.He came up with a Tatbeeq between Wahdat ul Wujood and and Wahdat us shuhood. He expressed his love fo r Shaykh Ul Islam Rahimahullah through his practical efforts for the establishment of Shariah.His letters to Ahmad shah Abdali are evident of the fact. He is the founder of Ashaab ul Hadeeths in the Subcontinent , yet in his deep love for orthodoxy , he just got inclined towards Shafi Fiqh instead of negating the orthodoxy in his love for Hadeeths.What better evidence of his scholarship can be than the equal amount of respect and praise he receives form the Deobandis and Ahli Hadeeths till this days. If a single line could describe his Ijtihaadi efforts ,in my view it will be like "Both the religious nature and the intellectual gifts of Shah Wali Ullah were of such brilliant nature that is extinct in the Muslim world these days" |
|
11-07-2011, 09:28 PM | #15 |
|
brothers.
So, taking it from the post of Sidi Suleiman Ibn Salim: ma sha' Allah! And then, what degree of knowledge being linked to what degree of Ijtihad is possible to practice (i.e. the level of Ijtihad one can engage in according to the "amount" and width of his knowledge) being left to what each Madhhab deem possible in its classification of the various degrees of Mujtahidin and the related width of Ijtihad he they can respectively engage in (I have the impression that the different madhahib have differing categorizations, for example the Hanbali Madhhab deeming it perfectly fine -for a scholar that according the Hanafi Usul would be deemed to be a "lesser rank mujtahid"- to engage in an "higher" level of Ijtihad, while according to the Hanafi Usul the range of the Ijtihad he can exert would be more limited)? Or they criticized also the way in itself in which Ijtihad has been subdivided by the Madhahib, and its conditions (i.e. a Mujtahid mutlaq having to answer to x conditions, a Mujtahid fi-l-madhhab having to answer to y conditions, a Mujtahid fi-l-mas'alah having to answer to z conditions etc.), for example proposing for what is traditionally held to be a "lesser rank" mujtahid to engage in a higher level of Ijtihad, and thus disputing the traditional gradation of levels of Ijtihad according to this or that Madhhab? Certainly they didn't call to an "unrestrictedIjtihad" by even a "common" scholar, right? |
|
11-07-2011, 09:38 PM | #16 |
|
brothers. |
|
11-08-2011, 09:42 AM | #17 |
|
As-Salamu ´Alaykum,
Obviously the below does not paint a full picture, but I thought I would add this for now: Sayyidi Ahmad bin Idris (teacher of Sanusy) on Ijtihad: ”The nub of the matter is that knowledge means for us, ”God says...” and ”His Messenger said...”, namely nothing but the Book and the Sunna. [Risalat al-radd ´ala ahl al-ra'y] Shaykh Muhammad ´Illaysh in his fatwa against Imam al-Sanusy and those who, ”Incline towards the statement of Ahmad bin Idris in this, saying that the books of Fiqh are not free from error and that they contain many injunctions that differ from the sound Hadiths. Why should you leave the verses (of the Qur'an) and the sound Hadiths and adhere to the Imams in their independent judgement (fi 'jtihaadihim) which is liable (al-muhtamal) to error? Moreover, he (i.e either Ibn Idris or al-Sanusy) says to whoever sticks to the words of the Imams and those who imitate them, ”I say to you, 'God says...', or 'The Messenger of God said...', while they are saying 'Malik says...', or 'Abu l-Qasim says...', or 'Khalil says...'; you are opposing the words of the Lawgiver (the Prophet) who was free from error with the words of those for whom error is possible.” [Fat'h al-´ali al-Malik] Keep in mind that the second quote is from an "opponent", and is therefore not totally objective in its presentation of the views of Sayyidi Ahmad bin Idris and Sayyidi Muhammad al-Sanusy, rahimahumu'Llah. One of Sayyidi Ahmad bin Idris' Yemeni students, ´Akish, who was also a student of Shawkani, compared their approach to Hadith, deeming them to very very similar. As far as the categorization of the ´ulama and who is permitted to excercise ijtihad (restricted or unrestricted), they are differed upon and their meanings not always clear cut. wa'Llahu a'lam |
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|