[#[SoftAzerZx]]

I have grown up following the hanafi school and have always loved Abu Hanifa, his school and our contemporary Deoband Ulama. I am finding however, that as time passes my heart is gradually turning more and more towards the hanbali school. but of course I respect all the imams and schools.

I am considering switching but am worried about the consequences. I would class myself currently as Athari in aqida, hanafi in fiqh and I also have a deobandi shaykh in tasawuf.

please can hanafi and any hanbali brothers advice me and help me with the following issues;
hanafis
-my local masjid occasionally asks me to lead the salah in the absence of the imam. would me switching to the hanbali school create unnecessary fitna in the masjid as it is mainly hanafi?
-I do not want to lose my connection with the deoband ulama whose scholarship I love and respect. how would me following the hanbali school affect this relationship?
hanbalis
-I am concerned that a lack of hanbali scholars in the UK and not being able to speak arabic would cause me a lot of difficulty in learning the madhab.
-would me having a shaykh in tasawuf be problematic amongst the hanabilah? i.e would they consider it to be a bid'a?
-so far I have found www.ibnfarooq.com. and am aware of a few hanbalis in the west such as abu easa, musa furber. please advise how/where i could learn the basics of the madhab.

[xyupi]

I have grown up following the hanafi school and have always loved Abu Hanifa, his school and our contemporary Deoband Ulama. I am finding however, that as time passes my heart is gradually turning more and more towards the hanbali school. but of course I respect all the imams and schools.

I am considering switching but am worried about the consequences. I would class myself currently as Athari in aqida, hanafi in fiqh and I also have a deobandi shaykh in tasawuf.

please can hanafi and any hanbali brothers advice me and help me with the following issues;
hanafis
-my local masjid occasionally asks me to lead the salah in the absence of the imam. would me switching to the hanbali school create unnecessary fitna in the masjid as it is mainly hanafi?
-I do not want to lose my connection with the deoband ulama whose scholarship I love and respect. how would me following the hanbali school affect this relationship?
hanbalis
-I am concerned that a lack of hanbali scholars in the UK and not being able to speak arabic would cause me a lot of difficulty in learning the madhab.
-would me having a shaykh in tasawuf be problematic amongst the hanabilah? i.e would they consider it to be a bid'a?
-so far I have found www.ibnfarooq.com. and am aware of a few hanbalis in the west such as abu easa, musa furber. please advise how/where i could learn the basics of the madhab.

If you anticipate difficulty in learning the new madhhab, then you should not switch over.

[Kamendoriks]

If someone behaves badly towards you because you changed your madhab, then that is an act of ignorance. But the truth is we the People are full of ignorant actions, so its better that one should act in a way that we do not provoke such ignorant reactions. Maybe you should try to learn both the madhabs as much as possible before declaring that you ve switched madhabs.
Allah knows best.

[wbeachcomber]

If you have a specific reason for wanting to switch, then let us know and we could perhaps ease your anxieties.

I will tell you right now that the Hanbali movement in the West is largely a front for Salafiyyah, and you will have to eventually pick between the Ulema of Deoband and the Suadi Hanbalis. I know some may be thinking that this isn't true, but I personally know a person that lives in my city who has basically made an occupation out of luring Hanafis in the name of Tableegh and then turning them into "Hanbali" Salafis who mock and look down upon Hanafis in particular, and every other Madhab in general.

It could probably be asked, "Why Hanbali?" With all due respect to the Madhab, why would you want to choose the Madhab which has always historically been the smallest, and has yet whose scholars have probably led to the most strife within the Ummah in relative terms (I don't mean to slight the Madhab, but rather call to attention the fact that the recent interest in it must have a cause that didn't exist in the Modern day)? Of course the methodology is valid, and it is important that there be Hanbalis who are able to keep the Madhab alive and not die like many others, but in this day and age the resurgence Hanabilah has seen is not due to its own merits, but due to the calculated attacks that the scholars of the other Madhahib have been facing from scholars from certain sects. So you should really ponder upon the reasons for your attraction to the Madhab. Is it artificial or real?

In addition, there will be a lot of difficulties in learning the Madhab, as even Musa Ferber has attested to.

As for the website you have mentioned, I personally know the one who has written those articles, and would very much warn against it due to the blatant dishonesty exhibited within that website, as well as from my own personal dealings with the person.

You said you have a Shaikh, why not ask him?

[wbeachcomber]

Finally, you classes yourself as Athari, and your previous posts lead to me to believe that you mean by that the Salafi interpretation of Athari.

If that's the case, I would suggest you read this topic to learn of some of the beliefs you are ascribing to yourself, and why they are incomprehensible:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...a-Salafi-s-God

I'm not asking or advising you to become an Ashari, and in fact I feel that involving laypeople into these long-winded debates on complex aspects of doctrine is one of the largest fitnas facing our Ummah today, but I do want to make sure that you have a good understanding of what you are ascribing yourself to.

[ONLINEPHARMACYCHEAPILLS]

Finally, you classes yourself as Athari, and your previous posts lead to me to believe that you mean by that the Salafi interpretation of Athari.

If that's the case, I would suggest you read this topic to learn of some of the beliefs you are ascribing to yourself, and why they are incomprehensible:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...a-Salafi-s-God

I'm not asking or advising you to become an Ashari, and in fact I feel that involving laypeople into these long-winded debates on complex aspects of doctrine is one of the largest fitnas facing our Ummah today, but I do want to make sure that you have a good understanding of what you are ascribing yourself to.

Salaam, have you received my 2 emails (one today, the other one yesterday)?

Mukhtar

[Z1IRo4Ap]

It could probably be asked, "Why Hanbali?" With all due respect to the Madhab, why would you want to choose the Madhab which has always historically been the smallest, and has yet whose scholars have probably led to the most strife within the Ummah in relative terms (I don't mean to slight the Madhab, but rather call to attention the fact that the recent interest in it must have a cause that didn't exist in the Modern day)?

The Hanbali Madhab while may have been the smallest, is the most well grounded when it comes to the fiqh being based upon the most ahadeeth.

Secondly, who said numbers play a part in haqq?

[#[SoftAzerZx]]

If you have a specific reason for wanting to switch, then let us know and we could perhaps ease your anxieties.

I will tell you right now that the Hanbali movement in the West is largely a front for Salafiyyah, and you will have to eventually pick between the Ulema of Deoband and the Suadi Hanbalis. I know some may be thinking that this isn't true, but I personally know a person that lives in my city who has basically made an occupation out of luring Hanafis in the name of Tableegh and then turning them into "Hanbali" Salafis who mock and look down upon Hanafis in particular, and every other Madhab in general.

It could probably be asked, "Why Hanbali?" With all due respect to the Madhab, why would you want to choose the Madhab which has always historically been the smallest, and has yet whose scholars have probably led to the most strife within the Ummah in relative terms (I don't mean to slight the Madhab, but rather call to attention the fact that the recent interest in it must have a cause that didn't exist in the Modern day)? Of course the methodology is valid, and it is important that there be Hanbalis who are able to keep the Madhab alive and not die like many others, but in this day and age the resurgence Hanabilah has seen is not due to its own merits, but due to the calculated attacks that the scholars of the other Madhahib have been facing from scholars from certain sects. So you should really ponder upon the reasons for your attraction to the Madhab. Is it artificial or real?

In addition, there will be a lot of difficulties in learning the Madhab, as even Musa Ferber has attested to.

As for the website you have mentioned, I personally know the one who has written those articles, and would very much warn against it due to the blatant dishonesty exhibited within that website, as well as from my own personal dealings with the person.

You said you have a Shaikh, why not ask him?

salams

there is no specific reason for switching. a student can gradually gravitate towards a particular contemporary scholar and in the same way one can be inclined to a particular classical scholar and his school.

in response to your points about aqida and the link you provided about salafi mujassima. then that is not the path that i am on as they seem intent on delving into the howness of the attributes and expelling the asharis and maturidis from the ahla sunna and i'm not sure why exactly you think that I am on this path.
I would advise you to purchase shaykh riyadh ul haq's lectures on aqidatul tahawiya from the al kawthar academy website which will help you to appreciate that there are 3 schools of sunni aqida. this is also clarified by mufti taqi usmani http://www.deoband.org/2010/04/hadit...utes-of-allah/

I accept your points regarding the hijacking of the hanbali school and I suppose this would be the danger in switching i.e that the lack of english speaking traditional hanbalis would mean that I would have to rely on those who have not truly embraced the hanbali school.

[Pynctyncroast]

It could probably be asked, "Why Hanbali?" With all due respect to the Madhab, why would you want to choose the Madhab which has always historically been the smallest, and has yet whose scholars have probably led to the most strife within the Ummah in relative terms (I don't mean to slight the Madhab, but rather call to attention the fact that the recent interest in it must have a cause that didn't exist in the Modern day)?

Kindly stop acting as an expert on Hanbali Madhab when you don't follow it yourself. Also kindly stay away from passing rulings over other madhabs or making comparisons between the madhabs.These issues don't fall in your jurisprudence.

[angelxmagic]

Kindly stop acting as an expert on Hanbali Madhab when you don't follow it yourself. Also kindly stay away from passing rulings over other madhabs or making comparisons between the madhabs.These issues don't fall in your jurisprudence.

True:


choose the Madhab which has always historically been the smallest Numbers won't make a madhab superior.

[Pynctyncroast]

Compare your two inter-contradictory opinions

I will tell you right now that the Hanbali movement in the West is largely a front for Salafiyyah, and you will have to eventually pick between the Ulema of Deoband and the Suadi Hanbalis.

QUOTE=maneatinglizard;453431]

Why would one be prevented from studying with a Hanbali Alim that is Salafi, when the Madhab is a matter of Fiqh, and being a Salafi or not is a matter of Aqida?

Besides that, you need to realize that the great majority of Hanbali Ulema have always been Atharis, and not Asharis, and that many of them fiercely opposed the Asharis even before Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

I feel that anyone who claims that the Hanbali Madhab has died denies the history of this Ummah as much as those Salafis that reject the fact that the great majority of this Ummah has followed the Madhahib, and that Asharis and Maturidis have always outnumbered Atharis.[/QUOTE]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post453431

[gardenerextraordinaire]

I think you should ponder deeply on the quantity and quality of resources you have access to before making a choice in this regard.

You may be attracted to another Madhhab (and nothing wrong with this) only to discover after a short time that you have no one to whom ask fatawa for your situations, no teacher from whom learn the masa'il, no text-book from which gain the basic informations you need for your daily life.

[Z3s9vQZj]

As-salamu ´alaykum,
I think it would be easier for you to study the Shafi'i school, which is the closest to the Hanbali. They are the most Hadith based and rely less on other Usuli technicalities.

[dexterljohnthefinanceguy]

I think all of you are blowing this way out of proportion. Changing madhab is not changing religion, if you want to then do it, its not a thing you have to go and start making a big deal out of. Also everyone here with their madhab wars are ridiculous. If someone asks you what religion you are do you tell them 'im a hanafi sunni muslim who follows X and Y and Z but reject A and B."? no you tell them you're a muslim, and then if they ask more you say sunni.

What madhab you follow is PURELY based on which one you have better access to in terms of learning its rules, or what you were brought up following. Seriously. I am maliki because my dad is maliki and he is the best source of the rules , and because north africa is maliki, but i live in the UK which is Hanafi. Maliki fiqh is easier for me to access because i have my father, and his vast collection of books, which is easier to get to than going to the imam of the central mosque and asking for guidance.

Now advice for the brother: If hanafi fiqh is easier for you to access and you've grown up with it anyway, stay with it. Don't make it a big deal and if you want to learn about it then read it.

Madhab wars are stupid, unnecessary, and are the roots of people splitting off. End Of.

[gardenerextraordinaire]

I think all of you are blowing this way out of proportion. Changing madhab is not changing religion, if you want to then do it, its not a thing you have to go and start making a big deal out of. Also everyone here with their madhab wars are ridiculous. If someone asks you what religion you are do you tell them 'im a hanafi sunni muslim who follows X and Y and Z but reject A and B."? no you tell them you're a muslim, and then if they ask more you say sunni.

What madhab you follow is PURELY based on which one you have better access to in terms of learning its rules, or what you were brought up following. Seriously. I am maliki because my dad is maliki and he is the best source of the rules , and because north africa is maliki, but i live in the UK which is Hanafi. Maliki fiqh is easier for me to access because i have my father, and his vast collection of books, which is easier to get to than going to the imam of the central mosque and asking for guidance.

Now advice for the brother: If hanafi fiqh is easier for you to access and you've grown up with it anyway, stay with it. Don't make it a big deal and if you want to learn about it then read it.

Madhab wars are stupid, unnecessary, and are the roots of people splitting off. End Of.

Dear brother I haven't seen any "Madhhab war" in this thread; rather, all the brothers are giving him the same advice as yours: "just follow the one you whose resources you have more access to, each one of the four is perfectly valid and fine".

Some quarters are blowing out of proportion the existance of these hypothetical "Madhhab wars" to bring people out of the four Madhahib and convince them to follow "their scholars" instead so we may be influenced by this in seeing conflicts where in reality there isn't any.

[wbeachcomber]

The Hanbali Madhab while may have been the smallest, is the most well grounded when it comes to the fiqh being based upon the most ahadeeth.

Secondly, who said numbers play a part in haqq?

Your opinion.

salams

there is no specific reason for switching. a student can gradually gravitate towards a particular contemporary scholar and in the same way one can be inclined to a particular classical scholar and his school.

If there's no particular reason, why would you want to make things so hard on yourself by changing? Believe me, a lot of people aren't going to be happy, whether that is for the right reason or not. If you don't have a specific reason, then you should consider any potential fitna that may arise in your family and community, especially if you are from one of the hardcore Hanafi regions.

in response to your points about aqida and the link you provided about salafi mujassima. then that is not the path that i am on as they seem intent on delving into the howness of the attributes and expelling the asharis and maturidis from the ahla sunna and i'm not sure why exactly you think that I am on this path.

Those are the ones who make tafwid al-kayfiyyah. I thought that is what you are upon judging from your previous threads; but, if I am wrong, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding.

I would advise you to purchase shaykh riyadh ul haq's lectures on aqidatul tahawiya from the al kawthar academy website which will help you to appreciate that there are 3 schools of sunni aqida. this is also clarified by mufti taqi usmani http://www.deoband.org/2010/04/hadit...utes-of-allah/

There are definitely three schools of Aqeeda, the point is that Shaikh Riyad al-Haq is most likely not Athari, and I think at this point someone should really just ask him, as the claims have been made for years now. Now, even if he was, then he would be from among those whom the Asharis and Maturidis consider Atharis, i.e. Mafawwids who stop at the texts, and not Salafi Atharis, who make tafwid of kayfiyyah and affirm things like a shadow, hesitation, etc. for Allah .

I accept your points regarding the hijacking of the hanbali school and I suppose this would be the danger in switching i.e that the lack of english speaking traditional hanbalis would mean that I would have to rely on those who have not truly embraced the hanbali school.

I guess this would be the major danger when it comes to being Hanbali. There are a lot of people who seem to call themselves Hanbali, but basically make themselves their own Mujathid Imam. And, before anyone misunderstands me, I am not referring to all Salafi Hanbalis.

Kindly stop acting as an expert on Hanbali Madhab when you don't follow it yourself.

Kindly stop slandering the Imams of the Ummah and spreading baseless claims about them like the lie that they allow the worshiping of shoes.

Oh, and by the way, I have studied the Hanbali Madhab with a Hanbali for some time.

Also kindly stay away from passing rulings over other madhabs or making comparisons between the madhabs.These issues don't fall in your jurisprudence.

Kindly stop quoting books you've never read and passing on slanders and lies upon the Imams of the Ummah.

True:




Numbers won't make a madhab superior.

I wasn't trying to make it seem that way. The other thing I mentioned (that some Hanbalis caused great strife for Muslims) also wouldn't make the Madhab either either, otherwise Ahmad Raza Khan and others like him should have convinced everyone to leave the Hanafi Madhab . I was merely trying to bring attention to the fact that the recent popularity of the Madhab is being caused by something new.

Compare your two inter-contradictory opinions



QUOTE=maneatinglizard;453431]

Why would one be prevented from studying with a Hanbali Alim that is Salafi, when the Madhab is a matter of Fiqh, and being a Salafi or not is a matter of Aqida?

Besides that, you need to realize that the great majority of Hanbali Ulema have always been Atharis, and not Asharis, and that many of them fiercely opposed the Asharis even before Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah

I feel that anyone who claims that the Hanbali Madhab has died denies the history of this Ummah as much as those Salafis that reject the fact that the great majority of this Ummah has followed the Madhahib, and that Asharis and Maturidis have always outnumbered Atharis.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post453431[/QUOTE]

I don't really see the contradiction. I haven't now said that one can't study with Saudi Hanbalis. I guess the only thing that's really changed is that I now have trouble seeing an Ashari Hanbali being able to study with the Suadi Ulema, simply because many of them seem to force their Aqeeda opinions on everyone and everything. But there aren't many Ashari Hanbalis anyways, and they can always just study in Syria.

Oh, and even if you don't live in the West, I think you are a prime example of what I said in the first quote.

To brother al ansar, if you're still following this, then just make sure that whatever choice you make is one that has been thought out thoroughly. It may not seem like a very big thing, but you will have to relearn many things that you may have learned from your parents, teachers, or wherever else you learned the Madhab. You seem to already know of the potential pitfalls you are facing, so its probably best for you to get the advice of elders you know and trust, and then go from there (with Istikhara, of course).

[Z1IRo4Ap]

Your opinion.

.

Yes My opinion as opposed to yours.... However as they say the Proof is in the pudding, go look at the books of each madhab and see which one is most based on ahadeeth.

As for my opinion concerning "large numbers not meaning haqq" This is not only my opinion but the opinion of Allah and his messenger and the Salaf.

[EvaQWmrm]

Yes My opinion as opposed to yours.... However as they say the Proof is in the pudding, go look at the books of each madhab and see which one is most based on ahadeeth.

As for my opinion concerning "large numbers not meaning haqq" This is not only my opinion but the opinion of Allah and his messenger and the Salaf.

Go read Ila As Sunan and then tell us that this madhab or that madhab is not based on hadith; all madhab are based on the Four Sources (Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas).

[Blellurgews]

My comment could be totally out of place, but I had this feeling for a long time now: It seems like there is something "cool" about being Hanbali (in Fiqh or 'Aqidah) nowadays! And especially the Hanafi madhhab has an image of being "weak and old". Doeas anyone agree?

[Z1IRo4Ap]

Go read Ila As Sunan and then tell us that this madhab or that madhab is not based on hadith; all madhab are based on the Four Sources (Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas).

I didn't say any madhab is not based on ahadeeth, Go learn English and read what I said again.