[derty]

I'm pretty confident that there are no scholars here. They are waaay too busy to hang around in forums. You might possibly get pseudo-scholars in disguise and you accepting their opinion will be in your hands. Thought I'd let you know akhi. Be careful okay?

for you advice. I'll be on the lookout

[RafaelYV]

I would like to ask the scholars and knowledgable brothers here whether the following four statements are correct regarding the Shafi'i Madhab on the issue of trimming/shaving the beard:

1) Other than solitary opinions, the ruling for shaving is the same as that for trimming.

It seems there is no distinction between shaving and trimming in the Shafi'i madhab. According to the Shafi'i fuqaha, hadiths such as the one regarding Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) trimming to a fistful, are inadmissible as evidence to override the command to lengthen the beard. These Hadiths were deemed too weak to be used as a concession to the command to grow unrestrictedly. Imam Ghazali's use of such Hadith was refuted by the major Shafi'i fuqaha.

2) The ruling by the majority of fuqaha before and after Imam Nawawi was that the command to lengthen the beard is of the wujoob category, in agreement with the other three Madhabs.

From: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414

"The majority of scholars have understood the above-mentioned hadiths—all of which command Muslims to grow full beards—in their immediately obvious sense, coming to the conclusion that it is unlawful to completely shave the beard. This position has been transmitted from the imam of our school, Imam Shafi`i (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him), and a number of Shafi`i scholars—both early and late—have adopted it as their preferred position. Among the early Shafi`is who held this position are the two great imams, Qaffal al-Shashi and Abu `Abdullah al-Halimi. Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

3) There were scholars after Imam Nawawi who adopted taqleed of Imam Shafi'i and the early fuqaha rather than Imam Nawawi on this issue.

"...Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

4) Imam Nawawi's ruling regarding shaving is Makruh, but his ruling regarding plucking a few grey hairs is Haram.

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0297.aspx

Continuing from the above, I have had a number of questions regarding the judgement that the command to lengthen the beard is "merely recommended":

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414
"...the two great verifying scholars of the Shafi`i school, Imam Abul Qasim al-Rafi`i and Imam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi—in accordance with the position of Imam Ghazali—have ruled that to keep a full beard is merely recommended"

If Imam Nawawi and Imam Abul Qasim al-Rafi'i gave tarjeeh to a particular Ijtihad, which Mujtahids prior to them, other than Imam Ghazali, made such an Ijtihad?

If it is their own Ijtihad, what Daleel did they produce to override the Ijtihad of Imam Shafi'i, a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and the fuqaha of the Shafi'i Madhab, the majority of whom seem to have agreed that the command to lengthen the beard is Wajib?

In the five centuries prior to Imam Ghazali what was the Mu'tamad ruling of the Madhab?

[Attaniuri]

Sidi SeekerOfGuidance,

1) Yes, the mu´tamad is that the hukm for trimming is the same as for shaving. It is disliked to take anything from the beard except for Hajj and Umrah, where there is no dislike to trim, and it is better that it not be done shorter than one fist length. So Shafi´i Fuqaha have made a concession, even if not purely based on the narration of Ibn ´Umar (ra). There is also a (very) weak Hadith in regards to the Prophet (sallallahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) trimming his mubarak beard.

2) What gave you the impression that the majority disagreed with Imam Nawawi?
You provided a quote where a few ´ulama are mentioned, for the sake of showing that some disagreed with the Imam. That does not mean that there are not more who agreed with Nawawi.

3) Yes, there were those who disagreed, which is natural. However, most settled on the relied-upon (mu´tamad) opinion being that which was brought forth by Nawawi as such. I want to add a point, which is that the mu´tamad is not necessarily always the same as Imam Nawawi's personal preferences or opinions (ikhtiyarat), which sometimes differ from the mu´tamad. It is a common misunderstanding that the "opinion" of Nawawi is the mu´tamad; this is not correct. He sometimes disagrees with the mu´tamad based on other evidences etc. Rather his Minhaj is based on the book of Imam Rafi´i, who based his book on Imam Ghazali's.


Edit: I had not read your last post. Again, the tarjih of Nawawi in terms of what is the madhhab is not necessarily in regards to strength of evidence, but what represents the reliable madhhab. It is therefore argued that Shafi´i did not rule it to be haram, rather makruh.

And Allah knows best.

[merloermfgj]

Becareful what you imply towards the beloved scholars for they are the messengers of the messenger. They are among those who fear Allah the most according to an interpretation of an ayat and they are those who allow us to still live islam in times of corruption. Maybe you haven't met real scholars, because they are the most open and gentle people I've ever met.

Well after pondering what you said, I haven't implied anything, I merely stated what I experienced... And I have met a wide variety of scholars, sufi, salafi, deobandi etc.... And I have experienced the same with all.... And not all of them are open and gentle.... And that is a fact....

[klnbgqr]

Well after pondering what you said, I haven't implied anything, I merely stated what I experienced... And I have met a wide variety of scholars, sufi, salafi, deobandi etc.... And I have experienced the same with all.... And not all of them are open and gentle.... And that is a fact....

Balaghal ulaabi kamaalihi
Kashafaddujabi jamaalihi
Hasunat jami'oo khisaalihi
Sallu alayihi wa aalihi

He reached the heights because of his perfection
He removed the darkness because of his shining
All of his attributes are so beautiful
May peace by upon him and his progeny

If you remember the event from the days of Half-ul-Fazool.
Beloved Prophet(PBUH) was in his prayers in the courtyard of Holy Ka'aba.
A stranger came to the people of Makkah for justice because one of the members of H-u-F had wronged him.
Some one thought of pulling a fast one on beloved Prophet (PBUH) - he too was part of H-u-F.
He said that go to that man (pointing to beloved Prophet(PBUH)) - he'll get you justice.
This was a deliberate joke because the wrong doer was a tough person and beloved Prophet(PBUH) was known to be genteel.
The man nevertheless approached beloved Prophet(PBUH) and narrated his grievance.
Beloved Prophet(PBUH) went to the accused, accompanying the accuser, and said that as a partner to H-u-F you can not do what you have done. Give justice to this man.
And the accused did the needful.

Unfortunately I do not remember the nature of wrong doing.

Lesson?
Only Rasoolullah (PBUH) rises to the heights that you are expecting from all - even if you are talking about Scholars.

Please have some Husn-ad-dhunn for the Scholars. There have been cases where scholars have sacrificed their lives just for the purpose of stating the truth. It is not fair to expect all of them to rise to the same level.

And Allah(SWT) knows better.

[Shiplyopidomi]

Sidi SeekerOfGuidance,

2) What gave you the impression that the majority disagreed with Imam Nawawi?
You provided a quote where a few ´ulama are mentioned, for the sake of showing that some disagreed with the Imam. That does not mean that there are not more who agreed with Nawawi.

for your answers Brother Rifai. Shaykh Amjad Rasheed stated that the majority took the command to lengthen the beard as obligatory:

From: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414

"The majority of scholars have understood the above-mentioned hadiths—all of which command Muslims to grow full beards—in their immediately obvious sense, coming to the conclusion that it is unlawful to completely shave the beard. This position has been transmitted from the imam of our school, Imam Shafi`i (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him), and a number of Shafi`i scholars—both early and late—have adopted it as their preferred position. Among the early Shafi`is who held this position are the two great imams, Qaffal al-Shashi and Abu `Abdullah al-Halimi. Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

[Enrobrorb]

for your answers Brother Rifai. Shaykh Amjad Rasheed stated that the majority took the command to lengthen the beard as obligatory:

From: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414

"The majority of scholars have understood the above-mentioned hadiths—all of which command Muslims to grow full beards—in their immediately obvious sense, coming to the conclusion that it is unlawful to completely shave the beard. This position has been transmitted from the imam of our school, Imam Shafi`i (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him), and a number of Shafi`i scholars—both early and late—have adopted it as their preferred position. Among the early Shafi`is who held this position are the two great imams, Qaffal al-Shashi and Abu `Abdullah al-Halimi. Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

I am not sure if by majority he (and may Allah preserve him) means of the Shafi´is or in general. Even if it is the majority of the Shafi´is, as you know it is not on top of the list for determining the mu´tamad of the school, as it is naturally not about numbers. It would be interesting to look into whether they made a distinction between trimming and shaving. But there is doubt whether Imam ash-Shafi´i (rah) considered it makruh or haram, as some of the ´ulama of the school mentioned.

wa'Allahu a´lam.

[9V42h1eT]

Sidi SeekerOfGuidance,

1) Yes, the mu´tamad is that the hukm for trimming is the same as for shaving.

Was this hukm derived from the following 'usul' expounded here by Shaykh al-Akiti:

http://www.livingislam.org/maa/mmsb_e.html

"Given that the Shafi’i school has the most lenient fiqhi position regarding the beard (in that it is not Haram to shave it off, even completely (but like leaving the khuff, above, it becomes Haram when one does this, intending to go against the Prophetic Example or thinking that the sunna of the non-Muslims is superior to ours), unlike the Hanafis, for instance, that to trim the beard when it is less than the minimum is Haram), our Imams stress the ‘unconditional’ nature of the dislikedness in trimming the beard; and because of the absolute Makruh, our school does not strictly set a minimum limit for the beard. This explains why scholars like al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, consider the opinions of those setting a minimum limit for the beard (such as al-Ghazali and later on, the Mufti of Zabid, al-Ashkhar (d. 903 H/1497), who followed one of Imam al-Adhra’i's conflicting opinions, set the minimum limit of the beard to be the throat or the ‘handful’, which basically means that what grows beyond the ‘handful’ or the ‘minimum limit’, so to speak, is no longer considered Makruh to cut off [Ba 'Alawi, Bughya al-Mustarshidin, 20]) to be even more lenient than what is already a lenient position vis-a-vis the four schools of fiqh. That is why the position of the school remains that it is unconditionally Makruh to trim or shave the beard in any way. "

If I haven't misunderstood, the Shafi'i fuqaha compensated for their initial leniency by ruling that any trimming whatsoever is Makruh?

And how does one reconcile the following without interpreting the Makruh to be Tahreem:

4) Imam Nawawi's ruling regarding shaving is Makruh, but his ruling regarding plucking a few grey hairs is Haram.
[/B]
http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0297.aspx

for your clarifications.

[Unonounaple]

Sidi Seeker of Guidance,

It is important to understand the terminology used by the different fuqaha in order to ascertain what they mean. In the Shafi´i school, something may either be Haram or Makruh (Tanzihan). That which the Hanafi call Makruh Tahrimi falls within the Haram category. Hence if it was Makruh Tahrimi that was intended, it would have been called Haram in the Shafi´i school, but it was not.

I do not think that it is correct to say that the Fuqaha compensated for their leniency by not setting a limit. The fact is that the Prophet (salla'Allahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) commanded us to let our beards grow, and did not set a limit for it. Hence any sort of trimming is against the command of letting it grow. However, it was ruled to be one of recommendation and not of obligation. And there are a variety of possible reasons for this, such as the wording of the Hadith etc. The narration mentioning the Prophet (salla'Allahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) as trimming the beard is (very) weak, and therefore it cannot be used as a proof. While they may give us guidelines and insight into the application of ahadith, the actions of the Sahaba (radiya'Allahu ´anhum) are not Hujjah in themselves. While utilizing the narration of Sayyidina ´Abdallah Ibn ´Umar (radiya'Allahu ´anhu) I have seen the Hadith of the Prophet (salla'Allahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) trimming being mentioned; as if the narration of the Prophet (salla'Allahu ´alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) and the Sahaba (radiya'Allahu ´anhum) support each other.

As for Imam an-Nawawi (rahmatu'Allahi ´alayh) and the plucking of grey hairs, then I am afraid that I have not done sufficient research into this and therefore cannot give you his reasoning. But I would assume it would be relating to one of the following two scenarios:

1) The wording of the related ahadith are different; i.e. including words of recommendation and the other of obligation and so forth.
2) That they are unrelated and one having a different ´illa than the other; such as the prohibition of plucking being related to one trying to remove signs of old age, similar to the case of dying the beard black etc. Wa'Allahu a´lam.

wassalam

[egoldhyip]

The obligation on the non-Mujtahid is to follow the most qualified scholarship possible. There are absolutely no institutions that possess more qualification and rigour, and have undergone greater scrutiny and deliberation by the best minds the Ummah has ever witnessed, than the four Madhabs, the bulk of rulings of which were concluded upon by the first few generations involved in their codification. Where the four Imams might have erred, the early Mujtahids amended the ruling of the Madhab in a process that was administered by the best of generations. Spiritually and materialistically they possessed advantages for Ijtihad and Tarjeeh, which none of the Ummah will ever acquire again. By consensus they possessed the most insight into, knowledge and understanding of the Deen. They were blessed with the Suhba, guidance, and tutelage of those who had acquired Deen directly from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the Salaf. The more one studies the miraculous processes that Allah brought about in order to preserve the Deen, the more one is compelled to realise the fact that the Ijtihad adopted for the Madhab by the early Mujtahids, is practically akin to Nass for the non-Mujtahid.

The unsurpassably superior position for Ijtihad held by the four Imams, and the early Mujtahids who verified or amended the ruling of the Madhab, is further amplified by the fact that their Ijtihad was based on narrations whose chain consisted solely of the first two generations. Furthermore, many of these narrations might quite conceivably not have reached the time of Bukhari, Muslim etc. with a sanad short and reliable enough for admissibility as evidence for formulating rulings.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's statement here succintly summarises the unmatchable advantages for Ijtihad possessed by the early Mujtahids:

“If we were to believe that all the Ahadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) were confined to books, then no Alim knows all that is written in books and nor is it possible for anyone to know all. Instead, at times a person has many books with him but does not know all which it contains. In fact, those who came before the compilation of these books were much more knowledgeable than those who came afterwards. This is because many Ahadith were authentic in their time but reached us through an unknown narrator, or with a broken chain, or did not reach us at all…Their books were their hearts which contained manifold more than what is contained in these [present] books. And this is something that a person with some understanding of the matter has not the slightest doubt in." (Raf’ al-Malam, Ahtar al-Hadith al-Shareef)

The fuqaha from all Madhabs agree that Ijtihad will always continue for new developments, for changes in circumstances, and for issues in which the early Mujtahids did not deal with. However, to provide scope for giving tarjeeh to an opposing Ijtihaad of a latter day Mujtahid, who is qualitatively a relative minnow, on issues in which the early Mujtahids had already deliberated and agreed upon, is tantamount to opening the door to transform the Deen completely, and to abrogate rulings adopted through an unsurpassably superior process with those formulated by relatively deficient and embryonic processes.

All the anomalous opinions that are increasingly in vogue today, can be justified on the premise of giving tarjeeh to the Ijtihad of a latter day Mujtahid. Imam Nawawi is cited to defend the permissibility of shaving; Ibn Taymiyyah is cited to defend the ruling of three talaqs; Ibn al-Humam is cited to defend the practice of eight rakats taraweeh; Ibn al-Hajj is cited to defend new forms of tawassul/istagathah; an-Nablusi is cited to defend the building over graves; and with such a process of transformation of Deen potentially unending, the likes of al-Albani and Ahmad Raza Khan are now cited to defend many questionable rulings practised by ulama today, all of which are justifiable under the pretext of new Ijtihad being added to the Madhab, even overriding what appears to be the clear ruling of all four Madhabs for the first five centuries.

The following post mentions just a few of the questionable rulings that have gained credence amongst those who claim to authentically follow the Salaf, or our tradition:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post781163

Bearing the above in mind, I would be grateful if any scholar or Talibul Ilm can give satisfactory answers to the following questions asked in another thread, before it degenerated into a bout of name-calling and personal attacks. I request moderators to delete only those posts which aim to scuttle the purpose of this thread, rather than closing the thread completely.

Since some of the Shafi'i ulama have produced several articles for laymen and scholars alike, providing evidences and reasonings for the justification of permissibility of shaving the beard, I would like clarification from Shafi'i scholars and students of knowledge regarding some of the reasonings and 'usuls' used in justifying a ruling that appears to conflict with that of the early Mujtahids of all Madhabs. I have already asked these questions to some Shafi'i ulama, and on this forum, but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

The Mujtahids from all four Madhabs for the first five centuries seem to agree on the obligation of lengthening the beard. There appears to be consensus on this. The early Mujtahids from the Shafi'i Madhab, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Qaffal al-Shashi, Imam al-Halimi, all from or near the Salaf, agreed to this obligation.

How does an indecisive ruling from a scholar from post-5th century override the Ijtihad of the founding Mujtahids, and what appears to be the clear mu’tamad ruling and Ijma’ of all Madhabs for the first five centuries?

How does such a methodology differ to that of the modernists today who give preference to certain anomalous rulings of the post-7th century Ibn Taymiyyah, over the founding Mujtahids of the Madhab?

Even the Shafi'i ulama today concede to the fact that the majority of fuqaha, including the early Shafi'i mujtahids, took the command to lengthen the beard as obligatory:

From: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414

"The majority of scholars have understood the above-mentioned hadiths—all of which command Muslims to grow full beards—in their immediately obvious sense, coming to the conclusion that it is unlawful to completely shave the beard. This position has been transmitted from the imam of our school, Imam Shafi`i (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him), and a number of Shafi`i scholars—both early and late—have adopted it as their preferred position. Among the early Shafi`is who held this position are the two great imams, Qaffal al-Shashi and Abu `Abdullah al-Halimi. Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

Another 'usul' that demands some interest, is the reasoning that the classical Shafi'i fuqaha felt the need to compensate for their initial leniency (by equating shaving to any trimming), by ruling that any trimming whatsoever is Makruh:

http://www.livingislam.org/maa/mmsb_e.html

"Given that the Shafi’i school has the most lenient fiqhi position regarding the beard (in that it is not Haram to shave it off, even completely (but like leaving the khuff, above, it becomes Haram when one does this, intending to go against the Prophetic Example or thinking that the sunna of the non-Muslims is superior to ours), unlike the Hanafis, for instance, that to trim the beard when it is less than the minimum is Haram), our Imams stress the ‘unconditional’ nature of the dislikedness in trimming the beard; and because of the absolute Makruh, our school does not strictly set a minimum limit for the beard. This explains why scholars like al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, consider the opinions of those setting a minimum limit for the beard (such as al-Ghazali and later on, the Mufti of Zabid, al-Ashkhar (d. 903 H/1497), who followed one of Imam al-Adhra’i's conflicting opinions, set the minimum limit of the beard to be the throat or the ‘handful’, which basically means that what grows beyond the ‘handful’ or the ‘minimum limit’, so to speak, is no longer considered Makruh to cut off [Ba 'Alawi, Bughya al-Mustarshidin, 20]) to be even more lenient than what is already a lenient position vis-a-vis the four schools of fiqh. That is why the position of the school remains that it is unconditionally Makruh to trim or shave the beard in any way. "

And without interpreting Imam Nawawi's ruling that shaving is Makruh, as Tahreemi, how does one reconcile it with the fact that he categorically ruled plucking a few grey hairs as haraam?:

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0297.aspx

"Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous) by Imam Nawawi

297. Chapter: On the prohibition against plucking out white hair from the beard and head, and against a young man plucking out the hair of his beard when it first appears
1646. 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb reported from his grandfather that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not pluck out white hair. It will be the light of a Muslim on the Day of Rising." [at-Tirmidhi]
1647. 'A'isha reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Anyone who does an action which we have not commanded will be rejected." [Muslim]
Imam Nawawi's ruling of Makruh, which was unqualified, can be be easily reconciled with both the ruling of the early Mujtahids, and his own ruling on plucking a few grey hairs, by qualifying it to be Tahreemi. It'll be useful to check whether there are absolutely no occasions on which Imam Nawawi used the word Makruh without qualifying it, and it refers to a clear Tahreem."

Since the early Mujtahids, including Imam Shafi'i, used the term Makruh interchangeably with Haraam, it'll be useful to get clear quotes from other early Shafi'i scholars which clarifies definitively what was actually meant by Makruh when unqualified. What is certain though, is that the indifferent manner with which Makruh is treated by Ulama today, is in stark contrast to the treatment served by the likes of Imam Nawawi and the earlier Mujtahids. Imam Nawawi states in al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab:

فإن المكروه هو الذي ثبت فيه نهي مقضود

"For verily, makruh is that in which a purposeful prohibition is established"

and Al-Ghazali said in his masterpiece work on Shafi'i Usul, al-Mustasfa, regarding Imam Shafi'i's use of the term Makruh:

فكثيرا ما يقول الشافعي رحمه الله وأكره هذا وهو يريد التحريم

"Thus, frequently al-Shafi'i would say: 'I deem this makruh.' And he intends prohibition (tahrim)"

Imam Nawawi's ruling of Makruh for shaving, which was unqualified, can be easily reconciled with both the ruling of the early Mujtahids, and his own ruling on plucking a few grey hairs, by qualifying it to be Tahreemi.

In any case, on failing reconciliation of any ruling of the later fuqaha with that of the early Mujtahids, surely the ruling of the Salaf must take precedence?

for any clarifications

[inownsuipsy]

Dear brother, it was established multiple times in the other thread that an-Nawawi did not issue a new ruling. He gave preference to something else narrated from Imam Shafi'i. As I wrote, speaking on authority of what Maulana Taha Karaan said in his lecture on the mad'hab of Imam ash-Shafi'i:

Firstly, as far as I am aware, the Shaykhayn of the Shafi'i mad'hab's tarjih is just that - tarjih. Meaning, it is a preference for a particular position traceable to the Imam. The Shafi'i school, according to Maulana Taha Karaan (his excellent talk on the stages of development of the Shafi'i mad'hab is available on the seeker's path website, and I recommend it highly to those interested), disallowed the verdicts of even luminaries like Imam al-Muzani to be considered 'part of the mad'hab,' and as such it must be inferred that Imam Shafi'i had two positions on the matter, the latter of which was makruh. Secondly, it is not precisely respectful to refer to the opinions of great scholars like an-Nawawi as revisionist, nor do I see how terming something as makruh is permitting it, and your lionization of the early Imams, while nobly intended I am certain, is reaching a strange level.

Thirdly, a brother quoted al-Waraqat in that thread and it decisively established what makruh is in the mad'hab.

Fourthly, to refer to terming something as makruh as 'permitting' it is ridiculous.

Fifthly, if you are claiming ijmaa' on something, then it is upon you to bring forth some proof that such ijmaa' exists. Why not check Ibn al-Mundhir's book, or Ibn Hazm's book with Ibn Taymiyyah's checking, or something to that effect? It would greatly benefit us all to see such entries.

May Allah bless you and your zealous concern for the religion.

[L6RLnyfl]

The obligation on the non-Mujtahid is to follow the most qualified scholarship possible. There are absolutely no institutions that possess more qualification and rigour, and have undergone greater scrutiny and deliberation by the best minds the Ummah has ever witnessed, than the four Madhabs, the bulk of rulings of which were concluded upon by the first few generations involved in their codification. Where the four Imams might have erred, the early Mujtahids amended the ruling of the Madhab in a process that was administered by the best of generations.

Spiritually and materialistically they possessed advantages for Ijtihad and Tarjeeh, which none of the Ummah will ever acquire again. By consensus they possessed the most insight into, knowledge and understanding of the Deen. They were blessed with the Suhba, guidance, and tutelage of those who had acquired Deen directly from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the Salaf. The more one studies the miraculous processes that Allah brought about in order to preserve the Deen, the more one is compelled to realise the fact that the Ijtihad adopted for the Madhab by the early Mujtahids, is practically akin to Nass for the non-Mujtahid.

The unsurpassably superior position for Ijtihad held by the four Imams, and the early Mujtahids who verified or amended the ruling of the Madhab, is further amplified by the fact that their Ijtihad was based on narrations whose chain consisted solely of the first two generations. Furthermore, many of these narrations might quite conceivably not have reached the time of Bukhari, Muslim etc. with a sanad short and reliable enough for admissibility as evidence for formulating rulings.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's statement here succintly summarises the unmatchable advantages for Ijtihad possessed by the early Mujtahids:

“If we were to believe that all the Ahadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) were confined to books, then no Alim knows all that is written in books and nor is it possible for anyone to know all. Instead, at times a person has many books with him but does not know all which it contains. In fact, those who came before the compilation of these books were much more knowledgeable than those who came afterwards. This is because many Ahadith were authentic in their time but reached us through an unknown narrator, or with a broken chain, or did not reach us at all…Their books were their hearts which contained manifold more than what is contained in these [present] books. And this is something that a person with some understanding of the matter has not the slightest doubt in." (Raf’ al-Malam, Ahtar al-Hadith al-Shareef)

The fuqaha from all Madhabs agree that Ijtihad will always continue for new developments, for changes in circumstances, and for issues in which the early Mujtahids did not deal with. However, to provide scope for giving tarjeeh to an opposing Ijtihaad of a latter day Mujtahid, who is qualitatively a relative minnow, on issues in which the early Mujtahids had already deliberated and agreed upon, is tantamount to opening the door to transform the Deen completely, and to abrogate rulings adopted through an unsurpassably superior process with those formulated by relatively deficient and embryonic processes.

All the anomalous opinions that are increasingly in vogue today, can be justified on the premise of giving tarjeeh to the Ijtihad of a latter day Mujtahid. Imam Nawawi is cited to defend the permissibility of shaving; Ibn Taymiyyah is cited to defend the ruling of three talaqs; Ibn al-Humam is cited to defend the practice of eight rakats taraweeh; Ibn al-Hajj is cited to defend new forms of tawassul/istagathah; an-Nablusi is cited to defend the building over graves; and with such a process of transformation of Deen potentially unending, the likes of al-Albani and Ahmad Raza Khan are now cited to defend many questionable rulings practised by ulama today, all of which are justifiable under the pretext of new Ijtihad being added to the Madhab, even overriding what appears to be the clear ruling of all four Madhabs for the first five centuries.

The following post mentions just a few of the questionable rulings that have gained credence amongst those who claim to authentically follow the Salaf, or our tradition:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post781163
Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, when asked regarding those Ahadith which the early Mujtahids in the Madhabs used as proof, despite there being no sign of them in the books of Hadith, conveyed a similar point to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's statement above:

“Many of the books of Ḥadīth, in fact most of them have vanished in the Eastern lands during the era of their tribulations. Perhaps these Aḥādīth were in those books and hence, did not reach us.” (Al-Maslak al-wasaṭ ad-dāni (Q 2/Alif, makṭūṭ)

[vqIo7X2U]

In the comments section at http://www.deoband.org/2010/06/hadit...ts-boundaries/

Shaykh Abdus Shakur Brooks states regarding the fact that the positions of each Madhab are determined by what the early authorities had agreed upon:

"...the truth about positions in any school are not determined by contemporaries but rather these issues have been settled centuries about by those who opinions were agreed as sound and relied upon in the canons of the madhab.

My simple advice to those who seek the truth is

“Pay more attention to the written words of a scholar or “the reasons” behind the arguments of his speech. Today many overly attend to his “prestige amongst men” and thus throw their reasoning out the door for superficial marvel, which is far from intelligent and prone to misguidance.”

The written word has always been held in high regard amongst the scholars since the beginning of the typographic age because what a person writes is usually reflected on and well thought over before putting it to ink, and drastically scrutinized by others. So when a scholar writes he clarifies his points coherently and thus his claims and arguments are easier to assess for the truth. As for speech, we look for “the reasons” behind his argument otherwise it is easy for a person to fall into fallacies since his claims may suite ones “appetite” and steer his towards bias. When one focuses on the reasons behind the argument, then like the written word, one focuses on assessing the truth of the matter.

The problem today is people make the mistake of assuming a scholar to be correct on a single matter because of his “prestige amongst men” and so when he slips in to a grievous error all who marvel his prestige slip along with him. And that is why the Messenger of Allah said,

”Take heed from the slip of ‘a single scholar’."

For this reason (and more) when it comes to the issues of fiqh we are requested to follow the mashoor and relied upon opinions registered in the canons of the madhab, because they are the opinions that have been assessed and confirmed and stamped as sound by many of the competent authorities long before us. Our religion is safer in the hands of a community of indisputable scholars than in the hands of a single or few contemporaries whose views are contrary to what is established through chain of transmission."

[sabbixsweraco]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post795180

Interestingly, it appears the early ruling of the Shafi'i madhab, or at least that of the major early Mujtahids of the Shafi'i madhab, including giants such as al-Qaffal, is that it is necessary for the non-Mujtahid to adhere to one madhab, based on the fear that non-specific Taqleed would lead to seeking of concessions. Nearly a millenium later, when the influence of personal desires is immeasurably more rampant amongst both the scholars and the laity, such a regulatory measure is regarded as extreme:

It seems quite significant that Imam Nawawi, despite his own inclination, clearly concedes to the fact that the Ashaab (the major early Mujtahideen scholars of the Madhab) ruled on the necessity of adhering to one Madhab, as a regulatory measure to prevent the people from collecting concessions:

"The second [opinion] and Abu al-Hasan Ilkiya was assured of it is it is necessary for him [i.e. the layperson to adhere to a specific madhhab] - and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihad from the jurists and the scholars of the remaining sciences - so that one does not collect the concessions of the madhhabs; as distinguished from the first period, when the madhhabs were not codified, so [it was not possible] to collect their concessions. Based on this, it is necessary for him to select a madhhab he will do taqlid of in everything. He cannot adopt a madhhab based on whim, nor based on what he found his father upon [i.e. but must investigate which madhhab he feels is the most superior]. This is the viewpoint of the Ashaab."

And:

“Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)

He also states that the most correct opinion according to al-Qaffal is that a layperson does have a madhhab and he cannot go against it. (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

In his fatawa, Haythami re-affirms the position of the Ashaab, before going on to mention his own and Imam Nawawi's preference:

"He [Haythami] was asked: Is it obligatory after the codification of madhhabs to stick to one of them? And can one transfer from what he stuck to? He replied: That which is transmitted in Ziyadat al-Rawdah [by al-Nawawi] from the Ashab [the major early mujtahideen scholars of the madhhab] is the obligation of that."

Since, according to the hierarchy of his own books, Haythami's Tuhfat al-Muhtaj is more authoritative and takes precedence over his fatawa, perhaps the following unambiguous statement should be taken to be his final stance on this issue:

"And the claim that a layperson has no madhhab is rejected. Rather, taqlid of a recognised madhhab is necessary for him. And that [i.e. a layperson not having a madhhab] was only before the codification and establishment of the madhhabs." (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj)

The opinion of the Ashaab (the major early mujtahideen of the madhab), seems to be re-affirmed as the most correct ruling (asahh) by later scholars such as Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his Jam' al-Jawami', an important Shafi'i Usul work.

As far as I understand, the obligation of confining oneself to the rulings of the four Madhabs, of adhering to the mu'tamad/mashoor/rajih rulings of the Madhab, and of restricting oneself to just one madhab, are all regulatory (intizami) measures to ensure that the non-Mujtahid does not cause anarchy in their Deen. The anarchy is an undeniable reality if one observes the fact that those who do not abide by such restrictions, the scholars and laypeople alike, seem to adopt the most lenient positions from all the Madhabs, even resorting to the weak anomalous rulings that exist in our tradition.

I have met an increasing number of Hanafi scholars who honestly believe that both the Shafi'i opinion on the beard and the Hanbali opinion on masah over thin socks, are the strongest positions. Furthermore, it is only human nature for such scholars to believe that the Nafs played no part in their self-perceived objective judgement. In any case, regardless of the accuracy of their judgement, some would say that they are perfectly entitled to adopt the easiest opinion amongst the Madhabs. However, the soundness of their judgement is irrelevant, when it comes to the laypeople who regard the practice of such scholars as the standard to aspire towards. Knowingly or unknowingly, these scholars legitimise for countless laypeople, their practise of madhab-hopping, or of adopting marjooh and anomalous opinions.

There is an unfathomable difference between the person who accepts that he is committing a sin, and the one who is unrepentant and believes, with a clear conscious, that he is merely following a valid methodology. Since, we have been desensitized to such widespread practices of unregulated madhab-hopping, and adoption of marjooh opinions, a hypothetical example might allow a better appreciation of the kind of anarchy that is occurring.

Over ninety percent of the Ummah fail to observe their Fajr salaat on time, undeniably due to weaknesses of the Nafs. Virtually all of them, at least subconsciously, accept that they are sinful and that they should rectify themselves. However, in the absence of a regulatory measure such as Taqleed Shaksi, and in the hypothetical scenario where a Mujtahid of one of the four Madhabs ruled that it is acceptable to pray Fajr after waking up, it is very easy to imagine that the vast majority of these people would deem it unnecessary to rectify oneself, and that greater priorities exist in life. Many would be genuinely convinced that their Nafs had no part to play in their judgement that the Mujtahid who issued such a ruling is the most knowledgable in this particular issue. Many would also believe that they are entitled to follow the easiest opinion in this matter.

The correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir on this issue becomes apparent when you observe that even amongst the laymen who follow their teachings, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who shaves his beard, does masah over thin socks, listens to music, practises doubtful forms of tawassul/istagathah, discards the ijma' practise of taraweeh, treats three talaqs as one, builds over graves, or adopts any other questionable practice prevalent amongst scholars today, whilst unrepentantly believing that he is merely following a valid methodology. The Deobandi ulama do accept that the expert scholar is permitted to adopt the ruling of another Madhab, providing certain conditions are met, such as avoiding any possibility of causing confusion amongst the laymen. However, revealing such caveats to those whom it is not relevant to, would only serve to defeat the purpose of the standard ruling they issue on this matter.

The fact that the Ashaab of the Shafi'i madhab and other early fuqaha felt that there was a need for Taqleed Shaksi nearly a millenium ago, despite the relative piety of their era, further vindicates and emphasizes on the correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir in these worst of times, close to the hour, when desires are more rampant than ever before.

[lymnCymment]

for your efforts. Please can you also put the links to the original articles,if available, so that I can collect them for reference?

[Mowselelew]

for your efforts. Please can you also put the links to the original articles,if available, so that I can collect them for reference?

I've edited with links wherever I quoted scholars or articles which are accessible online.

[kenowinnumberss]

Interestingly, it appears the early ruling of the Shafi'i madhab, or at least that of the major early Mujtahids of the Shafi'i madhab, including giants such as al-Qaffal, is that it is necessary for the non-Mujtahid to adhere to one madhab, based on the fear that non-specific Taqleed would lead to seeking of concessions. Nearly a millenium later, when the influence of personal desires is immeasurably more rampant amongst both the scholars and the laity, such a regulatory measure is regarded as extreme:

It seems quite significant that Imam Nawawi, despite his own inclination, clearly concedes to the fact that the Ashaab (the major early Mujtahideen scholars of the Madhab) ruled on the necessity of adhering to one Madhab, as a regulatory measure to prevent the people from collecting concessions:

"The second [opinion] and Abu al-Hasan Ilkiya was assured of it is it is necessary for him [i.e. the layperson to adhere to a specific madhhab] - and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihad from the jurists and the scholars of the remaining sciences - so that one does not collect the concessions of the madhhabs; as distinguished from the first period, when the madhhabs were not codified, so [it was not possible] to collect their concessions. Based on this, it is necessary for him to select a madhhab he will do taqlid of in everything. He cannot adopt a madhhab based on whim, nor based on what he found his father upon [i.e. but must investigate which madhhab he feels is the most superior]. This is the viewpoint of the Ashaab."

And:

“Its reason is that if it were permissible to adhere to any madhhab one wished, it would lead to collecting the concessions of the madhhabs, in accordance with one’s desires, and opting between legalisation and illegalisation, obligation and permission, and this will lead to relinquishing the noose of moral responsibility (taklif); as distinguished from the early period, because [at that time] there were no refined madhhabs that encompassed the rulings of [all] outcomes. Based on this, it is necessary for him to make effort in opting for one madhhab he will adhere to specifically.” (al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:55)*

He also states that the most correct opinion according to al-Qaffal is that a layperson does have a madhhab and he cannot go against it. (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 1:93)

In his fatawa, Haythami re-affirms the position of the Ashaab, before going on to mention his own and Imam Nawawi's preference:

"He [Haythami] was asked: Is it obligatory after the codification of madhhabs to stick to one of them? And can one transfer from what he stuck to? He replied: That which is transmitted in Ziyadat al-Rawdah [by al-Nawawi] from the Ashab [the major early mujtahideen scholars of the madhhab] is the obligation of that."

Since, according to the hierarchy of his own books, Haythami's Tuhfat al-Muhtaj is more authoritative and takes precedence over his fatawa, perhaps the following unambiguous statement should be taken to be his final stance on this issue:

"And the claim that a layperson has no madhhab is rejected. Rather, taqlid of a recognised madhhab is necessary for him. And that [i.e. a layperson not having a madhhab] was only before the codification and establishment of the madhhabs." (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj)

The opinion of the Ashaab (the major early mujtahideen of the madhab), seems to be re-affirmed as the most correct ruling (asahh) by other later scholars such as Taj al-Din al-Subki, in his Jam' al-Jawami', an important Shafi'i Usul work.

As far as I understand, the obligation of confining oneself to the rulings of the four Madhabs, of adhering to the mu'tamad/mashoor/rajih rulings of the Madhab, and of restricting oneself to just one madhab, are all regulatory (intizami) measures to ensure that the non-Mujtahid does not cause anarchy in their Deen. The anarchy is an undeniable reality if one observes the fact that those who do not abide by such restrictions, the scholars and laypeople alike, seem to adopt the most lenient positions from all the Madhabs, even resorting to the weak anomalous rulings that exist in our tradition.*

I have met an increasing number of Hanafi scholars who honestly believe that both the Shafi'i opinion on the beard and the Hanbali opinion on masah over thin socks, are the strongest positions. Furthermore, it is only human nature for such scholars to believe that the Nafs played no part in their self-perceived objective judgement. In any case, regardless of the accuracy of their judgement, some would say that they are perfectly entitled to adopt the easiest opinion amongst the Madhabs. However, the soundness of their judgement is irrelevant, when it comes to the laypeople who regard the practice of such scholars as the standard to aspire towards. Knowingly or unknowingly, these scholars legitimise for countless laypeople, their practise of madhab-hopping, or of adopting marjooh and anomalous opinions.

There is an unfathomable difference between the person who accepts that he is committing a sin, and the one who is unrepentant and believes, with a clear conscious, that he is merely following a valid methodology. Since, we have been desensitized to such widespread practices of unregulated madhab-hopping, and adoption of marjooh opinions, a hypothetical example might allow a better appreciation of the kind of anarchy that is occurring.

Over ninety percent of the Ummah fail to observe their Fajr salaat on time, undeniably due to weaknesses of the Nafs. Virtually all of them, at least subconsciously, accept that they are sinful and that they should rectify themselves. However, in the absence of a regulatory measure such as Taqleed Shaksi, and in the hypothetical scenario where a Mujtahid of one of the four Madhabs ruled that it is acceptable to pray Fajr after waking up, it is very easy to imagine that the vast majority of these people would deem it unnecessary to rectify oneself, and that greater priorities exist in life. Many would be genuinely convinced that their Nafs had no part to play in their judgement that the Mujtahid who issued such a ruling is the most knowledgable in this particular issue. Many would also believe that they are entitled to follow the easiest opinion in this matter.

The correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir on this issue becomes apparent when you observe that even amongst the laymen who follow their teachings, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who shaves his beard, does masah over thin socks, listens to music, practises doubtful forms of tawassul/istagathah, discards the ijma' practise of taraweeh, treats three talaqs as one, builds over graves, or adopts any other questionable practice prevalent amongst scholars today, whilst unrepentantly believing that he is merely following a valid methodology. The Deobandi ulama do accept that the expert scholar is permitted to adopt the ruling of another Madhab, providing certain conditions are met, such as avoiding any possibility of causing confusion amongst the laymen. However, revealing such caveats to those whom it is not relevant to, would only serve to defeat the purpose of the standard ruling they issue on this matter.*

The fact that the Ashaab of the Shafi'i madhab and other early fuqaha felt that there was a need for Taqleed Shaksi nearly a millenium ago, despite the relative piety of their era, further vindicates and emphasizes on the correctness of the ruling of the Deobandi Akabir in these worst of times, close to the hour, when desires are more rampant than ever before. When Imam al-Nawawi quotes the 'Ashaab', he refers to the Ashaabul Wujuh, the students and grand-students of Imam Shafi'i, from around 200AH to around 500AH, who were essentially the Madhab itself. All of them were from amongst the highest ranks of Mujtahid. Examples of the Ashaab, whose biographies can be found in Tahdhibul Asma of al-Nawawi, are Abu al-Hasan al-Marwazi (d. 286), Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (d. 249), Al-Anmati (d.288), Ibn Surayj (d.248-306), Abu al-Tayyib ibn Salamah (d. 308), Ibn Harbawayh (d. 319), Abu Bakr al-Naysaburi (d. 324) and others.

As an example, Imam al-Nawawi said:

ومع هذا الذى ذكرته من كون أبى ثور من أصحاب الشافعى، وأحد تلامذته والمنتفعين به، والآخذين عنه، والناقلين كتابه وأقواله، فهو صاحب مذهب مستقل، لا يُعد تفرده وجهًا فى المذهب بخلاف أبى القاسم الأنماطى، وابن سريج، وغيرهما من أصحابنا أصحاب الوجوه، هذا هو الصحيح المشهور

"Despite this, what I mentioned, of Abu Thawr being from the companions of al-Shafi'i, and one of his students and those who derived benefit from him and took from him and transmitted his book and opinions, he is the founder of an independent madhhab, his isolated positions are not regarded as acceptable opinions within the madhhab, as opposed to Abu al-Qasim al-Anmati, Ibn Surayj and others from our companions the Ashaabul Wujuh. This is the correct and famous [view]." (Tahdhibul Asma' wa l-Lughat, 2:200-1)

As an example of their standing, here is a brief biography of the two mentioned above who make up part of the Ashaab:

Al-Anmati (d.288)
He is the great imam Abu’l-Qasim ‘Uthman b. Sa’id b. Bashar al-Anmati. He studied the madhhab under two of the greatest students of Imam al-Shafi’i, namely al-Muzani and al-Rabi’.

He was crucial in transmitting the madhhab in Baghdad, where he is known to have written books on the madhab, as well as teaching numerous renowned students, including Ibn Surayj.

Ibn Surayj (d.248-306)
He is the famous imam of the madhhab, who played an essential role in its dissemination, Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Umar b. Surayj al-Baghdadi. His grandfather, al-Surayj (d.235), was a scholar of hadith known for his piety. Ibn al-Surayj is known as Shaykh al-Madhhab and Imam al-Ashab to indicate his great renown. Indeed, after the direct disciples of Imam al-Shafi’I himself, Ibn Surayj takes the primary rank. Some even consider him greater than al-Muzani, and al-Suyuti considered him to be the mujaddid of the third century.

Ibn Surayj studied the madhhab under al-Anmati (d.288), who in turn had studied under al-Muzani and al-Rabi’, two of al-Shafi’is greatest direct disciples in Egypt. He was appointed Qadi of Shiraz early in his life, but later refused official positions.

There are some more biographies in the following link, although not all of them were regarded by Imam al-Nawawi to be amongst the Ashaab, but rather were regarded as founders of independent Madhabs, whose isolated opinions did not constitute the Shafi'i madhab:

http://islamclass.wordpress.com/2012...shafii-madhab/

I'm not sure whether al-Qaffal, another early Mujtahid from the Shafi'i madhab, was part of the Ashaab, but Imam al-Nawawi explicitly states that he held the same opinion.

[markkisil]

He was, without the shadow of a doubt, a great Imam from amongst the Ashab Al-Wujuh,

[CIAFreeAgent]

When Imam al-Nawawi quotes the 'Ashaab', he refers to the Ashaabul Wujuh, the students and grand-students of Imam Shafi'i, from around 200AH to around 500AH, who were essentially the Madhab itself. All of them were from amongst the highest ranks of Mujtahid. Examples of the Ashaab, whose biographies can be found in Tahdhibul Asma of al-Nawawi, are Abu al-Hasan al-Marwazi (d. 286), Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (d. 249), Al-Anmati (d.288), Ibn Surayj (d.248-306), Abu al-Tayyib ibn Salamah (d. 308), Ibn Harbawayh (d. 319), Abu Bakr al-Naysaburi (d. 324) and others.

As an example, Imam al-Nawawi said:

ومع هذا الذى ذكرته من كون أبى ثور من أصحاب الشافعى، وأحد تلامذته والمنتفعين به، والآخذين عنه، والناقلين كتابه وأقواله، فهو صاحب مذهب مستقل، لا يُعد تفرده وجهًا فى المذهب بخلاف أبى القاسم الأنماطى، وابن سريج، وغيرهما من أصحابنا أصحاب الوجوه، هذا هو الصحيح المشهور

"Despite this, what I mentioned, of Abu Thawr being from the companions of al-Shafi'i, and one of his students and those who derived benefit from him and took from him and transmitted his book and opinions, he is the founder of an independent madhhab, his isolated positions are not regarded as acceptable opinions within the madhhab, as opposed to Abu al-Qasim al-Anmati, Ibn Surayj and others from our companions the Ashaabul Wujuh. This is the correct and famous [view]." (Tahdhibul Asma' wa l-Lughat, 2:200-1)

As an example of their standing, here is a brief biography of the two mentioned above who make up part of the Ashaab:

Al-Anmati (d.288)
He is the great imam Abu’l-Qasim ‘Uthman b. Sa’id b. Bashar al-Anmati. He studied the madhhab under two of the greatest students of Imam al-Shafi’i, namely al-Muzani and al-Rabi’.

He was crucial in transmitting the madhhab in Baghdad, where he is known to have written books on the madhab, as well as teaching numerous renowned students, including Ibn Surayj.

Ibn Surayj (d.248-306)
He is the famous imam of the madhhab, who played an essential role in its dissemination, Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Umar b. Surayj al-Baghdadi. His grandfather, al-Surayj (d.235), was a scholar of hadith known for his piety. Ibn al-Surayj is known as Shaykh al-Madhhab and Imam al-Ashab to indicate his great renown. Indeed, after the direct disciples of Imam al-Shafi’I himself, Ibn Surayj takes the primary rank. Some even consider him greater than al-Muzani, and al-Suyuti considered him to be the mujaddid of the third century.

Ibn Surayj studied the madhhab under al-Anmati (d.288), who in turn had studied under al-Muzani and al-Rabi’, two of al-Shafi’is greatest direct disciples in Egypt. He was appointed Qadi of Shiraz early in his life, but later refused official positions.

There are some more biographies in the following link, although not all of them were regarded by Imam al-Nawawi to be amongst the Ashaab, but rather were regarded as founders of independent Madhabs, whose isolated opinions did not constitute the Shafi'i madhab:

http://islamclass.wordpress.com/2012...shafii-madhab/

I'm not sure whether al-Qaffal, another early Mujtahid from the Shafi'i madhab, was part of the Ashaab, but Imam al-Nawawi explicitly states that he held the same opinion. The fact that Imam an-Nawawi attributes the view of Taqleed Shaksi to the Ashaab as a whole without qualification, indicates that there was some degree of agreement amongst them, if not a complete consensus.

Furthermore, the fact that the early Shafi'i Mujtahids from 200AH to 500AH, whose views constituted the madhab, held such a view on Taqleed Shaksi, corroborates Shah Waliullah's claim that adherence to one Madhab became prevalent after the second century and that it was the obligation at the time. Shah Waliullah concedes to this, despite the fact that he himself appeared to have held varying views regarding Taqleed during his lifetime:

http://www.deoband.org/2012/07/gener...ing-a-madhhab/

Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Know that the people in the first and second centuries were not united on taqlid of one specified madhhab, and after the second century, there appeared amongst them adherence to the madhhabs of specific mujtahids, and those who did not rely on the madhhab of a specific mujtahid became few – and this was the obligation of that time. If you say: How is it that one thing is not obligatory at one time, but obligatory at another time, although the Shari‘ah is one? I say: The original obligation is that there are those in the ummah who are aware of the corollary rulings from their detailed evidences. The people of truth are united on this. And the prelude to an obligation is obligatory. When there are many avenues to that obligation, it is necessary to acquire any avenue from those avenues without particularisation, but when one avenue becomes specified, that one avenue itself becomes obligatory…Based on this, it should be that the result is the obligation of taqlid of a specific imam.” (al-Insaf fi Bayan Asbab al-Ikhtilaf, p. 68, 70)

Since the reasons given by the Ashaab for the necessity of adopting a specific Madhab, transcends a particular Madhab, it would seem quite strange if this viewpoint was not also held by the early Mujtahids of the other Madhabs. It'll be useful to further corroborate Shah Walilullah's claim by verifying whether there occurred a similar degree of agreement amongst the early Mutahids of the other Madhabs.

A question that naturally arises from all this is how does a regulatory measure introduced in order to prevent the people of a relatively pious and blessed era from following their desires, by the major Mujtahids of that time who constituted at least one of the major Madhabs, become discarded widely today and even become regarded as extreme by some quarters, in an era when impiety and abject slavery to desires has reached unprecedented levels?

[Sowsunese]

Imam al-Ghazali, who was not part of the Ashaab referred to by Imam an-Nawawi, answers a Maliki scholar that the laymen (and he includes himself amongst them!) must adhere to one madhab in all its rulings, even if he comes across evidences to the contrary. He mentions specifically that a Maliki is not permitted to resort to the Shafi'i madhab on a particular issue and that there is no cause for a person to go against his madhab except al-hawa (vain desire):

http://ibnrauf.wordpress.com/2012/02...rning-taqleed/

Response From al-Ghazali to Abu Bakr Ibn al-’Arabi al-Qurtubi concerning Taqleed

Epistle of Imam al-Ghazali to the Maliki faqih Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Qurtubi concerning the obligation for the ‘alim who is not a mujtahid to follow the madhhab of his Imam under all circumstances
By Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf

Al-Ghazali explained the obligation of following an imam even if he “assumes “the proof of his Imam is “weak” succinctly in a letter to Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 543), the Maliki faqih and muhaddith, who asked him if it were permissible for one who had a degree of knowledge to make ijtihaad and go against his imam if he thought his position was weak and the position of another imam was strong.
That precious letter, which is only a couple of pages long, has been reported in its entirety in Miyar al-Mu’rab, an important work of Maliki fatwa compiled by Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Wansharisi (d. 914). He told him quite frankly in that letter that we have no business doing ijtihaad since we do not have the qualifications; then since we do not have the qualifications, there can be nothing to prompt us to make ijtihaad but vain desire (hawa’). Here follows the text of the matter:

The Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi {d. 543, Fez] wrote to the Shaikh, Hujjatu ‘l-Islam, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali [d. 505] concerning [the case of] a person who was following [Imam] Malik and there is an issue (mas’alah) in which Malik holds it to be haram (prohibited); whereas, [Imam] al-Shafi’i says it is halal (lawful). May [that person follow whichever one of them he likes in this particular issue and in general may] one follow whichever imam he pleases in certain particular issues [of fiqh]?:

The Question of Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi:

What is the meaning of the ordinary people[1] following those imams rather than some of the Companions [of the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah)]? Is it permitted for a person who is following [Imam] al-Shafi’i to follow a Companion since the Companions are less likely to make any mistakes; that is confirmed by the saying of the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah): “Follow among those after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. O Allah, cause the truth to be with ‘Umar.”[2]

Furthermore, is it necessary for the ordinary person [that is, the non-mujtahid] to conform to the opinions of the imams [the Arabic term here is muqalladun which literally means “those who are followed”] even if he has a something of an ability for ijtihaad? If so, what is the proof for that?

If we permitted the people to follow a teacher and a faqih in the matter of basic religious beliefs (usul al-din) without them [that is, the common people] knowing the proofs [for what they believe][3], then what is the difference between them and those whose statement Allah reported [in His words], “We found our fathers following a certain religion [that is, idolatry] and we are following in their steps (43:22)”; reproaching them for blindly following their fathers. Elsewhere, in His Book, Allah reproached the unbelievers saying “[Do they disbelieve in Our Messenger and claim he is mad], and do they not look at the kingdom of the sky and the earth and what Allah has created [that they might reflect on the omnipotence of Allah and realize that what He says to them is true]”? (7:185) Then in the hadith [about the interrogation in the grave][4] and the punishment in the grave, it is reported that the hypocrite says [when asked by the two angels Munkar and Nakir: “Who is your Lord? What is your religion? Who is your prophet?]: “I do not know really, I heard the people saying something, so I said it too”; whereas, the believer will reply: “My Lord is Allah, and my religion is Islam, [and my prophet is Muhammad].” [Does not this hadith indicate that blind following is not sufficient?]

Is it permitted for an ‘alim [he means her the ‘alim who is a mujtahid] to follow another ‘alim who is like him, or of a higher degree than him [keep in mind that there are degrees of ijtihaad] in some question [without knowing his proof] even though he is able to verify the truth by himself by making ijtihaad in the same way that it is permissible for him to follow another ‘alim concerning the direction of the Ka’ba (the qiblah), and concerning whether or not some available water is pure and suitable for purification [for the performance of ablution, or the washing of impurity from one’s body or clothing or place of prayer] although he was able to verify that himself? Please explain all these matters to us in detail. May Allah reward you.

The Answer of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali:

It is not permitted for an ‘alim who is a muqallid [that is, he is not a mujtahid of whatever degree] to chose what is the best position [on an issue] according to his own opinion, nor that which he feels is most appropriate; rather, he must follow the opinion of his imam whose madhhab he believes to be more correct than that of others.[7] Then, he must follow that imam in every single issue of fiqh; thus it is not permissible for a Maliki [for example] to change and follow the madhhab of al-Shafi’i [on a particular issue]; however, if he feels that Shafi’s madhhab is more sound, then it is incumbent on him to follow him in every issue. However, if that is not the case [that is, he does not feel that the madhhab of al-Shafi’i, [for example,] is more sound, there is no call to oppose his own imam [and follow al-Shafi’i] except vain desire (al-hawa’).

Also, it is not permitted for the mujtahid to oppose the opinion that is the result of his ijtihaad, just as it is not permitted for the follower (muqallid) to oppose [the mujtahid] whom he is following; there is no difference [between the two; that is, between the mujtahid and the muqallid in this matter since each is bound to follow a mujtahid] except that the muqallid seeks the best [mujtahid] imam, while the mujtahid seeks the best of the two [or more] opinions.

Every Muslim has to follow what he feels is right in all matters of worship; now the muqallid achieves this by considering to be correct what his imam says because he has already come to the conclusion that the madhhab of his imam is sound. His deciding that the madhhab of his imam is sound is similar to a person’s finding a good doctor in a strange land, for he would accomplish that by hearing what the people say, or by observing to whom most of the people are going, or by hearing from one or two trusted sources [that a certain person is a good doctor] with the result that he is satisfied in his heart about the correctness of their opinion; thus, a person might here from his parents about the greatness of Malik, or of al-Shafi’i, so that he believes that and his heart is satisfied with that.[8] Then, after arriving at such a conviction, it is not permitted for him to oppose it [by doubting the correctness of the opinion of his imam in a particular issue since that involves undoing a reasonable conviction for the sake of a whim]; if he were to claim that I feel that the one whom I follow is mistaken in this particular issue, his claim is to be rejected since that is not the prerogative [that is, that is not the business] of a muqallid (one who follows) [since he is not a mujtahid he has no qualification, nor any means to verify that his imam is mistaken on that particular issue].[9]

A person’s undertaking ijtihaad in certain particular issues of fiqh [if he is not a mujtahid] is a mistake; for he thereby presumes that he knows what the imam whom he follows does not know in those issues in which he undertakes to make ijtihaad himself, and that is stupid [because a non-mujtahid is not equal to a mujtahid, nor is the non-mujtahid competent to judge when the mujtahid whom he normally follows in other matters might be wrong].

As for the question about the propriety of following [Imam] al-Shafi’i in an issue in which al-Shafi’i differed with a Companion, we are bound to believe that al-Shafi’i only did that because he knew a proof stronger than the opinion of that Companion [a hadith of the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah), for example, or the saying of another Companion more in keeping with general principles of the shari’ah], for unless we believe that, it means we are implying that al-Shafi’i did not recognize the rank of the Companions and that is impossible. This is the reason [that is, the imams opportunity to be able to know all the proofs and to see the strongest proofs] is the grounds for preferring the madhhab [that is, the school of thought, or the position] of later scholars [that is from generations of the later Followers and the Followers of the Followers] over their predecessors [from among the Companions and the early Followers] in full recognition of the superiority of the earlier generations over the later ones. The earlier generation [that is, the Companions and the early Followers] heard hadith individually [that is, they heard themselves from the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah), or from a limited number of Companions] and then they dispersed in the lands; their fatwas and their decisions differed from place to place [according to the knowledge that was available to them wherever they were]; indeed, it happened that hadith would reach them with the result that they changed their opinions in matters they had already given fatwas on and made decisions. In this early period they were not free to collect all the hadith together because they were busy in jihad and in establishing the religion; however, by the time of the Followers of the Followers, Islam had become established and the people were able to devote their energies to collecting the hadith from distant lands by undertaking long journeys. The scholars in this later period gave their decisions after surveying the sources of the law in their entirety. They did not differ with the fatwas of their predecessors except for the sake of a stronger proof. That is why we do not have a madhhab called Bakri [after Abu Bakr], or ‘Umari [after ‘Umar].

As for that taqlid which has been condemned, it is that which involves going against the proofs [in other words, it is anti-rational]. The unbelievers worshipped idols that neither comprehended nor heard, and thereby they denied the manifest proofs [that their worship was in vain]. It is opposing the dictates of reason that is condemnable.[10]

Then as long as the muqallid achieved the truth by following someone in either the area of fundamental beliefs (al-usul), or in the rules of law (al-furu’), that is satisfactory; learning the rational basis of those beliefs [or those rules] is not obligatory on every individual [rather it is an obligation on the collective body of the ummah (the nation of Islam); that is it is fard kifayah].[11]

[Finally], it is not permitted for an ‘alim [who is a mujtahid] to follow another ‘alim [who is also a mujtahid] neither in the matter of fatwa, nor in the matter of the qiblah [that is, the direction of the Ka’bah][12]; and [in the case of the qiblah] if the time for prayer is short [and one feared that by the time one finished making ijtihaad (for example, by taking bearings from the stars)], there is a difference of opinion among the authorities, and [in the opinion of al-Ghazali], there is nothing wrong with the ‘alim [who is a mujtahid] making taqlid of the ‘alim [who is a mujtahid] in the matter of the qiblah, if the time for prayer were short.

[1] He means the people who are not mujtahids as is learned from the usage of the experts in the science of the principles of fiqh and from what Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi says in other places in this letter.

[2] The first half of this hadith was reported by al-Suyuti in his al-Jami’ al-Saghir; he ascribed it to Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah and initialed it as rigorously authentic (sahih); he indicated that the Companion who reported it was Hudhaifah. Al-Munawi mentioned in his commentary that while al-Tirmidhi had graded the hadith as authentic (hasan) and while some muhaddithun found fault with the chain of narration of the hadith on the grounds of discontinuity, yet Ibn Hajr pointed out that there are corroborating hadith from other companions (shawahid) which strengthen this riwayah and authenticate it. In fact al-Suyuti mentioned after this hadith another one with similar meaning from Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud. The second half of the hadith is actually another hadith of the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah).

[3] This is the sound position of the orthodox community. It provides that if one believes that Allah is one, and that there are angels and there is a judgment and that Heaven and Hell are real simply because somebody told you so that is sufficient. However, it is most difficult to find a person who does not have some rational grounds for what he believes. Even if you were to ask the Muslim street cleaner, why he insists on the unique transcendence of Allah, he could tell you in his own awkward way. And if you asked how he knows that Hell is real, he would say because it is mentioned in the Qur’an and the Qur’an is the Book of Allah. He could give you a simple rational basis for his belief that the Qur’an is the Book of Allah.

[4] Ibn al-‘Arabi is referring to a famous hadith reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim and Abu Dawud (in the chapter Bab al-Mas’alah fi ‘l-Qabr wa ‘Adhabi ‘l-Qabr, nos. 4751, 4752);and others with different wording.

[5] يبدو لي أن هنا تحريف في العبارة وأن كلمة غير زيادة وإلا العبارة غير مناسبة لما سبق من الكلام, وكذلك فيما يأتي بعد قليل.

[6] أحمد بن يحيى الونشريسي, المعيار المعرب, 11/163-165, دار الغرب الإسلامي, بيروت, 1401هـ-1981م.

[7] Imam al-Ghazali’s statement here is based on the view that it is incumbent on us to follow the greatest, and it is not acceptable to follow the merely great; this mas’alah is referred to as taqlid al-mafdul in the presence of al-afdal; many ulama permit it. Taking the viewpoint that it is not permitted, al-Nasafi says that we should believe that our imam is right although it is possible that he is wrong [that is, on a given issue]; whereas, the imam who opposes him is wrong although it is possible that he is right. That is because we must recognize that our imam is not infallible. This matter was discussed by Ibn ‘Abidin in the introduction to his Radd al-Muhtar.

[8] Note that this is note blind following as the pseudo-Salafis pretend; rather, it is a conviction based on strong evidence; moreover, it differs in every way from the anti-rational following (taqlid) of people like the Christians and pagans, since there taqlid is against the evidence.

[9] There appears to be something wrong in the wording of the Arabic as it appears in the published text of al-Miyar al-Mu’rab, and I suspect the copyist, or typist may have made a mistake in transcription, so I have rephrased the passage slightly in order to render something more fitting with the context. The literal meaning of the passage is: “And were he to say I feel that the opinion of the one whom I followed in this particular issue is not sound in other issues, that is not the prerogative of a muqallid.”

[10] Following blindly the Christian leaders, for example, in their claim that God is three in one, and one in three, or that Jesus is the some of God, is condemnable because that is anti-rational; what they profess requires that the eternal ceased to be eternal and acquired an originated attributed; in other words they profess that God ceased to be God; and that is rationally impossible. On the other hand, our following the Prophet (on whom be grace and glory from Allah) in those matters which we are beyond our experience like the Resurrection and the Judgment is not anti-rational, because those things are not rationally impossible, the One who created the first time, can create the second, and if He can create, certainly He can judge. Rather, are following him is wisdom because Allah demonstrated his truthfulness by many types of miracles which no creature could possible perform. In the same way, our trusting in the mujtahid without understanding in many cases his proof, or even sometimes when we think that he has contradicted the proof is wisdom because we know that we are not qualified to deuce the whole corpus of the law by ourselves; whereas, the nation of Islam (al-ummah) testified that each one of the four mujtahid imams was qualified to deduce it. Thus, we are sure that the proof is with the mujtahid whether or not we know what that was, or think we know, or know that we do not know.

[11] Although taqlid is acceptable in matters of belief as it is in matters of law, it is rare that one follows another in this area without some rational proofs as I mentioned above. Furthermore, while knowing the rational proofs is not a requirement, it is highly recommended that every Muslim should acquire some rational basis for what he believes because if one does not have such a basis, his beliefs cannot be strong and they are liable to be undone by the occurrence doubt. By rational basis, we do not mean what the ulama who are specialists in the field; that is, the mutakallimun, refer to; rather, the simple, every day logic of the common Muslims, such logic as Ibrahim (on whom be peace) demonstrated when he saw the star rising and asked himself, it that could be his Lord, then when it saw it set, he realized that it could not be his Lord because his Lord could not be one who sets. Similarly, the famous verse of the Bedouin women who declared: “Tracks indicate that somebody passed by, and camel dung indicates that there is a camel about; so how should the dark night and the sky raised on high not indicate One omniscient, expertly informed”?

[12] Ijtihaad in the matter of the qiblah will only be an issue if one were in the wilderness, or at sea, or in the air and there were not any mosque there, nor any local person to ask.