|
Question
It is generally believed by Sunni Muslims that each one of the
four schools (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali)--all
being possible interpretations of the Shari`a--are correct and
none of them can be held as something in contradiction with the
Shari’a . But at the same time, we can see that the followers
of the Hanafi school do not depart from the Hanafi view and do
not adopt the Shafi'i or Maliki view in juristic matters. Rather,
they deem it impermissible to follow the view of another jurist
in any particular issue. How can this approach be reconciled with
the belief that all the four schools are considered correct? It
would seem that if they are all correct then there should be no
harm in the Hanafis following Shaft'i, Maliki, or Hanbali views
in some matters.
Answer of Mufti Taqi 'Uthmani
It is true that all the four schools are on the truth, and following
any one of them is permissible in order to follow the Shari'a.
However, a non-professional who lacks the ability to compare between
the arguments of each school cannot pick and mix between
different views to satisfy his personal desires. The reason for
this approach is twofold.
Allah (swt) has empathically ordered in a number of verses of
the Holy Qur'an to follow the guidance of the Shari’a, and
has made it strictly prohibited for one to follow one's desires
vis-a-vis the rules of the Shari'a. The Muslim jurists, when interpreting
the sources of the shari’a, attempt never to satisfy their
personal desires. They attempt to make their best effort to discover
the spirit of Shari'a, and they base their opinions on the force
of evidence and not merely on the search for convenience. They
do not choose an interpretation on the basis of its suitability
to their personal fancies; they choose it only on the basis of
the strength of the evidence before them.
Now,
if someone who has not studied Islamic law is allowed to choose
any juristic view without consulting the arguments pertaining
to those views, he will be at liberty to select only those views
which seem to be more fulfilling to his personal requirements.
This attitude will lead him to follow his own desires and not
the guidance--a practice totally condemned in the Holy Qur'an.
For example, Imam Abu Hanifa is of the opinion that bleeding from
any part of the body breaks the wudu', while Imam Shafi'i believes
that bleeding does not break the wudu’. On the other hand,
Imam Shafi'i says that if a man touches a woman, his wudu' stands
broken and he is obligated to make fresh wudu' before offering
prayer, while Imam Abu Hanifa insists that merely touching a woman
does not break the wudu’.
How can the practice of “pick-and-mix" be allowed?
A layman may well choose the Hanafi opinion in the matter of touching
a woman and the Shafi'i view in the matter of bleeding. Consequently,
he will deem his wudu' unbroken even when experiencing both situations
together (i.e. he has bled and happened to touch a women) even
though his wudu' stands broken now according to both Hanafi and
Shafi'i opinions.
Similarly, according to the Shafi'i view, a traveller can combine
the two prayers of Zuhr and 'Asr. However, at the same time, if
a traveller makes up his mind to stay in a town for four days,
he is no longer regarded as a traveller in the Shafi'i view. Hence,
he cannot avail himeself of the concession of shortening the prayers
[qasr] nor of combining two prayers. On the other hand, the period
of travel, according to the Hanafi view, is fourteen days, and
a person can continue to shorten his prayers as long as he does
not resolve to stay in a town for fourteen days or more.
A traveller who has entered a city to stay there for five days,
cannot combine two prayers, according to both Imam Shafi'i
and Imam Abu Hanifa. This is because, by staying for five days,
he cannot use the two concessions ofqasr and of combining two
prayers according to Imam Shafi'i, and because combining two prayers
is not allowed according to Imam Abu Hanifa. Nevertheless, the
approach of "pick and mix" still leads some people to
adopt the Shafi'i view in the matter of combining prayers and
the Hanafi view in the matter of the period of journey.
It is evident from these examples that the selection of different
views in different cases is not based on the force of arguments
leading to them, but on the facility provided by each. Obviously
this practice is tantamount to following one's desires, which
is totally prohibited by the Holy Qur'an. If such an attitude
is permitted, it will render the Shari'a a play thing in the hands
of the ignorant, and no rule of Shari'a will remain immune to
distortion. This is why the practice of "pick-and-mix"
has been condemned by all the renowned scholars of Shari'a. Imam
Ibn Taymiya, the famous hadith scholar and jurist, says in his
Fatawa:
Some people follow at one time an Imam who holds marriage invalid,
and at another time they follow an Imam who holds it valid, they
do so only to serve their individual purpose and satisfy their
desires. Such a practice is impermissible according to the consensus
of all the Imams (Fatawa Ibn Taymiya 2: 285-286).
This was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists,
who made it necessary for the common people to adopt a particular
school in its totality. If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu
Hanifa, then should adopt it in all matters and with all its details.
However, if one prefers another madhhab one should adopt that
one in full. One should not pick and mix between the different
views of the schools for one's own benefit.
The benefit of the validity of the madhbabs, according to the
jurists, is that a person can elect to follow any one of them.
But once a person has adopted a particular madhhab, then he should
not follow any, other madhhab in any matter, whether it be to
seek convenience or satisfy his personal choices, both of which
are based on his desires and not on the force of argument. Thus,
the policy of “allegiance to particular school" was
a preventive measure adopted by the jurists to preclude anarchy
in the matter of the Shari'a.
However, this policy is meant for those who cannot carry out ijtihad
themselves or cannot evaluate the arguments advanced by all the
madhhabs in support of their views. For such people, the best
approach is to follow one particular school as a credible interpretation
of the Shari'a.
Nevertheless, those equipped with the necessary qualifications
of ijtihad need not follow a particular school [madhhab]. They
can derive the rules of Shari'a directly from the original sources.
Similarly, those who are not fully qualified for the exercise
of deriving rulings [ijithad], but are so well-versed in the Islamic
disciplines that they can evaluate the different juristic views
on purely academic grounds (i.e. without being motivated by their
personal desires), are not forbidden from preferring one school
over the other in a particular matter. There are many Hanafi jurists
who, despite their allegiance to Imam Abu Hanifa, have adopted
the view of some other jurist in some juristic issues. Nevertheless,
they are considered Hanafis.
This partial departure from the view of Imam Abu Hanifa could
be based on either of the following grounds: sometimes jurists,
after an honest and comprehensive study of the relevant material,
come to the conclusion that the view of another Imam is stronger.
Jurists may also find that the view of Imam Abu Hanifa, although
based on analogy, does not conform to an authentic hadith, which
is usually due to its not having been conveyed to the Imam;
otherwise he most probably would have adopted a view in conformance
with that hadith also.
Another case in which jurists have departed from the view of their
Imam is when they have felt it a necessity for the collective
good of the Umma. These jurists would follow another Imam not
in pursuance of their personal desires, but to meet the collective
needs of the Umma and in view of the changed circumstances prevailing
in their time.
These examples are sufficient to show that the followers of a
particular school do not take their school as a substitute
for the Shari'a or as its sole version to the exclusion of every
other madhhab. Followers of a madhhab do not give any madhhab
a higher place than it actually deserves within the framework
of Sbari'a.
Before parting with this question, I would like to clarify another
point which is extremely important in this context. Some people
who have no systematic knowledge of Islamic disciplines often
become deluded by their superficial knowledge based on self-study
(in many cases, it being only through the translation of the Holy
Qur'an and hadiths). Following this kind of cursory study, they
assume themselves to be masters of Islamic learning and begin
criticizing the former Muslim jurists, this attitude is based
on ignorance and has no justification.
The extraction of juridical rules from the Holy Qur'an and Sunna
is a very meticulous process that cannot be carried out on the
basis of sketchy study. While studying a particular juristic subject,
one has to collect all the relevant material from the Qur'an and
hadiths found in the various chapters and books and undertake
a combined study of the scattered material. One must examine the
veracity of the relevant hadiths in light of the well-established
principles of the science of hadith [usul-hadith]. One must study
the historical background of the relevant verses and traditions.
In short, one has to first resolve a number of complicated issues
involved. This whole exercise requires very intensive and extensive
knowledge which is seldom found in the contemporary scholars who
have specialized themselves in the subject, let alone the common
people who have no direct access to the original sources of Shari'a.
The conclusion of the above discussion is that since all the four
schools are based on solid grounds, it is permissible for a competent
scholar to adopt another school's juristic view, if he has the
required knowledge and ability to understand the merits of each
madhhab on the basis of adequate academic research, without being
indulged in pursuing his personal desires. The people who do not
fulfil these conditions should not dare to do so, because it could
lead to anarchy in the matter of Shari'a.
Fiqh al-Imam - Key Proofs In Hanafi Fiqh
(Mufti Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf)
|
