“It was permissible for the imâms of the religion to
perform ijtihâd. They wrote down the documents of the conclusions they drew. If
someone follows the way concluded by his imâm instead of what a document, an
âyat or a hadîth states, or what he himself finds out suggests, he becomes a
heretic. Imâm Mâlik, Ahmad and ash-Shâfi’î said so, too.”
These three great imâms of the Ahl as-Sunna and also
al-Imâm al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim) said it for those
profound ’ulamâ’ called “mujtahid imâms.” A mujtahid had to follow the
document, an âyat karîma or a hadîth
sharîf, he came across. He cannot follow
either the ijtihâd of another mujtahid or his own. This is due to it not being
permissible to perform ijtihâd on the subjects clearly stated in an âyat karîma
or a hadîth sharîf.
Al-Hâdimî wrote: “We are not mujtahids but muqallids.
For us the muqallids, the words of those ’ulamâ’ of fiqh called mujtahids are
documents. If an âyat karîma or a hadîth sharîf that we know
seems incongruous with their words, it is necessary for us to follow not what
we understand from the âyat or the hadîth but their words; it is not
permissible to say that they did not see that document or that they saw but
could not understand it.”[1]
[1] Al-Hâdimî, Barîqa, p. 376.
The lâ-madhhabî author thinks Ibn Taimiyya and his
novice Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya are mujtahids. He obeys what they understood
of âyats and hadîths and does not like the ijtihâds of the imâms of our
religion. Whereas, as he admits above, our imâms wrote down also the âyats and
hadîths they took as documents together with the statements they concluded as
ijtihâd. This author likens Ahl as-Sunna, who obey the imâms of Islam, to
Christians and Jews who, ignoring Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Book, follow priests and
rabbis. He becomes so rude as to say that Muslims are polytheists. How nice it
would be if he would realize that he himself is in heresy because of following
the ignorant, non-mujtahid men who are unable to understand the greatness of
the ’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna.
Ibn ’Abîdîn wrote at the beginning of the subject on
tahâra: “Muqallids do not have to find and see the documents of mujtahids.” The
Wahhâbî author does not believe this, either. He quotes the hadîth ash-sharîf said onto Mu’âdh, which in fact refutes his heretical
beliefs. Because he has a good knowledge of Arabic, his native language, he
quotes many âyâts and hadîths in order to show his every word documented.
However, because he is poor in reasoning, logic and judgement, he cannot see
that the âyats and hadîths he quotes as documents for his words, in fact, bring
into light that his argument is corrupt and unsound. He also reports al-Imâm
al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ) as having said to his disciples,
“Take âyats and hadîths and ignore my statements!” Al-Imâm al-a’zam said this
to his disciples who were mujtahids, but this author supposes that it refers to
muqallids like us and like Ibn Taimiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Muhammad ’Abduh, Sayid
Qutb and Maudoodi, who should have read and learned the books of an imâm
al-madhhab and tried to attain bliss by following that imâm.
This author quotes on page 393 the âyat al-karîma, “If you invite munâfiqs to Allâhu ta’âlâ
and to His Messenger, they turn their faces away and do not come,” and likens Ahl as-Sunna to munâfiqs. He says,
“Ahl as-Sunna turn away from âyats and hadîths and
insist on following their imâms of madhhabs and thus become polytheists.”
Here, again, he calumniates the Muslims who are Ahl
as-Sunna. Because we do not believe their wrong, distorted interpretations of
âyats and hadîths, he alleges that we have deviated from the right path. We say
to him: “We do not turn away
from âyats. We disobey not them but your wrong
interpretations of them. Their meanings are not what you understand of them.
Their correct meanings were told to as-Sahâbat al-kirâm (râdî-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anhum) by our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam), and the
’ulamâ’ of Ahl as-Sunna (rahimahum-Allâhu ta’âlâ) learned them by acquiring
them from as-Sahâbat al-kiram and wrote in their books what they comprehended.
They wrote openly what was stated openly; they performed ijtihâd on ambigous
ones things wrote what they understood through ijtihâd. We have been following
what these great ’ulamâ’ understood and wrote. We do not want to be deceived
and led away from the right path by following the lâ-madhhabî’s
misinterpretations. Not we but you are the ones who have turned away from the
Book and the Sunna!”
Muhammad Hasan Jân as-Sirhindî al-Mujaddidî (rahmat-Allâhi
ta’âlâ ’alaih) wrote:
“The ah’kâm (rules, laws) of Islam were made known to
us, the ordinary Muslims, by profound scholars (’ulamâ’) and perfected pious Muslims (sâlihûn). They were muhaddithûn and mujtahids (rahimahum-Allâhu ta’âlâ). The muhaddithûn
studied the hadîths and selected the genuine ones. And the mujtahids drew rules
from âyats and hadîths. We do all our ’ibâdât and affairs in accordance with
these rules. Since we live in a age far later than that of Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) and cannot distinguish nâsikh
from mansûkh, and muhkam (with open meaning) from muawwal (with meaning not
openly understood) nasses and cannot know how actually concurrent the nasses
that seem contradictory are, whe have to follow a mujtahid. Because, there is
no way other than following a mujtahid who lived not much later than Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) and who was a profound ’âlim
possessing much taqwâ and was proficient in deducing rules and who understood
the meanings of hadîths correctly. Even Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, who is now
regarded as a great scholar by the lâ-madhhabî, wrote in his “I’lâm al-mûqi’în that is was not permissible for one who did not have
these qualities to make conclusions from the Nass, that is, the Book and the
Sunna. The book Kifâya says, ‘When an ’âmî (non-mujtahid learns ahadîth sharîf, he is not permitted to act acording to what he himself understands of
it. A meaning other than what he understands of it might have to be given to
it, or it can be mansûkh. Whereas, the fatwâs of mujtahids are not so.’ The
same is written in Taqrîr, the commentary to Tahrîr,
which, after saying, ‘It can be mansûkh,’ adds, ‘He
has to obey what the ’ulâmâ’ of fiqh said.’ Sayyid as-Samhûdî (rahimah-Allâhu
ta’âlâ), in his Al-’Iqd
al-Farîd, quoted Imâm Abu Bakr
ar-Râzî, on the authority of Ibn al-Humâm who was one of the superiors of the
Hanafî ’ulamâ’, as saying, ‘Profound ’ulamâ’ unanimously declared that
non-mujtahid Muslims should be prevented from following [directly] the
Companions of the Prophet and that they should follow the words of those
’ulamâ’ who came later and gave the explicit, codified and clear explanations.’
Muhibbullâh al-Bihârî al-Hindî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ), who passed away in
“It is seen that those who do not obey the
above-mentioned ijmâ’ of the ’ulamâ’ are heretics, because as-Sahâbat al-kirâm
(radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în) were busy with jihâd and disseminating
Islam and did not have time to write books of tafsîr and hadîth. Rasûlullâh’s (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) nûr diffused into their
blessed hearts so much so that they did not need to learn through books. Each
of them found the right way with the power of that nûr. After the best century
[the first century of Islam], there appeared disagrement in opinions and
knowledge. There appeared some inconsistent narrations (khabars) related from
as-Sahâbat al-kirâm and the Tâbi’ûn. Those who looked for the right path got
confused. Allâhu ta’âlâ, as a favour, selected the four sâlih and muttaqî
(Allah-fearing) imâms from among this blessed umma. He bestowed upon them the
superiority of drawing rules from nassas. He decreed that all Muslims would
attain salvation by following them. He ordered Muslims to follow them. This
order of Allâhu ta’âlâ is in the 58th âyat karîma of Sûrat an-Nisâ’, which
declares: ‘Oh you who
believe! Obey Allah and obey the Rasûl and
obey your Ulu ’l-amr!’ Here ‘Ulu
’l-amr’ means ‘profound scholars who have attained to the degree of mujtahid’
and these ’ulamâ’ are the well-known four [mujtahid] imâms of the four
madhhabs. The 82nd âyat of Sûrat an-Nisâ’ clearly states that the superior
people who are called Ulu ’l-amr in the above âyat are these mujtahids: ‘Ulu ’l-amr are the ’ulamâ’ who can draw
rules from nasses.’ Some said that
Ulu ’l-amr were ‘rulers’ or ‘governors.’ If they meant ‘those rulers who could
draw rules from [or perform ijtihâd based on] nasses,’ they were right. Rulers
might have been Ulu ’l-amr if they were ’ulamâ’ but not because they were
rulers! The Four Caliphs and ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-’Azîz (radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum
ajma’în) were the rulers who were also ’âlims. Ignorant, sinful or disbelieving
rulers cannot be like them, for, the Hadîth declares, ‘One should not obey the sin-provoking
words of anybody![1]
The 15th of the Sûrat Luqmân declares, ‘If they force you to attribute something, which you do not know,
as a partner to Me, do not obey this command of theirs.’ The hadîth
ash-sharîf clearly defines what ‘Ulu
’l-amr’ means: a hadîth sharîf narrated by ’Abdullâh ad-Dârimî says, ‘The ’ulamâ’ of fiqh are the Ulu ’l-amr.’ Al-Imâm as-Suyûtî quoted Ibn ’Abbâs (radî-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anhumâ) in his tafsîr book Itqân as saying, ‘The Ulû
’l-amr are the [four leading] ’ulamâ’ of fiqh and Islam.’This is also written
on page 375 of the third volume of At-tafsîr al-kabîr, on
page 124 of the second volume of Sharh al-Muslim and in
the tafsîr books Ma’âlim
at-tanzîl and Nishâpûr. These clear definitions given in âyats and in the books of hadîth and
tafsîr show not only that it is necessary to obey the mujtahids but also
clarifies that the lâ-madhhabî’s statement, ‘It is polytheism and bid’a to obey
somebody other than Allah and the Prophet,’ to be heretical and
nonsensical. On this subject, there are many other hadîths and khabars:
“1) Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) asked Mu’âdh
ibn Jabal (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) how he was going to judge when he
ordered him to go to Yemen as a judge. ‘According to Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Books,’ he
said. “What if you cannot
find [a solution] in Allah’s Book?’ asked Rasûlullâh. ‘I will look at Rasûlullâh’s sunna,’ he answered. And when asked, ‘If you
[1] Yet, rising against the law or rebellion against the State is never jâ’iz (permissible). Muslims should always support the State; if the State becomes weak, fitna and revolution occur, which are worse than the worst administration.
cannot find in Rasûlullâh’s sunna, either?’ Ma’âdh said, ‘I will do it according to what I
understand as a result of my ijtihâd.’ Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’alaihi wa sallam) put his blessed hand on Mu’âdh’s chest and said, ‘Al-hamdu li’lillâh! Allâhu ta’âlâ made His
Rasûl’s rasûl (deputy) gree with Rasûalullâh’s approval.’ At-Tirmidhî, Abu Dawûd and ad-Dârimî wrote this
hadîdth sharîf in their books. This hadîths sharîf openly indicates that ‘Ulu
’l-amr’ means ‘mujtahids’ and that Rasûlullâh is pleased with
those who obey them.
“2) A hadîth
sharîf narrated by Abu Dâwûd and Ibn Mâja
says, ‘ ’Ilm is composed of
three parts: al-Âyat al-muhkama, as-Sunnat al-qâ’ima and al-Farîdat al-’âdila!’ The great scholar of hadîth ’Abd al-Haqq ad-Dahlawî,
while exponding this hadîth
sharîf in Ashi’at al-lama’ât, his Persian commentary to Mishkât, wrote: ‘Al-Farîdat
al-’âdila is the knowledge conformable to the Book and the Sunna. It refers to
ijmâ’ and qiyâs, for, ijmâ’ and qiyâs were drawn from the Book and the Sunna.
Therefore, ijmâ’ and qiyâs were counted as equivalent and similar to the Book
and the Sunna and were called al-Farîdat al-’âdila. Thus it was ordered as a
wâjib to do one’s deeds conformable to both of them. Consequently, the meaning
of the hadîth ash-sharîf became that the sources of Islam were four, namely
the Book, the Sunna, ijmâ’ and qiyâs.’
“3) ’Umar ibn al-Khattâb (radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh)
appointed Shuraih as a qâdî and told him: ’Look at what is revealed explicitly
in the Book. Do not ask others for such matters! If you cannot find [an answer
to what you are asked] in it, resort to the Sunna of Muhammad (’alaihi
’s-salâm)! If you cannot find in it, either, perform ijtihâd and give you
answer according to how you understand.’
“4) When plaintifs came, Hadrat Abu Bakr (radî-Allâhu
ta’âlâ ’anh) used to look at Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Book and make decisions based on
what he found in it. When he could not find in it, he would answer according to
what he had heard from Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam). If he had not
heard [anything concerning the matter in question], he would ask as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm (radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în) and settle the question according
to their ijmâ’.
“5) When he was asked to judge, ’Abdullâh ibn Abbâs
(radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ) used to give the answer he would find in the Qur’ân al-karîm. When he could not find it in it, he would quote what
he had heard from Rasûlullâh. If he had not heard
anything from him, he would ask Abu Bakr or ’Umar
(radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ). When they could not give an answer, he would
decide according to his ra’y (observation, reasoning).
“Now, we shall explain that asking mujtahid scholars
means asking the four a’immat al-madhâhib. Since the time of as-Sahâbat
al-kirâm and the following centuries up to now, all Muslims have followed
(taqlîd) these four imâms. There has formed ijmâ’ on following them. The
hadîths, ‘My umma will not
have ijmâ’ (will not agree) on dalâla,’ and, ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ’s approval is in [your having] ijmâ’; he who deviates from the jamâ’a will go to Hell,’ openly indicate that this ijmâ’ is sahîh.
“The second document which proves that it is wâjib to
follow the four imâms is the 71st âyat al-karîma of Sûrat al-Isrâ: ‘On that day, We will call each group with
their leaders (imâms)!’ Qâdî
al-Baidâwî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ) wrote in interpration of this âyat karîma
that it meant ‘We will call each umma with the prophet whom they
accepted as their leader and with those whom they followed in their religion.
The same is written in Madârik. Al-Imâm al-Baghâwî, in his tafsîr Ma’âlim at-tanzîl, quoted Ibn ’Abbâs as saying, ‘They will be called
with their rulers who will have taken them to salvation or to heresy,’ and
Sa’îd ibn Musayyab as saying, ‘Each people (qawm) will gather around their
rulers who will have led them to goodness or to wickedness.’ In Tafsîr-i Husainî [and in the tafsîr Rûh al-bayân], it
is written that they will be called by [the name of] their imâm al-madhhab, for
example, ‘Oh Shâfi’î’ or ‘Oh Hanafî’ will be said. From this has been deduced
that those imâms who were kâmil and mukammil will intercede for those who
follow them. Al-Imâm ash-Sha’rânî wrote in his Al-mîzân al-kubrâ: when Shaikh al-Islâm Ibrâhîm ibn al-Lâqânî
[(rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ), a Mâlikî scholar of kalâm] passed away [in
tasawwuf will help their followers at every fearful
place, will not mujtahid imâms protect them? These [mujtahid imâms] are the
a’immat al-madhâhib. They are the guards of this umma. How furtunate you are my
brother! Follow whichever you wish of the four a’immat al-madhâhib and attain
happiness!’ As it is seen, everybody will be called by the name of his
madhhab’s imâm on the Day of Judgement. The imâm will intercede for those who
obey and follow him. All the four A’immat al-madhâhib were superior as such. In
the 15th âyat of Sûrat Luqmân, Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, ‘Follow in the footsteps of those who have
turned to Me in repentance.’ It has
been unanimously reported that the four imâms had the quality of inâba, that
is, turning to Allâhu ta’âlâ in repentance.
“The third document which proves that it is wâjib to
follow the four imâms is the 114th âyat al-karîma of Sûrat an-Nisâ’. In this
âyat karîma, Allâhu ta’âlâ declares: ‘We will drag the person who, after learning the way to guidance,
opposes the Prophet and deviates from the Believers’ path
along the direction to which he has deviated, and then We will throw him into
Hell, the terrible.’ Hadrat al-Imâm
ash-Shâfi’î was asked which âyat karîma proved that ijmâ’ was a source [for
Muslims]. To find a documentary proof, he read through the Qur’ân al-karîm three hundred times and found this âyat karîma to be
the answer. Since this âyat karîma prohibits one from deviating from the
believers’ path, it is wâjib to follow this path. The tafsîr book Madârik, after interpreting this âyat karîma, writes: ‘This âyat karîma shows
that ijmâ’ as a source, and it is not permissible to ignore ijmâ’ just as it is
not permissible to ignore the Qur’ân and the Sunna.’ And the tafsîr al-Baidâwî writes in the intrepretation of this âyat karîma:
‘This âyat shows that it is harâm to ignore ijmâ’. Because it is harâm to
deviate from the Believers’ path, it is wâjib to follow this path.’ The sulahâ’
and ’ulamâ’ of this umma said that it is wâjib to follow a madhhab and that it
is a great sin to be lâ-madhhabî. To oppose this consensus of the ’ulamâ’ means
to disobey this âyat karîma, for Allâhu ta’âlâ declared in the 110th âyat of
Sûrat âl ’Imrân: ‘You are
of that umma who is benevolent to human beings. You command [them] to do what is right. You prohibit what is wrong.’ The ’ulamâ’ of this umma said that it was very wrong
to be lâ-madhhabî and that Muslims should not be lâ-madhhâbî. Therefore, he
who, thinking that it is permissible to be lâ-madhhabî, disobeys this command
of the ’ulamâ’ will be denying this âyat karîma.
“Question: ‘Are not the Qâdiyânîs, Nitcherîs and other
lâ-madhhabî people believers? Doesn’t following them mean following the
Believers’ path?’
“Answer: The scholars of these lâ-madhhabî people say that they obey only two
of the four sources of al-adillat
ash-Shar’iyya. They refuse to accept
the other two sources, thus separating from the majority of Muslims and
dissenting from the path of
Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a. Following
them will not save one from Hell. People of the Shâ’î, Khârijî, Mu’tazila, Jabriyya and Qadariyya groups claim to
be obeying their scholars, too. We confute the lâ-madhhabî by giving them the
same answers they give to these groups.
“The fourth document proving that following a madhhab
is wâjib is the 43rd âyat al-karîma of Surât an-Nahl or the 7th âyat al-karîma
of Sûrat al-Anbiyâ’: Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, ‘If you do not know, ask the people of dhikr (ahl adh-dhikr)!’ This âyat karîma commands those who
do not know how to do their ’ibâdât and affairs to learn by asking those who
know. In the âyat al-karîma, it is commanded [1] to learn by asking, [2] to ask not anybody or the ignorant of Islam but to ask ’ulamâ’, and [3] to ask what is not known. Therefore, when one is not efficient enough to search and find a solution for one’s problem in the Qur’ân al-karîm or the Hadîth ash-sharîf, one should ask and learn from the majtahid [or from
the books written by the ’ulamâ’] of the madhhab to which one belongs. If one
asks him and acts according to what one learns from him, one will be following (taqlîd) him. If one does not ask or disobeys or denies what the mujtahid said,
one becomes a lâ-madhhabî person.
“Who are the ahl adh-dhikr’ mentioned
in the âyat al-karîma? Are they the a’immat al-madhhahib or ignorant men of
religious post? The answer is in the hadîth ash-sharîf recorded by
Ibn Mardawaih Abu Bakr Ahmad [al-Isfahânî, who passed away in
understand’; ‘Indeed the possessors of ’aql
can understand,’ and ‘Oh the possessors of ’aql! Take warning!’ indicate the superiority of the four a’immat
al-madhâhib. Those ignorant and heretical men who have not received faid from
possessors of zuhd and taqwâ and from men of Allah and who, having learned some
Arabic and Persian, give meaning to nasses, that is, âyats and hadîths, with
their narrow minds are very far from having the qualities of the a’immat
al-madhâhib. These lâ-madhhabî people are the heretics referred to in the
hadîths, ‘Those who, though
having no knowledge of tafsîr, interpret the Qur’ân al-karîm by themselves will be seated on stakes of
fire in Hell,’ and ‘The time will come when there will be left
no ’âlim of Islam and the ignorant, appointed to be religious officers, will
issue fatwâ unknowingly. They will not be on the right path and will lead
everybody off the right path.’ It is
written in the book Mishkât that Jâbir (radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh) narrated that
once one of his frieds was wounded on the head while on a journey and asked if
it was permissible to put on an amulet.[1]
He was told it was not and that he should wash his head; his friend washed his
head and he died. On arrival in Medina, everything was reported to Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam), who declared: ‘They casued his death. And may Allâhu
ta’âlâ cause their death! Why did they not ask what they did not know? The
remedy for ignorance is to learn by asking.’ While it was harshly said, ‘May Allâhu ta’âlâ cause their death!’ for those Sahâbîs who did not ask more learned ones
but gave a fatwâ by themselves, what should be said to those contemporary
people who regard themselves as men of religious authority and who, without
having read the books of the Islamic ’ulamâ’, attempt to interpret the Qur’ân al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf with their
empty heads and short sights, and thus destroy Muslims’ religion and belief? It
will be correct to call such people the ‘thieves of religion and belief.’ May
Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us from the harm of such thieves of the religion! Âmîn!
Muhammad Ibn Sîrîn [passed away in Basra in
[1] Du’â (prayer) and/or âyat or âyats from the Qur’ân al-karîm in written form.
knowledge,’ for, ’Abdullâh ibn Mas’ûd was more learned
and knew more fiqh than Abu Musâ ’l-Ash’arî (radî-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhumâ).
Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î, though he was a profound ’âlim, omitted reciting the Qunût
prayer in the morning salât and the raising of the two hands after ruku’ every
time when he performed salât near al-Imâm al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa’s grave. When the
reason was asked, he said, ‘My respect for that great imâm prevents me from
acting unconformably to his ijtihâd in his presence.’ Al-Imâm al-a’zam was such
a superior ’âlim of Islam. To understand his superiority one must be an ’âlim
like the great ’âlim al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î, who knew that al-Imâm al-a’zam was
alive in his grave and avoided acting unconformably to his madhhab.
Righteously, these great imâms (rahimahumu’llâhu ta’âlâ) were the specialists
of fiqh. They enjoyed the glad tiding expressed in this hadîth sharîf related by al-Bukhârî[1]
: ‘If Allah wants to do
favours for a man, He makes a faqîh of him.’
“In summary, the rules of Islam should be learned from
the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh or from the mujtahids of one’s madhhab. One should not
learn them from hadîths or tafsîrs. The hadîth ash-sharîf, ‘Each person has been created to do a [certain] work,’ is the document of
our words. The ’ulamâ’ of the hadîth
ash-sharîf were created to study the
hadîhs and to select the sahîh ones, and the ’ulamâ’ of tafsîr to understand
correctly and communicate the meanings in the Qur’ân al-karîm; all of
them worked hard to carry out their duties and attained their goals. And the
’ulamâ’ of fiqh were created to draw rules from the nasses of the Qur’ân al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf. These great
’ulamâ’ (rahimahum-Allâhu ta’âlâ), too, attained the zenith of knowledge and
made the job of the ignoramuses like us easier. With the help of their profound
knowledge and taqwâ, given by Allâhu ta’âlâ, they made those nasses that seemed
unconformable agree with each other and separated those muhkam from those
muawwal, those earlier from those later, and those nâsikh from those mansûkh.
Therefore, the whole of this blessed umma all over the world has united in
following these great imâms and believed that being in their footstpes was the
key to the Ah’kâm al-Islâmiyya (Rules of Islam). All ’âlims, fâdils (those
virtously superior of their time), sulahâ’, the muttaqî (Allah-fearing), walîs,
qutbs, awtâd, and all those who have been on the way of Allâhu ta’âlâ and loved
[1] Imâm Muhammad al-Bukhârî was the leader of the ’ulamâ’ of hadîth and passed away in Samarqand in 256 A.H. (870).
Rasûlullâh (sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) have submitted themselves to
these leaders of the Ah’kâm al-Islâmiyya. The collection of the writings of the
’ulamâ’ of hadîth, of the specialists of tafsîr and of the great mujtahid imâms
of fiqh made up the Islâmiyyat
al-Muhammadî. It is wâjib for us, the
ignorant and non-gifted, to follow these great ’ulamâ’ of Islam. The only way
to salvation is the way shown by these imâms. Only those who follow this way
will attain salvation. Those who obey the people who, obeying the nafs, draw
meaning from the Qur’ân
al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf according to their own understanding will suffer
calamity. The 90th âyat of Surât al-An’âm declares, ‘Allah guided them [to the right path], so follow their guidance.’ Those who were granted guidance are not the
lâ-madhhabî, but those great imâms who were the founders of madhhabs
(rahimahum-Allâhu ta’âlâ).
“Question: ’I believe now that the Ulû ’l-amr whom we are
ordered to obey are the mujtahid imâms, that the ’ulamâ’ who are called ahl adh-dhikr, too, were them, and that it is wâjib to follow them.
How is it understood whether one should follow a certain one of them or all of
them? Isn’t it sufficient for any act to suit any one of the four?’
“Answer: Because on many points the ijtihâds of the four imâms disagree, it is
not possible to follow two, three or four imâms at the same time. An affair
regarded as wâjib by one was regarded as harâm by another. For example, the
bleeding of the skin breaks an ablution according to al-Imâm al-a’zam, while it
does not do so according to al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î. Al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î said that
if a man touched a woman’s skin, both of them would lose their ablutions, while
al-Imâm al-a’zam said they would not. Similar cases of disagreement exist also
between Imâm Mâlik and Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal. If one follows, let us say,
al-Imâm al-a’zam in such a controversial affair, he will not have followed the
other. If he acts conformably to other imâms, he will have not followed al-Imâm
al-a’zam in this affair (rahmat-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în). It is
impossible to act in agreement with all four of the imâms in such an affair;
there are also many cases which prevent one from acting in agreement with three
or even two imâms at the same time. Such [controversial] affairs should be done
by following only one imâm.[1]
[1] The rest of the answer is given in that of the next question.
“Question: ‘If we do some affairs according to one imâm, some
other affairs according to another imâm, some others according to a third imâm,
and the remaining according to the fourth imâm, we wil be in accord with all
the four imâms. Isn’t this correct?’
“Answer: Such behaviour is an act of making fun of Islam. It causes the
disappearance of halâl and harâm, which is prohibited, a harâm. A hadîth sharîf written in [the Sahîh
of] Muslim declares: ‘A hypocrite is like a ewe between two
rams. She shuttles back and forth between the two.’ Another hadîth sharîf written in [the Sahîh of] al-Bukhârî, declares: ‘The wicked human beings are those who are two-faced. They display
one face to some and another face to others.’ These are the pepole referred to in the 38th âyat al-karîma of Sûrat
at-Tawba, which declares: ‘Nasî (postponement of a sacred month) causes excessive disbelief by which disbelievers
are misled. They allow a month one year and forbid it another year.’[1]
“It is written in the book Tahrîr al-usûl by Ibn al-Humân, in Mukhtasar al-usûl by ’Uthmân ibn
al-Hâjib al-Mâlikî [who passed away in Alexandria in
[1] Allâhu ta’âlâ had forbidden some actions before Islam, like war and killing human beings, in some certain months. Disbelievers used to forbid such actions in some months of one year but, in an another year, allow them in those months and forbid them in other months. In other words, they took what Allâhu ta’âlâ had forbidden (harâm) as permitted (halâl) and what He had permitted as forbidden. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the âyat that such unbelievers were in excessive disbelief and that they, by doing so, deceived themselves. Those who, saying that an action is halâl in a madhhab while being harâm in another, attempt to change the rules of Islam to suit their desires are like these unbelievers.
Hanafî, who passed away in
“Imâm ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî wrote on the 24th
page of his work Al-mîzân: ’t is wâjib for an ’âlim who has not attained to ’ayn
al-ulâ to adapt himself to one of the four madhhabs. If he does not, he will
deviate from the right path and cause others to go astray.’
“Ibn ’Âbidîn (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) wrote on
page 283 of Radd al-Muhtâr: ‘The ’âmî is not permitted to change his madhhab.
He must adapt himself to the madhhab he likes [of the four madhhabs].’ ’Âmî means non-mujtahid Muslim.
“Shâh Walî-Allâh ad-Dahlawî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ)
wrote in his book Al-’Iqd
al-jayyid: ‘A person who occupies a
religious post but has not reached the degree of employing ijtihâd is not
permitted to practise according to what he himself understands of a Hadîth ash-sharîf, for, he cannot distinguish mansûkh, muawwal or
muhkam hadîths from one another.’ The same is written in Mukhtasar by Ibn Hâjib. Again Shâh Walî-Allâh ad-Dahlawî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ)
wrote in his work Fuyûd
al-Haramain: ‘The Hanafî madhhab is
the most valuable madhhab. The one most suited to the Prophet’s
Sunna codified in the Sahîh
of al-Bukhârî is this madhhab.’
“Dânâ Ganj Bakhsh-i Lâhorî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ)
wrote in his work Al-kashf
al-mahjûb that Yahyâ ibn Mu’âdh ar-Râzî
(rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) [who passed away in Nishapur in
“Ibn Humân (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) wrote in his
book Tahrîr: ‘It is a unanimity that one is not permitted to leave
the madhhab which he has been following or according to which he has begun to
do his affairs.’
“Mawlânâ ’Abd as-Salâm wrote in his commentary to Jawhara[1]
: ‘The one who follows one of the four madhhabs in his ’ibâdât and affairs to
be done according to ijtihâds will have
[1] ’Abd as-Salâm ibn Ibrâhîm al-Laqânî al-Mâlikî (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih), who passed away in Egypt in 1078 A.H. (1668), wrote Ittihaf almurîd as a commentary to his father’s Jawharat at-tawhîd, which was in poetic form.
carried them out in conformity with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s
command.’
“Al-Imâm ar-Râbbânî Mujaddid al-Alf ath-Thânî
(rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) wrote in his book Mabda’ wa Ma’âd: ‘Allâhu ta’âlâ revealed to this faqîr that the
congregation’s not reciting behind the imâm according to the Hanafî madhhab is
right.’
“Hadrat Shâh ’Abd al-’Azîz ad-Dahlawî (rahimah-Allâhu
ta’âlâ) [who passed away in Delhi in
“Al-Imâm al-Ghazâlî (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih)
wrote in the subject ’Al-amru bi ’l-marûf’ of his work Kîmyâ’ as-sa’âda: ‘No ’âlim permitted anybody to do any affairs
unconformable to the madhhab he follows.’
“ ’Abd al-Haqq ad-Dahlawî (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ
’alaih) wrote in his book Sifr
as-sa’âda: ‘The building of the
Islamic religion is based on these four pillars [that is, madhhabs]. For the
one who has followed one of these ways and opened one of these doors, to move
into another way and expect to open another door is an absurd game. He will
have upset the coherence of his affairs and deviated from the right path.’
Again in the same book is written: ‘Following one of the four madhhabs is a
consensus of the ’ulamâ’ and the best way for the Muslims of the Last [the
present] Age. Religious and worldly order can be maintained in this way.
Everyone follows the madhhab of his choice; after following a madhhab for some
time, changing to another madhhab undoubtedly shows one’s distrust in his
former madhhab, and deeds and words get spoilt and put into disorder. The
’ulamâ’ of Islam who came later have agreed on this unanimously. This is the truth
of the matter. The benefit is in this.’
“Imâm Muhammad al-Kuhistânî [al-Hanafî (rahimah-Allâhu
ta’âlâ), who passed away in Bukhara in
“Question: ‘Should a Muslim, who believes that the talfîq (unification) of madhhabs is to make a game of Islam and admits that
it is not permissible to change one’s madhhab, say that the madhhab he follows
is the right one?’
“Answer: There are documentary reasons for the followers of every madhhab to
say so. We will tell in the following the evidences favouring that it is better
to follow our madhhab-the Hanafî madhhab:
“Among the four a’immat al-madhâhib, al-Imâm al-a’zam
Abu Hanîfa Nu’mân ibn Thâbit (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) [who passed away in
Baghdad in
“Ibn Hajar al-Makkî (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ), one of
the prominent ’ulamâ’ in the Shâfi’î madhhab, wrote a special book telling
about al-Imâm al-a’zam, namely Al-khairât al-hisân fî manâqibi’n-Nu’mân.[1]
“Ibn ’Âbidîn (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ), one of the Hanafî scholars, wrote in the preface to his work Radd-al-Muhtâr: ‘The most apparent evidence showing the greatness of al-Imâm al-
[1] Ahmad at-Tahâwî al-Hanafî’s relevant work ’Uqûd al-marjân fî manaqibi ’l-Abî Hanîfati ’n-Nu’mân is also well-known. At-Tahâwî passed away in 321 A.H. (933).
a’zâm is that his madhhab was the one which spread
most widely. Other madhhab imâms regarded all his words as documents. The
’Ulamâ’ of his madhhab have issued fatwâs based on his words everywhere even
after him. Most awliyâ’ attained to perfection by striving in accord with his
madhhab. The Muslims of Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula, India, Pakistan and
Turkestan know solely his madhhab. Though the ’Abbâsid Dynasty followed the
madhhab of their ancestor [Hadrat ’Abbâs, a sahâbî], most of the qâdîs, judges
and ’ulamâ’ of their time were Hanafîs. They practised Islam according to this
madhhab for about five hundred years. After them, the Seljuqî and later the
Harazmî rulers and the great Ottoman State all followed the Hanafî madhhab.’
“The Great ’âlim Muhammad Tâhir as-Siddîqî al-Hanafî
[who passed away in
“Al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Mujaddid al-Alf ath-Thânî Ahmad
al-Fârûqî (qaddas-Allâhu sirrahu ’l-’Azîz) wrote in the 55th letter of the
second volume of his Persian work Maktûbât: ‘Al-Imâm
al-a’zam Abu Hanîfa resembled [Prophet] ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Because the blessings of
wara’ and taqwâ were granted to him and because he lived up to the Sunnat
as-Saniyya; he attained to a very high degree in deducing rules from the nasses
and in ijtihâd. Some ’ulamâ’ could not appreciate this ability of his, and,
because the rules he had found out through ijtihâd were very subtle, they
thought that he had not obeyed the Book and the Sunna and called him a man of
opinion. Because they could not reach the reality of his knowledge and could
not understand what he had understood, they were mistaken as such whereas,
al-Imâm ash-Shafi’î (’alaihi ’rahma), understanding some of the knowledge he
had understood said that all the ’ulamâ’ of fiqh were Abu Hanîfa’s disciples in
fiqh. Muhammad Pârisâ (rahimah-Allâhu ta’âlâ) [who was a great ’âlim and walî
of Bukhara and passed away in Medina in
Most of the ’ulamâ’ and sulahâ’ [and awliyâ’] of this
umma
belonged to the Hanafî madhhab. The lâ-madhhabî, in
many of their books, for example, Al-jarhu a’lâ Abû Hanîfa,
have maligned such an ’âlim who lived up to his ’ilm, have called his muqallids
(followers of his madhhab) ‘kâfirs’ and even wrote insolently: ‘He who reads
fiqh books becomes a disbeliever.’ I wonder what could be the reason for these
unfortunate people to attack this great and blessed imâm in such a manner? They
are not aware that enmity against him means enmity against this umma. Most of
what we have written from the beginning of the fourth section of [this book] Al-usûl al-arba’a up to here has been extracted from Mawlânâ Mahbûb
Ahmad al-Mujaddidî al-Amratsarî’s work Al-kitâb al-majîd fî wujûbi ’t-taqlîd.
“The book Al-musnad al-kabîr al-Imâm Abû Hanîfa was collected in ten sections by Abu ’l-Muayyad
Muhammad ibn Mahmûd al-Harazmî, who passed away in
sahîh hadîths in other books of hadîth, too. In the hadîth ash-sharîf written in at-Tirmidhî on the authority of Abu
Huraira, it is declared, ‘If
îmân goes to the planet Venus, a man of Fâris (Persian) descent will bring it back.’
This reference is certainly to
al-Imâm al-a’zâm.”[1]
A hadîth
sharîf related by Hâkim on the authority
of ’Abdullâh ibn Mas’ûd and quoted in Durr al-mansûr by Imâm
’Abd ar-Rahmân as-Suyûtî (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) [who passed away in
Egypt in
[1] Muhammad Hasan Jân as-Sirhindî al-Mujaddidî (rahmat-Allâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih), Usûl al-arba’a fî tardîdi ’l-wahhâbiyya, Persian text published in India in 1346 A.H. (1928) and reprinted in Istanbul in 1975. Hasan Jân passed away in Hyderabad, Pakistan, in 1349 A.H. (1931).
[2] This hadîth sharîf is quoted also on page 406 of the Wahhâbite book.