regarding the fact that the four Imams were upon the creed of the Salaf, and that the problem lies only with their followers?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... The four Imams exerted effort in independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and their ijtihad was such that people followed them in some rulings or some fatwas, and there came to be schools of jurisprudence (madhahib) named the Hanafi or the Shafi'i. Was this a mistake on the part of the people?
The Shaykh : The mistake is on the part of the people, not the Imams.
The questioner : Not the Imams.
The Shaykh : Of course.
The questioner : It is forbidden (haram) for people to wrong them.
The Shaykh : Of course. And who wrongs them? We say, and this is explicit since twenty or thirty years in my introduction to *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him), we say that this Salafi methodology was taught to us by the Imams. And if there are people, and since there are disbelievers on the face of the earth, are there not misguided, ignorant people, and so on? If there are among the Muslims those who attack some of the Muslim Imams, like al-Hanafi, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad, then that is ignorance and misguidance without a doubt. But I believe that this has no connection whatsoever to the Salafi call, because we know that a great deal has been written by those who carry this Salafi call, and we do not find that any of them has made a snide remark or a joke at the expense of any of the Imams. But the truth and the right must be said: the snide remarks, the jokes, and even the open, explicit attacks are directed at these followers, who not only contradicted the Book and the Sunnah, but also contradicted the statements of the Imams themselves. For the Imams did not order them to follow a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid); rather, they forbade them from taqlid. I have mentioned many texts in the book *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him). Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) said to Abu Yusuf: "Do not follow me, and do not follow Malik, and do not follow al-Shafi'i." Excuse me, this is the statement of Imam Ahmad, who said: "Do not follow me, and do not follow Malik, and do not follow al-Shafi'i, but rather take from where they took." Abu Hanifah said to Abu Yusuf: "Do not follow me, O Abu Yusuf, for I say today what I will retract tomorrow." And this is from their excellence and perfection, and their acknowledgment that a person is exposed to making a mistake. So how can he be made a model? The model and the example must be restricted to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, I say that if some ignorant youths attack some of the Imams, that is ignorance and misguidance without a doubt, but this is never attributed to the Salafi call, because those who call to the Salafi call have no goal except following the same methodology that these Imams all followed and set out from. And for that reason, they agreed on the statement: "If a hadith is authentic, then it is my school of jurisprudence." I like a word that came from one of the students of Imam Abu Yusuf or Imam Muhammad, whose name is 'Isam al-Balkhi, and a comment by one of the later Hanafi scholars of India on that word. 'Isam al-Balkhi was a Hanafi, a student of a student of Abu Hanifah. Nevertheless, they mentioned in his biography that he would raise his hands during the bowing (ruku') and when rising from it. This is contrary to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. The Hanafi school, to this day, and this is from the ill effects of taqlid and rigidity in it, says that raising the hands during the bowing and when rising from it is disliked (makruh). Some of them explicitly say it is forbiddenly disliked (makruh tahriman). In fact, some of the extremists among them included raising the hands in the list of things that invalidate the prayer. The point is, this 'Isam al-Balkhi, a student of a student of Abu Hanifah, used to raise his hands during the bowing and when rising from it. He was asked, "How is this, when it is contrary to your school of jurisprudence, the school of your Imam Abu Hanifah?" He said: "Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) has given every person the intellect by which he distinguishes between the truth and the falsehood, between the correct and the incorrect. And He will hold each one of us accountable for the intellect and understanding that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has given him. This is what I understood, and this is what became clear to me, so I acted upon it. And my Lord will not hold me accountable and say to me, 'Why did you contradict your Imam?' For it is Allah who guided me to follow the transmitted Sunnah. If I am correct, I have two rewards, and if I am wrong, I have one reward." This is a word of truth from a Hanafi of the old school. The commentary that came from the author of the book, who is known as Abu al-Hasan al-Laknawi, in his book *Al-Fawa'id al-Bahiyyah fi Tarajim 'Ulama' al-Hanafiyyah*, when he mentioned this report from 'Isam al-Balkhi, he said: "And from this it is understood that if a Hanafi leaves the statement of his Imam in one of the issues of his school, he does not thereby leave the school of jurisprudence; rather, he remains in the bonds of the school of jurisprudence in the form of leaving the school of jurisprudence." He means by that that he followed the principle of the Imam: "If a hadith is authentic, then it is my school of jurisprudence." So his contradicting the Imam in this branch means he is still following the Imam in this principle. I was very pleased with this phrase, and therefore I took the opportunity and recorded it in the introduction to *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him). So, we do not criticize the Imams; we criticize the followers of the Imams and the later ones among them, not the earlier ones. Ibn 'Abidin mentions in the *Hashiyah* that Abu Yusuf, the student of Abu Hanifah, contradicted his Imam in two-thirds of the school of jurisprudence. Does that mean that when he contradicted his Imam, he was attacking the Imam? No, rather it is as we quoted earlier from 'Isam al-Balkhi: this is what his independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) led him to. We deny those who said in their principles that if a verse comes that contradicts the school of jurisprudence, or a hadith, they immediately attribute that to abrogation, all in one stroke. Fear Allah in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The truth is not restricted to one of the schools of jurisprudence. And for this reason, one of the effects of sectarian fanaticism (ta'assub) was trials (fitan) resembling the trial currently existing between the Iranians and the Iraqis. Slaughter between whom? The Hanafis and the Shafi'is? No, not Shi'ah and Sunnah? No, all of them are from the people of the Sunnah and the community, as they say. But these are Hanafis and these are Shafi'is. We have texts in books of history that some lands were wiped off the face of the earth because of sectarian fanaticism. And we have statements that are still recorded: a Hanafi judge in the fifth or sixth century, I no longer remember, said: "If I had any authority, I would take the tax on protected non-Muslims (jizyah) from the Shafi'is." This is written: a Hanafi judge, meaning if he were the supreme ruler, he would treat the Shafi'is as he treats the Jews and the Christians.
The questioner : It is forbidden (haram) for us to say this man is a Hanafi or this man is a Shafi'i. Why? Because the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)Sahih al-Bukhari 6782 denied the attribute of faith... So how do we wrong... al-Shafi'i and al-Hanafi when we see in the mosque, in the old days, they used to pray the odd-numbered night prayer (witr) in two groups, and this is contrary to the Sunnah...
The Shaykh : We witnessed this in the Great Umayyad Mosque.
The questioner : ... So I say, if the Shafi'is and the Hanafis, the four Imams, had not exerted effort in independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), the people would have differed... He fears Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and did not exert effort... It is known that ijtihad is to make things easy for people to understand their religion, and not to make them difficult. This is the concept of ijtihad...
The Shaykh : The mistake is on the part of the people, not the Imams.
The questioner : Not the Imams.
The Shaykh : Of course.
The questioner : It is forbidden (haram) for people to wrong them.
The Shaykh : Of course. And who wrongs them? We say, and this is explicit since twenty or thirty years in my introduction to *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him), we say that this Salafi methodology was taught to us by the Imams. And if there are people, and since there are disbelievers on the face of the earth, are there not misguided, ignorant people, and so on? If there are among the Muslims those who attack some of the Muslim Imams, like al-Hanafi, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad, then that is ignorance and misguidance without a doubt. But I believe that this has no connection whatsoever to the Salafi call, because we know that a great deal has been written by those who carry this Salafi call, and we do not find that any of them has made a snide remark or a joke at the expense of any of the Imams. But the truth and the right must be said: the snide remarks, the jokes, and even the open, explicit attacks are directed at these followers, who not only contradicted the Book and the Sunnah, but also contradicted the statements of the Imams themselves. For the Imams did not order them to follow a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid); rather, they forbade them from taqlid. I have mentioned many texts in the book *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him). Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) said to Abu Yusuf: "Do not follow me, and do not follow Malik, and do not follow al-Shafi'i." Excuse me, this is the statement of Imam Ahmad, who said: "Do not follow me, and do not follow Malik, and do not follow al-Shafi'i, but rather take from where they took." Abu Hanifah said to Abu Yusuf: "Do not follow me, O Abu Yusuf, for I say today what I will retract tomorrow." And this is from their excellence and perfection, and their acknowledgment that a person is exposed to making a mistake. So how can he be made a model? The model and the example must be restricted to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, I say that if some ignorant youths attack some of the Imams, that is ignorance and misguidance without a doubt, but this is never attributed to the Salafi call, because those who call to the Salafi call have no goal except following the same methodology that these Imams all followed and set out from. And for that reason, they agreed on the statement: "If a hadith is authentic, then it is my school of jurisprudence." I like a word that came from one of the students of Imam Abu Yusuf or Imam Muhammad, whose name is 'Isam al-Balkhi, and a comment by one of the later Hanafi scholars of India on that word. 'Isam al-Balkhi was a Hanafi, a student of a student of Abu Hanifah. Nevertheless, they mentioned in his biography that he would raise his hands during the bowing (ruku') and when rising from it. This is contrary to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. The Hanafi school, to this day, and this is from the ill effects of taqlid and rigidity in it, says that raising the hands during the bowing and when rising from it is disliked (makruh). Some of them explicitly say it is forbiddenly disliked (makruh tahriman). In fact, some of the extremists among them included raising the hands in the list of things that invalidate the prayer. The point is, this 'Isam al-Balkhi, a student of a student of Abu Hanifah, used to raise his hands during the bowing and when rising from it. He was asked, "How is this, when it is contrary to your school of jurisprudence, the school of your Imam Abu Hanifah?" He said: "Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) has given every person the intellect by which he distinguishes between the truth and the falsehood, between the correct and the incorrect. And He will hold each one of us accountable for the intellect and understanding that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has given him. This is what I understood, and this is what became clear to me, so I acted upon it. And my Lord will not hold me accountable and say to me, 'Why did you contradict your Imam?' For it is Allah who guided me to follow the transmitted Sunnah. If I am correct, I have two rewards, and if I am wrong, I have one reward." This is a word of truth from a Hanafi of the old school. The commentary that came from the author of the book, who is known as Abu al-Hasan al-Laknawi, in his book *Al-Fawa'id al-Bahiyyah fi Tarajim 'Ulama' al-Hanafiyyah*, when he mentioned this report from 'Isam al-Balkhi, he said: "And from this it is understood that if a Hanafi leaves the statement of his Imam in one of the issues of his school, he does not thereby leave the school of jurisprudence; rather, he remains in the bonds of the school of jurisprudence in the form of leaving the school of jurisprudence." He means by that that he followed the principle of the Imam: "If a hadith is authentic, then it is my school of jurisprudence." So his contradicting the Imam in this branch means he is still following the Imam in this principle. I was very pleased with this phrase, and therefore I took the opportunity and recorded it in the introduction to *The Description of the Prophet's Prayer* (peace and blessings be upon him). So, we do not criticize the Imams; we criticize the followers of the Imams and the later ones among them, not the earlier ones. Ibn 'Abidin mentions in the *Hashiyah* that Abu Yusuf, the student of Abu Hanifah, contradicted his Imam in two-thirds of the school of jurisprudence. Does that mean that when he contradicted his Imam, he was attacking the Imam? No, rather it is as we quoted earlier from 'Isam al-Balkhi: this is what his independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) led him to. We deny those who said in their principles that if a verse comes that contradicts the school of jurisprudence, or a hadith, they immediately attribute that to abrogation, all in one stroke. Fear Allah in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The truth is not restricted to one of the schools of jurisprudence. And for this reason, one of the effects of sectarian fanaticism (ta'assub) was trials (fitan) resembling the trial currently existing between the Iranians and the Iraqis. Slaughter between whom? The Hanafis and the Shafi'is? No, not Shi'ah and Sunnah? No, all of them are from the people of the Sunnah and the community, as they say. But these are Hanafis and these are Shafi'is. We have texts in books of history that some lands were wiped off the face of the earth because of sectarian fanaticism. And we have statements that are still recorded: a Hanafi judge in the fifth or sixth century, I no longer remember, said: "If I had any authority, I would take the tax on protected non-Muslims (jizyah) from the Shafi'is." This is written: a Hanafi judge, meaning if he were the supreme ruler, he would treat the Shafi'is as he treats the Jews and the Christians.
The questioner : It is forbidden (haram) for us to say this man is a Hanafi or this man is a Shafi'i. Why? Because the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)
When (a person) an adulterer commits illegal sexual intercourse then he is not a believer at the time he is doing it
لا يزني الزاني حين يزني و هو مؤمنThe Shaykh : We witnessed this in the Great Umayyad Mosque.
The questioner : ... So I say, if the Shafi'is and the Hanafis, the four Imams, had not exerted effort in independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), the people would have differed... He fears Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) and did not exert effort... It is known that ijtihad is to make things easy for people to understand their religion, and not to make them difficult. This is the concept of ijtihad...