Text copied Link copied

Al-Fatawa – home

﴿ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

Scholar
Search mode

Discussion on the meaning of correct following and the clarification of correct adherence to a school of jurisprudence.

Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh: Our Lord, when He said to Musa:
And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?" وَمَا تِلْكَ بِيَمِينِكَ يَامُوسَى
[Taha 20:17]
Since eternity, our Lord says:
And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?" وَمَا تِلْكَ بِيَمِينِكَ يَامُوسَى
[Taha 20:17]
This is contrary to the truth and leads to denying the miracle of the Qur'an; because the Mu'tazilah explicitly say: this is created, and the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah are with the people of hadith in wording but with the Mu'tazilah in belief; because the Mu'tazilah did not deny the divine knowledge that subsists in the essence of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), nor did they fabricate something similar to it, which is the so-called "psychological speech." Contrary to reality, unfortunately, it is the exact opposite of what you hear from some contemporary lecturers and professors that the disagreement, my brother, is in the branches and not in the principles; this is, in reality, if we do not call it misguidance, a profound ignorance of the Shari'ah, the Book and the Sunnah, and the reality of the existing Islamic schools of jurisprudence today. Do you see, is this in the principles or in the branches? The statement of the jurists: "If a hadith is authentic, it is my school of jurisprudence"; is this principles or branches?

The questioner : Fundamentals.

The Shaykh: All right; bring forth today millions of Muslims who do not agree with you on this principle, rather, one of them said: "And it is obligatory to follow a scholar from them," from these four, so it is not permissible for you to follow the Sunnah from here and here and here; you had to say: a pure Hanafi, or a pure Maliki, or a pure Shafi'i, or a pure Hanbali; how is this, and this narrow school adherence did not exist before the four imams? And there were before them tens, rather hundreds, rather thousands of imams, and at the head of the imams were the four caliphs; was there in their time Bakris, 'Umaris, 'Uthmanis, or 'Alis? None of that existed, so the disagreement, unfortunately, is not in the branches only = -- good bye -- = the disagreement is a deviation from the principles of the Shari'ah,
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
[An-Nisa 4:59]
.
Source www.al-albany.com

The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.

Similar fatwas