By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 02:22:00 +0000

Just exactly who said Muslims scholars never figured out to pray correctly until the "so-called "Salafi" scholar Nasr al-Din al-Albani finally figured it out just a few years ago"?

Some tv programs, radio programs, books, names... i.e. references please.

I would suggest this is a figment of your imagination. An imagination that has become over time prejudiced due to your own personal experiences.

Are you aware of the distribution of muslim scholars over the first few hundred years AH in terms of their madhab affiliation?

I can't remember the name of the sahabi(?) who said he went to sleep at night never thinking any ill of any other muslim. What a beautiful state - may Allah return it to us.

By: AbdulHaqq

AbdulHaqq — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:17:00 +0000

assalamu alaikum

Awesome job!

masalama

By: sheilaX

sheilaX — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:53:00 +0000

Shalom Bro Qadib,

Thanks for the comments, and as you might see, I have followed your adivse on adding “Abu” and “Ibn”. However, due to the lack of space, I have opted to keep the “Imam” appellation at the top of the column. May God forgive me if this is inadequate.

By: Qadeeb al-Ban

Qadeeb al-Ban — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:45:00 +0000

Great post!

I think H.A.R. Gibb's statement is somewhat debatable, since one could argue that those with Mu'tazilah tendencies-both in the past and currently-have always struggled to be seen as orthodox (if not proto-orthodox), as opposed to other sectarians groups that went their separate ways thinking they were right and everyone else was wrong. So much for the analysis of so-called "expert" Orientalists...

Anyway, thanks for exposing one of the great self-contradictions of those who oppose taqlid and want to return to direct interpretation of what I'll call the "raw data of revelation" but are forced to engage in taqlid themselves in regards to the conclusions of the expert masters of the hadith sciences. Yes, they enthusiastically engage in taqlid of Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim in regards to hadith, but reject taqlid of the Four Imams in regards to fiqh...although fiqh is even more complex and requires much more, one might say, WISDOM.

Once one understands this, it's easy to see that taqlid really means relying upon and trusting qualified experts...and there's nothing wrong with that since we do it in many other aspects of our lives (i.e. we trust medical doctors to operate on us, airline pilots to fly airplanes for us, and mechanics troubleshoot our cars for us, etc). Indeed the often slandered approach of so-called "blind following" isn't necessarily a bad thing given the right circumstances, thus a blind man holds the arm of one who can see because the latter is more qualified in that particular area of expertise (i.e. he can see).

Yes, it's all about methodology! The importance of your statement that "Too many critics condemn the client side of Madhhabs without attempting to say what is wrong with the methodology of the Madhhab in the first place" cannot be overemphasized. Once one studies them a bit, one can see both beauty and wisdom in the various methodologies of the four madhhabs. They essentially represent a spectrum of methodologies, all of which are sound, that deal with the all-important question of how to address, interpret, understand and act upon the "raw data of revelation".

Indeed, the variations in the approach of each of the madhhabs go back to the various ways the Companions and Successors themselves understood the revelation. The great Imams were wise, astute and humble enough to understand that the approach and methodology which they developed and established, although feeling that their own particular one was the best and most sound, was only one possibility amongst many. They were never so arrogant or intellectually shallow to see their way as the only way. The "My Way or the Highway" mentality that is rampant amongst so-called "Salafis" today is simply a modern manifestation of Khawariji exclusivism and extremism.

So, as you so rightly point out, even though they all deal with essentially the same "raw data", the different madhhabs come to different conclusions because their methodologies are different. The truth of the matter is that whether they realize it or not, even the so-called "Salafis" of today have a methodology for dealing with this unprocessed "raw data"...it's just not a very sound methodology. In short, it's a flawed methodology being carried out by those who are less than qualified. It's sometimes said that every Muslim has a madhhab (i.e. method of approaching and understanding the Qur'an and hadith literature) whether they realize it or not. This is very true once one realizes what a madhhab is: a methodology for addressing the question "What does God want me to do?" when confronted with the "raw data of revelation".

Wouldn't it be rather arrogant to think I can figure out how to pray better by reading hadith books on my own than by adopting the expert views of generations of Islamic scholarship? Isn't it rather slanderous to our great intellectual heritage to believe that Muslim scholars never really determined how to pray correctly until the so-called "Salafi" scholar Nasr al-Din al-Albani finally figured it out just a few years ago? May Almighty God save us from such foolishness!

Shaykh Nuh Keller sometimes puts forward the analogy of someone who wants to buy a car, but not one built by experts (i.e. Ford, Honda, BMW, etc.) or displaying a logo. Such a person will never be able to find a generic "car", since all cars are built by teams of expert engineers and manufacturers. In the end, such a person might be able to produce, by gathering pieces and parts from various places (although these are built by experts as well), their own no-brand generic "car". However, their final product is no doubt going to be significantly inferior to cars that have been produced and fine-tuned by generations of expert engineers and manufacturers. Thus in the final analysis, those who reject the established madhhabs are essentially trading in a Mercedes, BMW, Honda or Cadillac for a go-cart!

Unfortunately, not only are the conclusions of these do-it-yourself madhhabs often less than stellar, but they fall into the grave error of thinking that their approach is right and everyone else is wrong. This, needless to say, squarely contradicts one of the great merits of the madhhabs, which is the recognition and tolerance of differences of qualified scholarly opinion. However, since do-it-yourself approaches to Islam don't amount to "qualified scholarly opinion" they shouldn't be tolerated from the intellectual point of view, thus we need to continue our struggle to refute their sloppy thinking and expose the flaws in their methodology.

Keep up the good work. This was a well thought-out posting on a very important topic. The only thing that I might recommend is that in your "Birth - Death - Age" chart of the Four Imams you change "Hanifa" to read "Abu Hanifa" and "Hanbal" to read "Ibn Hanbal"-and preceding all of this with "Imam" is always good adab.

Wasalam,

Qadeeb al-Ban Harris

By: Yaser

Yaser — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:22:00 +0000

Very nice article with good analaysis. Thanks.

By: dante

dante — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:18:00 +0000

Good stuff, as usual.

By: sheilaX

sheilaX — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:03:00 +0000

Shalom,

Thanks. Corrected.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:57:00 +0000

Hi Sheila,

Thanks for another interesting piece.

Just a small editorial note on a paragraph opener about 2/3 of the way down:

"Does taqlid to a particular school necessarily mean that Muslims are giving Madhhabs an absolute character."

This statement should end with a question mark, not a period.

Take care.

--Tariq

Comments on: Detox the orthodox

By: Anonymous

By: AbdulHaqq

By: sheilaX

By: Qadeeb al-Ban

By: Yaser

By: dante

By: sheilaX

By: Anonymous