top of page

True Fiqh Is Studied—Not Inherited: A Refutation of Extremes in Rejecting or Fanaticizing Madhahib

True Fiqh Is Studied—Not Inherited: A Refutation of Extremes in Rejecting or Fanaticizing Madhahib

True Fiqh Is Studied—Not Inherited: A Refutation of Extremes in Rejecting or Fanaticizing Madhahib


Shaykh ‘Arafāt ibn Ḥasan said:


This is how fiqh is studied for those who wish to gain understanding (fiqh)—especially within the madhāhib (madhhabs). And fiqh is essential! Do not underestimate studying fiqh under the people of fiqh. That is, when you want to study fiqh, where should you study it? In books of grammar? In books of terminology? No—in books of fiqh! And you refer back to scholars of fiqh, so you benefit from ash-Shāfi‘ī and the Shāfi‘ī madhhab, and from the Ḥanafīs and Ḥanbalīs. Especially since you consider the madhhab followed in your country, so you study the madhhab of your country and gain understanding in it.


Blind following (taqlīd) is forbidden! Fanaticism (ta‘aṣṣub) is forbidden! This is something well known. But because we always warn against fanaticism—and the scholars before us have warned against it fanaticism and blind following as well—some students and brothers, as a reaction, began to view the madhāhib as if they contain nothing but blind following and fanaticism. They say: “We only want fiqh, we don’t want madhāhib, we won’t study a fiqh text (matn).” This is a mistake! Even the foundational fiqh texts (mutūn fiqhiyyah) are no longer being taught! That is incorrect! That is a mistake! That is excessiveness (ghulūw)!


Just as those who were fanatical toward the imams—and the imams themselves disavowed such fanaticism long ago—likewise, we have fallen into the other extreme. We’ve gone to excess in rejecting the books of the madhāhib, to the point that we no longer pay attention to them, nor care for them, nor study them, using the excuse of ‘fanaticism’ and ‘blind following,’ and saying things like “I don’t follow a madhhab,” “I’m from the people of ḥadīth.”


Well, even ash-Shāfi‘ī was from the people of ḥadīth. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal is the Imām of the people of ḥadīth! Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah used to say: ‘I am Ḥanbalī,’ and he is the Imām of the world in knowledge, creed, Sunnah, and fiqh. Yet he said of himself that he was Ḥanbalī. Even Shaykh Ibn Bāz (may Allāh have mercy on him), when asked, said: “Yes, I am Ḥanbalī. I studied the principles of the Ḥanbalī madhhab and gained understanding (fiqh) through it—but I do not blindly follow.”


You find a person afraid to study even a basic fiqh text, just so it won’t be said: “He’s Shāfi‘ī” or “He’s Ḥanbalī.” They say: “It’s not permissible for me to say I’m Ḥanbalī or Shāfi‘ī”.. Yet if you ask him about a certain issue: “What’s the ruling on such-and-such?” he says: “Shaykh Ibn Bāz said such-and-such.” So I say to him: “Okay, then you’re Bāzī (follower of ibn Bāz)!” What’s the difference between you and someone who says: “Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī said...”? So I say to him: “Okay, then you’re Bāzī!”And he responds: “No! Shaykh Ibn Bāz is a follower of evidence!” Alright then—ash-Shāfi‘ī is a follower of what?!


So there is excess, there is a mistake! Understand how the jurists (fuqahā’) studied fiqh, and how they themselves also condemned fanaticism and blind following. This does not mean that such things do not exist—indeed, there is intense blind following and severe fanaticism. That is why, even in the time of the imams (may Allāh have mercy on them), they would warn against fanaticism and warn against blind following.


When a man came to ash-Shāfi‘ī and asked: “What is the ruling on such-and-such?”, he replied: “Its ruling is such-and-such, as indicated by the evidence.” The man said: “I want your opinion.” Ash-Shāfi‘ī became angry and said: “I tell you the ruling based on the evidence, and you say you want my opinion?!”


The same was true of Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad, and Mālik — all of them disassociated themselves from blind following (taqlīd a‘mā), where a person only focuses on the imām: “What did the imām say?” That is a mistake!


Ash-Shāfi‘ī studied under Mālik, benefited from him, loved him, praised him, and spoke highly of him — yet he refuted Mālik on many issues and even authored a book titled “The Differing Between Mālik and ash-Shāfi‘ī”.


هكذا يُدرَس الفقه لمن أراد أن يتفقه لا سيّما في المذاهب. والفقه ضروري! لا تستهينوا بدراسة الفقه على أهل الفقه، يعني الفقه لما تريد أن تدرسه، وأين تدرسه؟ في كتب النحو أم في كتب المصطلح؟ في كتب الفقه! وترجع إلى علماء الفقه، فتستفيد من الشافعي ومذهب الشافعية ومن الأحناف والحنابلة، لا سيما أنك تنظر في مذهب البلد فتدرس مذهب البلد وتتفقه.


التقليد حرام! التعصب حرام! هذا شيء معروف. لكن لأننا دائماً نحذّر من التعصب - والعلماء يحذرون قبلنا - من التعصب من التقليد، صارت كردة فعل عند بعض الطلاب والإخوان فصاروا ينظرون إلى المذاهب أن هذه ما فيها الا التقليد وما فيها الا التعصب، “لا نريد الفقه، لا نريد المذاهب، لا ندرس متن فقهي”، خطأ! حتى المتون الفقهية لا تُدرَّس! هذا غير صحيح! وهذا خطأ! وهذا غلوب! كما أن هؤلاء الذين تعصبوا للأئمة، والأئمة قد تبرأوا من تعصُّبهم من قبل، نحن أيضًا وقعنا في إفراط فغلونا في كتب المذاهب فصرنا لا نلتفت إليها ولا نعتني بها ولا ندرسها بحجة “تعصب” و“تقليد” و“أنا لست مذهبي” “أنا من أهل الحديث”.. طيب حتى الشافعي كان من أهل الحديث، وأحمد بن حنبل إمام أهل الحديث، وشيخ الإسلام بن تيمية يقول “أنا حنبلي” وهو إمام الدنيا في العلم والعقيدة والسنة والفقه، ويقول عن نفسه حنبلي، إلى الشيخ بن باز رحمه الله، يُسأَل ويقول "نعم أنا حنبلي ودرست أصول مذهب الحنابلة وتفقهت على مذهب الحنابلة لكن لا أقلّد".


فتجد الشخص يخاف أن يدرس متنًا حتى لا يقال هذا شافعي هذا حنبلي “لا يجوز أن أقول أنا حنبلي ولا شافعي”... مع أنك لو سألته في مسأله: ما حكم كذا؟ يقول “الشيخ بن باز قال هكذا”.. طيب أنت بازي! ما الفرق بينك وبين الذي يقول “قال الشافعي”؟ فأقول له: إذاً أنت بازي! فيقول: “لا! الشيخ بن باز صاحب دليل!” طيب الشافعي صاحب ايش؟


فهناك إفراط، هناك خطأ! افهموا كيف الفقهاء درسوا الفقه وكيف انهم هم أنفسهم أنكروا كذلك التعصب والتقليد. وليس معنى ذلك أنه لا يُوجد، بل يوجد تقليد شديد وتعصب شديد. ولهذا في زمن الأئمة رحمهم الله كانوا يحذّرون من التعصب ويحذرون من التقليد.

 

ولما جاء رجل الى الشافعي قال “ما حكم كذا وكذا”، قال “حكمه هكذا كذا كما في الدليل”، قال “أريد قولك”، فغضب الشافعي: “أقول لك كما في الدليل وتقول تريد قولي؟؟”،  وهكذا أبو حنيفة وهكذا أحمد وهكذا مالك كلهم كانوا يتبرأون من التقليد الأعمى الذي يلتفت صاحبه فقط إلى الإمام، ماذا قال الإمام؟ غلط!


الشافعيِ دَرَس على مالك واستفاد منه وكان يحبُّه ويمدحه ويُثنِي عليه، لكنه ردَّ على مالك في مسائل كثيرة، وألَّفَ كتابه “اختلاف مالك والشافعي”. 


Translated by: Yāsīn ibn Jamāl




Comentários


bottom of page