|
Bismillahi Al-Rahmani Al-Rahim
A Fifth Maddhab
Q
assalaamu `alaykum w rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh
Dear brother
Is there a fifth madhhab in addition to the madhhahib of Imams Abu
Hanifa, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ahmad?
Can one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a?
What is the difference between the Imams of Ahl Al-Sunnah and the
Imams according to the Twelvers?
A
wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
As for the first question
Is there a fifth madhhab in addition to the madhhahib of Imams
Abu Hanifa, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ahmad
the brief answer is no, there is no fifth madhhab in addition
to the four madhahib of Ahl Al-Sunna, namely the madhhahib founded by
the four scholars you mentioned above (may Allah be pleased with
them). Ibn Rajab (may Allah be merciful with him) mentioned the basic
reasons for this in his rebuttal against those who do not follow the
four madhhahib in several places. But first a bit of context
- [The preservation of fiqh through four schools] is among
Allah's gentle kindness toward His believing slaves, and among the
mass of His customary laws in preserving this religion. If not for
this, people would have seen the wonder of wonders: every imbecile,
hot-headed, insolent, sham who was impressed with his opinion would
claim that he is the greatest of all Imams, that he is the one to
guide the umma, that people should turn only to him, and that no
one else should be relied upon.
- However, with praise for Allah and His gracious bestowal, this
door of great danger and tremendous weight was barred. And this
great corruption was constrained. This is among gentle kindness,
beautiful habits, and tender mercies of Allah Most High towards His
slaves.
- In spite of this, people still appear, claiming to have reached
the level of ijtihad, speak about knowledge without restraint, or
following one of those Imams. This is tolerated from some of them
because of the outward veracity of their claims; for others, their
statement is rebutted and they are declared liars in their claim.
As for everyone else who has not reached this level: they are only
capable of following one of these Imams and following what the rest
of the umma did. (Ibn Rajab, Al-Radd `Ala Man Ittab`a Ghayr
Al-Madhahib Al-Arba`. Unpublished translation, copyright Musa
Furber 2002 CE. p7-8)
A nd now Ibn Rajab's words regarding this question can be
better understood
- If it is said, We concede to preventing the general masses from
following the way of ijtihad since this leads to the greatest of
wrongs. /34/ However, we do not concede to preventing following an
imitated, mujtahid Imam, outside of those famous Imams.
- It is said: We have pointed out the reasons for preventing
this: it is that the other unpopular schools have not been
corrected and perhaps something is attributed to them that they did
not say, or understood that they did not intend. Their schools have
no one to defend them and point out the mistakes that took place in
them, contrary to these famous schools.
- If it is asked, So what do you say about another Imam's school
if it has been recorded, corrected, and memorized, just like their
schools?
- It is said: Firstly, this is not known to exist right now. If
we assume that it did take place right now, and conceded the
permissibility of following it and affiliating with it, this would
not be permissible except for someone who visibly shows affiliation
to it, gives verdicts according to it, and defends his school.
- (Ibid, p8-9)
F or further clarification, Sheikh Nuh Keller mentions in the
second introduction to The Reliance Of The Traveler quoting
`Abd Al-Rahman Ba`alawi
- Ibn Salah reports that there is scholarly consensus on its
[sic] being unlawful to follow rulings from schools other than
those of the four Imams, meaning in one's personal works, let alone
give court verdicts or formal legal opinions to people form the,
because of the untrustworthiness of the ascription of such rulings
to the scholars who reportedly gave them, there being no channels
of transmission which obviate the possibility of textual corruption
and spurious substitutions.
- The Zaydis, for example, who trace themselves to Zayd ibn
Husayn (n: son of `Ali and Fatima), the beatitude of Allah be upon
them, despite the fact that Zayd was one of the Imams of the
religion and a renowned figure well qualified to give guidance to
those seeking it, his followers identify him with extreme
permissiveness on many questions, ascriptions based on failure to
check as to what his positions actually were (n: by naming the
intermediate transmitters and establishing their reliability). It
is quite otherwise with the four schools, whose Imams (Allah reward
them) have spent themselves in checking the positions of their
schools, explaining what could be rigorously authenticated as the
position of the person it was attributed to, and what could not be.
Their scholars have thus achieved safety from textual corruption
and have been able to discern the genuine from the poorly
authenticated. (Bughya Al-Mustarshidin Fi Talkhis Fatawa Ba`d
Al-'Aimma Min Al-Muta'akhkhirin, p8, via Reliance Of The
Traveller, b7.6)
S o the answer is that no, there is no madhhab in addition to
the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah that is permissible for Muslims
to follow.
As for the second question
Can one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a?
Based on the above the answer is, quite clearly, no. In
addition to the problem of lack of tawatir [such large numbers of
people in each generation transmitting the madhhab such that it is
statistically impossible for them to have simultaneously agreed upon
a lie] there is the issue that what the Twelvers follow is not a
single madhhab. The Twelvers try to confuse Muslims into thinking
that the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah are proof of division and
misguidance--in contrast to their one single madhhab which they claim
is proof of their unification and pure guidance. This is little more
than wishful thinking on their part. There is no single Twelver
madhhab, and how could there given their system of mutjahids and
referent scholars? And even if this were not the case, how could they
maintain that the fiqh they have today is historically connected to
their founding scholars given the bizarre paradigm shift in usul that
they underwent in the later centuries? And how can they claim this
when the `aqidah of their major scholars keeps changing on major
issues?
So even once again the answer is quite emphatically in the
negative.
And as for the third and final question
What is the difference between the Imams of Ahl Al-Sunnah and
the Imams according to the Twelvers?
the differences are many, but perhaps the greatest differences
are that we do not declare a single one of these Imams to have hidden
knowledge or be of higher rank than the Prophets (Allah bless them
all) and we do deny that they are divinely protected. We do not make
belief in them or acceptance of a single one of them a condition for
sound belief. We also do not claim that what the Prophet (Allah bless
him and give him peace) was incomplete and in need of the Imams of
Ahl Al-Sunnah to complete it, and we don't give the Imams authority
to abrogate or invent. Imam Al-Dhahabi in the beginning of
Al-Muntaqa gives some basic guidelines as to the the
differences, namely that we don't require anyone to believe in them
and we don't say that things happen because of them nor through them:
we don't believe in them as the [Papist] Christians belive in their
Pope (Al-Dhahabi. Al-Muntaqa Min Mizan Al-`Itidal. p7-8).
But then again, none of the Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt (peace be upon them)
made these claims for themselves.
wa al-salamu `alaykum
--musa
|