Sh. Ibn Bayyah also stated in “Sacred Laws in Secular Lands,” that he felt it was impossible for Muslims to function in the West with only one madh-hab. So that’s two juggernauts (top scholars) echoing the same call to ease — away from the tendency to dogmatically adhere to “the madh-hab methodology.”

Again, may Allah bless you, Imam Suhaib.

I fully agree that there is great benefit in utilizing all of the madhahib. One is not enough for a society to function. With that said, where does “having a particular madhab” come into play? What is the benefit of having a madhab? Is it to develop a foundation for one’s practice and help one achieve a certain level of taqwa?

Ultimately it would come down to scholarship and training. My experience here has taught me that simply reading books and theorizing about Shar’iah related issues are very dangerous. I would add to that, that it was only when I was given the responsibility of writing and working on answers by my teachers, dealing with the people and interacting with a number of different scholars on a day to day basis, that I began to appreciate and respect the position of today’s majority. So the question comes down to trust and scholarship.

I’m not trying to shut any of you down. But I would encourage many to have sabar. Some of the questions being asked are learned over time and experience, not by reading or surfing the net.

Usman:

It was actually Ibn Abdul Barr who stated the quote you mentioned above.

However, Al-Thawri said something that might prove beneficial:

“Anyone can make things difficult, but it is the faqih who facilitates.”

As for Maslahah, then in our context we are talking about the two agreed upon definitions, and for myself of course, I give consideration to the third since it is part of my school’s [Malikis} training. As for the fourth, that which is rejected by Shari'ah, then I would assume here that we are on the same page.

As for the solicitor of a fatwa, then it is his right to follow or reject any opinion as major books of Usol clearly mention, unlike the sentence of a Qadi, that the opinion of a mufti is not binding. Throughout our history we've had a great breath of scholarship that covered the sphere of ideas and opinions: the ease of Ibn Abbas and the strictness of Ibn Umar, the Maqasid of al-Shattibi and the textualisim of Ibn Hazim, the salafiyah of Ibn Taymiyyah and the tasawwuf of al-Ghazzali.

As 'Umar bin Abdul 'Aziz stated, "What would scare me is an absolute uniformity amongst the companions. For is such happened, practicing the religion would be difficult for others" and "Their differences are a mercy, and their agreements are a definitive."

So in the end, it is about you the questioner and his right to follow who he feels most comfortable with. This is not following the nuffs, as this is a right granted by Islam and exemplified by the salaf.

'Aiesha said, "If the Prophet [sa] had the choice between two issues, he would take the easier one as long as there was no sin.”

In a sound hadith we find the Prophet (sa) saying, “Command the people to do what they can handle.”

Ibn Sirin, the great student of the Companions and who a book about dreams is falsely attributed, said, “I have never seen a people easier then the Companions of the Prophet.” This is mentioned by al-Daraqutni in al-Insaf and its chain is questionable.

Regarding talfiq, then we must admit that it is divided into two kinds: acceptable and rejected and, that as an actual study, the concept was born sometime during the late 9th-10th century A.H. Inshallah, we are working on a few research projects that will hopefully serve to answer many of your questions. In addition, once we open our school on the West Coast, brothers and sisters will be able to come, study and engage the Usol in a proper fashion, coupled with practical application.

SDW

You’re right, it’s firstly an issue of terminology (as almost every discussion is), unorthodoxy can be better defined in our context of this discussion when we first determine what it means to “facilitate matters for the people.” As bro. Atif mentions below this may be interpreted by many (usually those who are ready to lauch the accusation of unorthodoxy), to picking and choosing an opinion from the variety of opinions that exist merely to satisfy the convenience of the mustafti (solicitor of legal ruling). Morover, even this procedure can quickly degenerate into giving a ruling simply based on satisfying desires (at least in the first case the range of opinions were the products of an objective, hermeneutic method of ijtihad).

I do not doubt that there is a character of utility in the law, the law must facilitate life, and adherence to a single madhab for its sake will certainly present problems in addressing the complexities of life now and in the future (but this problem is more of an issue of dogmatism and partiality to a madhab).

As for the charge of unorthodoxy, I’m certainly not trying to justify it, I just realized that if one is going to pick and choose a ruling to facilitate things for people, and if that approach is questioned (which I think is not unreasonable), the answer “they don’t understand,” does very little (maybe even harms) any progress towards arriving at understanding and consensus.

In fact, this issue may not even primarily be about whether picking and choosing an opinion has historical precedence among the great legists and jurists (I’m in another discussion with some bros. about the permissibility of following the rukhas, and the conditions that great jurists like Izza ad-din ibn abd as-salam, al-Qarafi, ash-Shatibi, Ibn Taymiyya had imposed – certainly it wasn’t a free for all for them in which the sole benefit of people derived the ruling). Rather I think this issue has to do with configuration of these legal devices and the larger context of power. To facilitate life could very well mean preserving a status quo that is problematic in so many ways to other aspects of the worldview of Islam. Now, historically speaking the jurists may have had few reservations with facilitating life for people by picking and choosing rulings because the order, politically, socially, and even economically was informed by other aspects of Islam, aside juridical.

I just don’t think making talfiq/takhyir with the objective of facilitating life for people is an approach in the context of the times we live in will even at the very end really facilitate life for people, it appears to me it’s making things more and more complex in the long-term. There is a saying attributed to Sufyan ath-thawri (don’t know the authenticity), in which he says, “min akhada bitawadiru al-ulama kharaja min al Islam (he who collects and adopts the strange opinions of scholars has left Islam). So facilitating life for people certainly can’t be the only guiding criterion, and that’s why I mentioned a new framework needs to be developed in which all these parts come together in consonance.

barakAllahu feek for taking the time out in your busy schedule and responding, btw if you see Osman al-Azhari, give him a big hug from me.

Usman

Atif

And Brother Kaleem, you are REALLY putting Imam Suhaib on the spot!

Very interesting discussion. I have heard Hasan Al Basri quoted as saying something like ‘We look for the rukhsa (facilitation), while other scholars look for the difficult option’. This may be a total misquote from me, Inshallah someone can correct me. But there’s no doubt, as I look back on the 20 odd years of learning about halal and haram, that most scholars fall into these two camps: trying to find it easy for the people, and trying to find the harshest opinion. And I have personally found the best scholars to be those who do NOT make things difficult, but by showing how easy Islam is, MOTIVATE oneself to actually want to become closer to Allah SWT. I mean it sounds almost paradoxical, but the more ‘liberal’ you opinion becomes, the more ‘conservative’ your behaviour can become! Always taking the harshest opinion scares people into submission, not motivate them.

And at the end of the day, we need to look at how the Prophet(SAW) did this. From my limited understanding of seerah, he would use both motivation and fear, softness and harshness, but the motivation and softness was much greater. The best example I have of this is the man who asked the Prophet(SAW) permission to commit zina, and his response. And of course, the ayat in the Quran about it being from the mercy of Allah that the Prophet(SAW) is not harsh. Again, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Asalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh:

Point well taken. However, in order for a charge of unorthodoxy to hold water, the following need to be answered:

1. Its definition- I find the word rather ambiguous and used, in many cases, in the wrong context by the wrong people. Perhaps you could provide a definition that would establish why such an accusation will subsist? As our scholars have taught us, without a definition, there is no application.

2. Modernity aside, we need to look at the turath and see if this method, the method of al-Azhar and a great majority of modern jurists, is linked to any authentic historical expression of the law. Off the top of my head I can think of Malik’s opinion regarding Nikah al-Shighar, his reading of the Basmalah in prayer, placing one’s hands on the chests during prayer, and the Shafi’s doing a backspin on the issue of touching a non-Maraham, on accident, during T’awaf.

I can recall, at least in the Maliki madhab, the 3rd century work ‘Uyun al-Adilah, Ibn Rushd’s Bidayatu al-Mujtahid and in recent times Sh. Sadiq al-Ghiryani’s 4 volume work. Of course you have the entire edifice of this thought going back to the Companions, ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz, when he ordered that zakat al-fitir be taken with money, and some of the great early jurists and this continued until the age of hyper taqlid. So if. in fact, such a method’s identity can be found amongst the salaf and the early great jurists, taking from other opinions and ijtihad when there is no “nas” or Ijm’a Sahih, would they be charged with unorthodoxy as well?
The most detailed book I’ve read on this is ‘Ilam al-Muwaq’in ‘an Rab al-’Alamin of Ibn al-Qayim and, of course, al-Shattibi. Even Deobandis must admit that, Shah Wali u Allah held this contention. Sh. Salman al-Nadawi told me, “Towards the end of his life, Shah Wali u Allah wrote, “I cannot address the problems of India with one madhab.”

3. The definition put forward to challenge such an approach, is it agreed upon yujm’a ‘alah? If not, then it has no legal bearing, nor can it be used to declare one as unorthodox. In fact, using it as such would be, in very simple words, unorthodox since it fails to respect the process for which such things are determined.

So, I would counter that before an charge as such can be made, the following need to be addressed:

1. Is there a definition of fatwa that describes such a method as unorthodox?
2. If so, how does it apply to the methods used by al-Azhar and many of the recent legal giants?
3. If such a definition exists, is it agreed upon to the extent that it is given legal authority?
4. Who determines the above?

As al-Ghazzali noted in al-Mustaspha, “The Shari’ah came to achieve what is beneficial [in this life and the next] for human beings.” These words were echoed by Ibn Abi al-Salam, al-Gharafi, al-Maqdasi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and alluded to by Ibn ‘Abbas (ra).

Suhaib

Since we’re on the issue of answering people’s questions, I wanted to know if it is indeed true that according to the Maliki Madhab (or at least an opinion) is that we Muslims are allowed to eat non thabeeha meat from our local super market. If that is true, could you (Imam Suhaib) please provide the reference and daleel. My parents are non-Muslim and everytime I’m invited over to eat, I decline due to my preconceived understanding that non-thabeeha meat is haram to partake in. Secondly, I was informed that according to the Malikis, one would need to be present while a christian or Jew is slaughtering the animal. Furthermore, the argument against eating non thabeeha meat is due to the fact that we live in a secular society wherein religious conviction nor faith are preconditions for working in a slaughterhouse (e.g an atheist could possibly be butchering food). Therefore the whole meat of the Ahlul Kitab issue wouldn’t be applicable and would be haram to eat.

Thanks Imam in advance for any insight.

But modernity has certainly affected Muslim life and the transfer of information and knowledge has eroded to a great extent the religious identities based on a single madhab, now we can find opinions of not only the four madhahib but of even the lesser known scholars (and even their gharib opinions) in a click of a button. Secondly, modernity has destroyed the legal structures and institutions and their governance. So we have people who can research a variety of different, vying opinions, and all the while we don’t have the type of institutions to bring some organization to the application of law.

So the question is on what basis does one give a fatwa for people (the majority of which have no meaningful adherence to a madhhab), and in absence of the type of legal structures which maintain that order? It seems to me that making takhyir (choice between countervailing opinions) based on what is easy for people may be a solution for the interim, at the same time it does little to establish a credible system that maintains a certain objectivity (resembling the classical system) in dispensing justice and being genuine to the texts of wahi and usul. Till a new framework and system is devised, I would expect the charge of unorthodoxy to subsist.