With all due respect, isn’t studying a madhhab the traditional way to understanding fiqh? After all, we’re not trying to be Mujtahidun, we’re trying to be competent, literate Muslims. Secondly, It has been a view held by majority of the classical scholars advocated following a maddhab. I don’t know how you could substantiate the claim that studying a maddhab is not the “most preferred starting point”. Isn’t it actually the opposite. I can personally state that studying a maddhab (Maliki) is quite easy. Especially when reading the beginning texts such as Al Akhdari/Al ashmawiy, Al Murshid, Al izziyya, etc. It actually makes life easy for me since I’m not a Mujtahid.

Lastly, this issue of bigotry is very subjective. We have people today who claim to be of the “salafi” or follow the “salaf” or follow “Islamic Movements” and they couldn’t be more partisan. Bigotry is a human vice that transcends madhhabs. If one has that disposition it doesn’t matter if one is Hanafi, Shafi’i, etc. It’s a bad quality that should cease.

Books like Fiqh of Sunnah present a real shallow and superficial view of Fiqh. It is also not a tried and true approach like following one of the Recognized schools of law.

I find it quite strange how we have modern day scholars (some of whom I have a great respect for) who call for not following any of the schools when this wasn’t the practice of of our Classical Scholars who were JUGGENAUTS in the deen. The like’s of whom our scholars aren’t 10% of.

Imam An Nawawi
Al Ghazali
Ibn Abdil Barr
Muhammad Shaybani
Qadi Iyad
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani
Imam at Tahawi
Ibn Rushd
Imam Abu Bakr al Jassas
Imam Ibn Rajab
Imam al Qurtubi
Imam Al Suyuti

These (as I’m sure you know) just to name of few reached the rank of Al Mujtahid Al Mutlaq (Absolute Mujtahid) and stayed within the maddhab, yet we “commoners” choose the fiqh us sunnah approach? I’m sorry, but I’d feel much safer following the opinons of Malik and his school (Resevoir of scholarship based in his usool) than to follow the likes of many of our prominent modern day scholars who have abandoned this traditional system.

With all due respect bro.

Wa Salaam,
Bro. K

It would be nice if someone could comment on Br Abul-Hussein comments:

“Seventhly, studying a madhab is no easy task and it is not the most preferred starting point for people who are not serious about studying fiqh. Also we do not want to reinforce bigotry for one school over another.
Eightly, what was written was my observation and possibly it may not hold weight you may be right but it is my contention that Fiqh us Sunnah is beneficial more than it is harmful but it is no substitute for the various approaches to fiqh study but represents one approach among others.
Ninthly, when are you going to teach Hanbali fiqh on Suhaibwebb.com?
Lastly, how do you deal with the fact that Imam Ahmad did not desire to leave a school of fiqh behind but desired that people rely directly on the Book and Sunnah?”

One could argue that relying on the book and sunnah can be sought through a school of fiqh.

Allah knows best

to add to my above post I learnt there are 2 (maybe 3) types of people:

-mujtahid-knows so much he can do ijtihad and he knows he doesn’t know
-(muttabi3-knows he doesn’t know and tries to reach level of mujtahid)-this level is of debatable existence
-muqallid-one who doesn’t know

I am assuming a vast majority do taqleed of fiqh or are muttabi3 as being a mujtahid is quite difficult as you have to evaluate the sources yourself from scratch.

I went to a course called Chronicles of the Shariah in London, UK and one of the things I learnt is that we should learn comparative fiqh as much as we can as it’s good to have an appreciation of other opinions. At the same time we should adhere to a school of thought (madh-hab) without being too rigid. If we don’t learn comparative fiqh then 7anafi and Shaafi3ee dispute is inevitable which is problematic: if you the Evolution of Fiqh by Dr. Bilal Philips he highlights the period where 7anafi, Shafi3ee, Maliki and 7anbali wouldn’t even pray together and it’s only last century when the four posts for the four schools of thought to have a separate prayer area was taken down.

Thanks you for the piece. It's very insightful and thought provoking. I begin my approach to fiqh by following a madhhab. Could you please define what you mean by majority and minority positions in particular junctures of fiqh. I think this could help me understand the perspective of many the pears that I work with who say they take from all four schools.

Jizak Allah Khair

Abu Majeed, how are you and the family, hope well. There are a number of points to be mentioned here but I will limit myself to a few points.

Firstly, we agree as a starting point that the way to scholarship is to study a madhab but likewise Ahl Sunnah Wa'l Jam'ah has dealt with comparative fiqh for sometime now and this is part of our tradition and part of scholarship.
Secondly, I would say that part of the issue with studying Fiqh us Sunnah with Shaikh Ahmad (h) with all due respect is that you did not key in on the distinction he made between majority-minority opinions. What Shaikh Ahmad (h) explained to me was that Shaikh Sayyid Sabiq (r) leans to the majority position more often than not.
Thirdly, the approach of most contemporary scholars is to present fiqh with its broadness rather than limit the follower to just one opinion and this is to facilitate ease.
Fourthly, as a point of interest these books are starting points while studying with Ulema.
Fifthly, as a matter of information one of the best books for hadith and comparative fiqh with the soundest opinions is Aujaz al Masalik by Shaikhul Hadith Maulana Zakariyyah (r) he conveys the opinion of fatwa for all for each madhab.
Sixthly, I never said Shaikh Sabiq (r) was influenced by al-Mughni what was said was that he referred to al-Mughni this is a fact. Also, Mughni as you know does not represent the madhab of Imam Ahmad for that we go to Imam Buhuti's works.
Seventhly, studying a madhab is no easy task and it is not the most preferred starting point for people who are not serious about studying fiqh. Also we do not want to reinforce bigotry for one school over another.
Eightly, what was written was my observation and possibly it may not hold weight you may be right but it is my contention that Fiqh us Sunnah is beneficial more than it is harmful but it is no substitute for the various approaches to fiqh study but represents one approach among others.
Ninthly, when are you going to teach Hanbali fiqh on Suhaibwebb.com?
Lastly, how do you deal with the fact that Imam Ahmad did not desire to leave a school of fiqh behind but desired that people rely directly on the Book and Sunnah?

Peace

With all due respect shaikh Yusuf. I see things exactly the opposite as far as a curriculum of study is concerned. I do agree that Sh. Sayyid Sabiq was a great researcher and that his text would be useful for accomplished students of knowledge. The tradition of Ahle Sunnah wal-Jama'ah is to study a madhab thoroughly first preferably with its own scholars. If you can find detailed explanation of a madhhab then that would suffice to come to understand Fiqh but never to teach it as you need a shaikh to bring you to this level. Since we both started studying this book back in 2002 together based upon Sh. Ahmad's interpretation of the Arabic which was much better than the translations I can tell you how confused it made me. Being bombarded with all these opinions on one or two texts and a very unclear form and method of preference for one opinion over the other one gets in what opinion to take. In many cases we find (possibly unintentionally) his shafi'ee influence in the process of tarjeeh. The truth is in most cases if you go to the established and authenticated books of the madhahib you will find much better explanations and proofs to support their posotion something missing. The comparative approach is a last step for a student of knowledge who has a strong base in a madhab in Fiqh, Usool, and Qawa'id as well as a thorough understanding of Hadith sciences and the Arabic language. I also disagree with the contention that Sh. Sayid was influenced by Al-Mugni because it is very rare to see a hanbali opinion and it wasn't until recently that a brother did a commentary on fiqh as-Sunnah according to the Hanbali madhhab. He mentions in his intro that either sh. Sayid doesn't mention the Hanbali opinion or he misrepresents it.

The truth is that the comparative approach to Fiqh always comes up short in representing the madhabs thoroughly as I have found with the most detailed attempts such as the Fiqh encyclopedia from Kuwait and Wahba Zuhaily's Al-Fiqh Al-Islaamy. No one of them will suffice you. The best thing to do would be to get all of the major authenticated expanatory books of each madhab and research them.

Much love in differing with you akhi