Q. "It is generally believed by the Sunni Muslims that each
one of the Madhahib of Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali, being
one of the possible interpretations of Shariah, is right and none
of them can be held as something against the Shariah. But on the
same time we see that the followers of Hanafi school never depart from
the Hanafi view and never adopt the Shafi'i or Maliki view in any juristic
matter. Rather, they deem it impermissible to follow another jurist's
view in a particular issue. How can this behavior be reconciled with the
belief that all the four madhahib are right? If all of them are right,
there should be no harm if the Hanafi Muslims follow Shafi'i or Maliki
or Hanbali views in some particular matter.
(Husain Ahmad, London).
A. It is true that all the four madhahib are right, and following
any one of them is permissible in order to follow the Shariah. However,
a layman who lacks the ability to compare between the arguments of each
madhhab cannot be allowed to pick and choose between different views only
to satisfy his personal desires. The reason for this approach is two fold:
Firstly, the Holy Quran in a number of verses has emphatically
ordered to follow the guidance of Shariah, and has made it strictly
prohibited to follow the personal desires vise a vise the rules of Shariah.
The Muslim jurists, while interpreting the sources of Shariah never
intend to satisfy their personal desires. They actually undertake an honest
effort to know the intention of Shariah and base their madhhab on
the force of evidence, not on the search of convenience. They do not choose
an interpretation from among the various ones on the basis of its suitability
to their personal fancies. They choose it only because the strength of
proof leads them to do so.
Now, if a layman who cannot judge between the arguments of different madhahib
is allowed to choose any of the juristic views without going into the
arguments they have advanced, he will be at liberty to select only those
views which seem to him more fulfilling to his personal requirements,
and this attitude will lead him to follow the 'desires' and not the 'guidance'
a practice totally condemned by the Holy Quran.
For example, Imam Abu Hanifah is of the view that bleeding from any part
of the body breaks the wudu', while Imam Shafi'i believes that the wudu
is not broken by bleeding. On the other hand, Imam Shafii says that
if a man touches a woman, his wudu' stands broken and he is bound to make
a fresh wudu' before offering Salah, while Imam Abu Hanifah insists that
merely touching a woman does not break the wudu.
Now, if the policy of 'pick and choose' is allowed without any restriction,
a layman can choose the Hanafi view in the matter of touching a woman
and the Shafii view in the matter of bleeding. Consequently, he
will deem his wudu' unbroken even when he has combined both the situations,
while in that case his wudu' stands broken according to both Hanafi and
Shafii views.
Similarly, a traveler, according to the Shafii view, can combine
the two prayers of Zuhr and 'Asr. But at the same time, if a traveler
makes up his mind to stay in a town for four days, he is no more regarded
a traveler in the Shafii view, hence, he cannot avail of the concession
of qasr, nor of combining two prayers. On the other hand, combining two
prayers in one time is not allowed in the Hanafi school, even when one
is on journey. The only concession available for him is that of qasr.
But the period of travel, according to Hanafi view is fourteen days, and
a person shall continue to perform qasr until he resolves to stay in a
town for at least fourteen days.
Consequently a traveller who has entered a city to stay there for five
days cannot combine two prayers, neither according to Imam Shafi'i because
by staying for five days he cannot use the concession, nor according to
Imam Abu Hanifah, because combining two prayers is not at all allowed
according to him.
But the policy of 'pick and choose' often leads some people to adopt the
Shafi'i view in the matter of combining prayers and the Hanafi view in
the matter of the period of journey.
It is evident in these examples that the selection of different views
in different cases is not based on the force of arguments leading to them
but on the facility provided by each. Obviously this practice is tantamount
to 'following the desires' which is totally prohibited by the Holy Quran.
If such an attitude is allowed, it will render the Shariah a plaything
in the hands of the ignorant, and no rule of Shariah will remain
immune from distortion. That is why the policy of 'pick and choose' has
been condemned by all the renowned scholars of Shariah. Imam Ibn
Tamiyyah, the famous muhaddith and jurist, says in his 'Fatawa':
"Some people follow at one time an imam who holds the marriage invalid,
and at another time they follow a jurist who holds it valid. They do so
only to serve their individual purpose and satisfy their desires. Such
a practice is impermissible according to the consensus of all the imams."
He further elaborates the point by several examples when he says:
"For example if a person wants to pre-empt a sale he adopts the view
of those who give the right of pre-emotion to a contingent neighbor, but
if they are the vendee of a property, they refuse to accept the right
of' pre-emotion for the neighbor of the vendor (on the basis of Shafi'i
view) .... and if the relevant person claims that he did not know before
(that Imam Shafi'i does not give the right of pre-emotion to the neighbor)
and has come to know it right then, and he wants to follow that view as
from today, he will not be allowed to do so, because such a practice opens
the door for playing with the rules of Shariah, and paves the path
for deciding the halal and haram in accordance with one's desires."
(Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah Syrian ed. 2: 285, 286).
That was the basic cause for the policy adopted by the later jurists who
made it necessary for the common people to adopt a particular madhhab
in its totality. If one prefers the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifah, he should
adopt it in all matters and with all its details, and if he prefers another
madhhab, he should adopt it in full in the same way and he should not
'pick and choose' between different views for his individual benefit.
The consequence of the rightness of all the madhahib, according to them,
is that one can elect to follow any one of them, but once he adopted a
particular madhhab, he should not follow another madhhab in a particular
matter in order to seek convenience or to satisfy his personal choice
based on his desire, not on the force of argument.
Thus the policy of allegiance to a particular madhhab was a preventive
measure adopted by the jurists to prevent anarchy in the matter of Shariah.
But obviously, this policy is meant for the people who cannot carry out
ijtihad themselves, or cannot evaluate the arguments advanced by every
madhhab in support of their respective views. Such people can do nothing
better than following a particular madhhab as a credible interpretation
of Shariah.
But the people equipped with necessary qualifications of ijtihad need
not follow a particular madhhab. They can derive the rules of Shariah
directly from their original sources. Similarly, the persons who are not
fully qualified for the exercise of ijtihad, yet they are so well-versed
in the Islamic disciplines that they can evaluate the different juristic
views on pure academic grounds without being motivated by their personal
desires are never forbidden from preferring one madhhab over the other
in a particular matter. There is a large number of Hanafi jurists who,
despite their allegiance to Imam Abu Hanifah, have adopted the view of
some other jurist in several juristic issues. Still, they are called 'Hanafi'.
This partial departure from the view of Imam Abu Hanifah was based on
either of the following grounds: sometimes they, after an honest and comprehensive
study of the relevant material, came to the conclusion that the view of
some other Imam is more forceful. Sometimes they found that the view of
Imam Abu Hanifah is based on pure analogy, but an authentic Hadith expressly
contradicts that view and it is most likely that the hadith was not conveyed
to Imam Abu Hanifah, otherwise he would not have adopted a view against
it.
In some other cases, the jurists felt that it is the requirement of the
collective expedience of the Ummah to act upon the view of some other
imam, which is an equally possible interpretation of Shariah, and
they adopted it not in pursuance of their personal desires, but to meet
the collective needs of the Ummah and in view of the changed circumstances
prevailing in their time.
These examples are more than enough to show that the followers of a particular
madhhab have never taken it as a substitute of Shariah or as its
sole version to the exclusion of every other madhhab. In fact, they have
never given a juristic madhhab a higher place than it actually deserved
within the framework of Shariah.
Before parting with this question, I would like to clarify another point
which is extremely important in this context: some people having no systematic
knowledge of Islamic disciplines often become deluded by their superficial
information based on self-study, and that too, in most cases, through
translations of the Holy Quran and ahadith. By virtue of this kind
of cursory study, they presume themselves to be the masters of the Islamic
learning, and start criticizing the former Muslim jurists. This attitude
is totally wrong and devoid of any justification. The inference of juristic
rules from the Holy Quran and Sunnah is a very meticulous exercise
which cannot be carried out on the basis of a sketchy study.
While studying a particular juristic subject one has to collect all the
relevant material from the Holy Quran and from the ahadith found
in different chapters and different books, and to undertake a combined
study of this scattered material. He has to examine the veracity of the
relevant ahadith in the light of the well settled principles of the science
of hadith. He has to discover the historical background of the relevant
verses and traditions. In short, he has to resolve a number of complicated
issues involved. All this exercise requires very intensive and extensive
knowledge which is seldom found in the contemporary 'Ulama, who have specialized
themselves in the subject, let alone the common people who have no direct
access to the original sources of Shariah.
The upshot of the above discussion is that all the four madhahib being
based on solid grounds, it is permissible for a competent Hanafi alim
to adopt another juristic view, if he has the required knowledge and ability
to go into the merits of each madhhab on the basis of adequate academic
research without being indulged in persuing his personal desires. But
the people who do not fulfil these conditions should not dare to do so,
because it can lead to a dangerous state of anarchy in the matter of Shariah.
|