The Debate with Shaykh Nā irudd. Dr. Shaykh Mu ammad Sa īd Rama ān al-bū ī Translated by M. Merza and M.A. Absi Revised by Suraqah Abdul Aziz.

Transcription

1 1 3 TheDebatewithShaykhNā TheDebatewithShaykhNā TheDebatewithShaykhNā TheDebatewithShaykhNā irudd irudd irudd iruddīnal īnal īnal īnal-albānī Albānī Albānī Albānī Dr.ShaykhMu ammadsa īdrama ānal-bū ī TranslatedbyM.MerzaandM.A.Absi RevisedbySuraqahAbdulAziz òîjç ß@ýÛa APreview APreview APreview APreviewofal ofal ofal ofal-lā Lā Lā LāMadhhabiyya: Madhhabiyya: Madhhabiyya: Madhhabiyya: AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningtheislamicsharī ah Releasedbywww.sunnipubs.com Forthcomingatwww.sunnipubs.com whichdiffersfromtheprintedversionofthebookinseveralways.theforeword,allfootnotes,titles andsubtitlesfoundinthispreviewhavebeenaddedbythepublisher.shaykhal-bū ī soriginal footnotesasfoundinthebook Al-LāMadhhabiyya havebeenpresentedaspartofthemaintext.the previewhasbeenexcerptedbythepublisherfromdifferentpagesintheoriginalbookwithreference tothepagenumbersmadeinthefootnotes.

2 CONTENTS Publisher sforeword 3 TheDebatewith hedebatewithshaykh Shaykhal al-albānī Albānī IntroductiontotheDebate 4 Shaykhal-Albānī sfirstpoint 5 TheTitle al-lāmadhhabiyya ATerminologicalDiscussion 5 Shaykhal-Albānī ssecondpoint 7 TheStatementsofShaykhal-Khajnadī MisunderstandinghisWords ExcusinghisExpressions 9 InResponsetohisRequest 10 AdditionalNotestotheDebate PrayingBehindaFollowerofanotherMadhhab 11 TheMadhhaboftheMessengerofAllah 13 TheMadhhaboftheCompanions 15 TheAftermathoftheDebate FalseRumorsaboutShaykhMullāRama ānal-bū ī 16 ShaykhMullāRama ān sstatement 17 2

3 Publisher sforeword er sforeword ThisisapreviewoftheforthcomingEnglishtranslationofShaykhMu ammadsa īd Rama ānal-bū ī sgroundbreakingwork,al-lāmadhhabiyyaakh arubid atintuhaddidualsharī atal-islāmiyya.thisworkwasoriginallywrittenin1969asarefutationofmu ammad Sul ānal-ma ūmīal-khajnadīal-makki swork AreMuslimsobligatedtofollowoneoftheFour Madhhabs? which was translated into English and published as The Blind Following of Madhhabs. InthelatereditionsofthisbookShaykhal-Bū īincludedfurtherdebateshehad withlāmadhhabīscholarsandcounter-repliestosomeoftheirsupposed refutations.. In 1995, Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller translated an excerpt from al-lā Madhhabiyya which wastitled, WhyDoesOneHavetoFollowaMadhhab?DebateBetweenMuhammadSa id al-butiandaleading SalafiTeacher. Thisarticlewaspublishedon theinternet 2 and eventuallyreachedthestaffof SalafiPublications. Inresponse,theyattemptedtorefuteit, describingthecontentoftheireffortsas Numerousrefutationsagainstal-Butiwhotries,by cleverlydevisedarguments,tonullifythewayofthesalaf,claimingthatsalafiyyah 3 wasonly ashortandhistoricalperiodoftime. Thetwoarticlestheyproducedwerereleasedon-linein 1999havingbeenexcerptedfromthebook,al-ta a ubal-madhhabiyyahiyaal-bid ah,which waswritteninresponsetoshaykhal-bū ī sal-lāmadhhabiyya. In this preview from al-lā Madhhabiyya we intend to focus specifically on the debate with ShaykhMu ammadnā iruddīnal-albānīwhich Salafipublications referredtoas Imamal- Albani s Subjugation of al-buti. 4 This was further described in their article as A summarisedtranscriptofameetingthattookplacebetweenimaamal-albaniandal-butiand inwhichal-butiwasleftwithnowheretoturn.includesadiscussionoftaqlid,madhhabsetc. Unfortunately, nine years on, a response in English remained lacking, and many may have beenmisledintobelievingafalseoutcomeofthedebatewhichhadoccurred.whathadbeen presentedby SalafiPublications was,ofcourse,notthecompletestory.afteral-ta a ubalmadhhabiyya hiya al-bid ah was released and false rumors began to spread, Shaykh al-buti published a second edition of his book in which he himself responded to these new developments. This was, in fact, as early as 1970, many years before the articles of Salafi Publications wereevenwritten! OurpreviewathandisacompilationofonlysomeoftherepliesbyShaykhal-Butifoundin thelatesteditionofhisbookwhichissoontobereleasedinitsentiretyinenglish.wepray thatthisbriefpresentationwill,inshā Allāh,clarifysomeofthemisconceptionsbroughtforth bythosewhosoughttodistortanddeceive.andallsuccessisfromallah! SalafiPublications isherereferringtoanotherbookbyshaykhal-būtī,al-salafiyyamar alatun zamaniyyatun mubārakatun, lā madhhab islāmī. Its translation is also forthcoming at However, neither of thetwo numerous refutations are actually in refutation of thisbook

4 THEDEBATEWITHSHAYKHAL-ALB ALBĀNĪ NĪ IntroductiontotheDebate tothedebate AllthatcanbesaidisthatShaykhNā iruddīnal-albānīexpressedhisdesireforameetingin order for him to present his views in regards to this book of mine. We actually met, and I listenedtohiscommentsandviews,whichcanbesummarizedintotwopoints: (1)Thefirstwaspertainingtothetitleofthebook,AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthe Most Dangerous Bid ah Threatening the Islamic Sharī ah. He thought the book did not containanysubstancejustifyingthisdangeroustitle. (2)HissecondpointwasthatImisunderstoodthemessageal-Khajnadī,theauthorof thekarrās, 5 meanttoconvey,andiwentaheadandwrotethisbookasarebuttalofhis message.intheviewofshaykhnā ir,he[al-khajnadī]didnotdenythevalidityofthefour Madhhabs and their necessity, nor did he condemn adhering to them by those who are incapableofijtihād.whathedidwascondemnthebigotryofthosewhofavoredthematthe expense of the evidence they understood and comprehended. This, according to him, was a common denominator between al-khajnadī and myself, and that there was no need, on my part,toinstigatethismuchrebellionagainsthim! Thefollowingisasummaryofthecommentshepresentedinasessionbetweenusthatlasted foraboutthreehours. 5 KarrāsmeansPamphlet,referringtoShaykhal-Khajnadī sbook. 4

5 Shaykhal-Albānī s Albānī sfirst FirstPoint Point TheTitle al-lāmadhhabiyya Inregardstothefirstpointhepresented,Itoldhimthatthebookwastruetoitstitle ineveryrespect.whatiintendedtoclarifyasapriorityinmybookwasthatthemuslimswho havenomeansofrelyingdirectlyonthequr ānandsunnahcannothelpbutfollowanimām, whether they choose to adhere to him or switch to some other Imām, a fact that had been showntobetrueduringthetimesofthecompanionsandthosewhocameafterthem.there werethoseamongthecompanionswhodidnotfeelsatisfiedwithafatwāfromanyoneelse otherthanibn Abbās,sotheydidnotseekananswerfromanyoneelse.Noauthorindicated thatanyofthecompanionshadfrowneduponsuchanadherence. Furthermore,thepeopleofIraqspentalongtimeadheringtotheMadhhabof Abdullāhbin Mas ūdrepresentedbyhimorhisdisciplesafterhim.noscholarprohibitedadheringtohis Madhhab. The people of the Hijāz spent a long time as well adhering to the Madhhab represented by Abdullāh bin Umar, his disciples and companions. No scholar prohibited adheringtotheirmadhhab. A ā binabīrabā andmujāhidweredistinguishedinmecca for fatwā. The Caliph s caller would tell people not to seek fatwās from anyone other than thosetwoimāms.thepeopleofmeccaspentaconsiderableamountoftimeadheringtothe MadhhabsofthosetwoImāms.NoscholaropposedtheCaliphinthat.Nooneprohibitedthe CaliphoranyoneelsefromadheringtoaspecificImām. Having said all of that, does it not follow that calling for the unlawfulness of adhering to a specific Imām is a baseless bid ah(innovation) unsanctioned by Allah? Is lā madhhabiyya anythingelseotherthanthat? 6 ATerminologicalDiscussion Weexplainthispointfurtherbysayingthatmadhhabiyyameansthetaqlīdexercised by a layman, or whoever has not attained the rank of ijtihād, of a Madhhab of a mujtahid Imāmwhetherhechoosestoadheretoonemujtahidinparticularortokeepswitchingfrom onetoanother.lā-madhhabiyya,ontheotherhand,meanswhenthelayman,orwhoeverhas notattainedtherankofijtihād,doesnotexercisetaqlīdofanymujtahidimām,whetheritis of one in particular ormore. This is how this term is defined in the language, used in legal nomenclature,andhowpeopleunderstandit.yourefertoapersonasbeingasa izbī (partisan) if he follows a certain party, whether he chooses to stick to it or keeps changing fromonepartytoanother.alā- izbī(non-partisan)however,isonewhodoesnotbelongto anypartywhatsoever. Nonetheless,ShaykhNā irsaysthat thisinterpretationisdifferentfromwhateverymuslim nowadaysunderstands. (DescriptionoftheProphet sprayer,p.232).idon tknowwhythis manisundertheillusionthatheistheexemplarymodeloftruthforeverymuslim,andthat whatheunderstandsoutofsomething,everyoneshouldunderstandthesameway,andwhat he does not understand, everyone should turn away from! Since he did not understand the meaningofthetermsmadhhabiyyaandlāmadhhabiyya,whichiexplainedduringourdebate, every Muslim should line up behind his ignorance, and turn away from this intended meaning!hefurtherarguesthatthroughthisdefinition,idestroyeverythingihavebuiltin my book. According to him, his definition necessitates saying that all people are then 6 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,p IntroductiontotheSecondEdition. 5

6 madhhabīsinwhichcaseiamtalkingaboutsomethingnon-existent.itwouldbequiteeasyto considerallfollowersofsalafismasmadhhabīsaccordingtothisinterpretation,whichshaykh Nā irhasneverimaginedtobecasewiththemeaningofmadhhabiyya.thismeansthatthey do not cease to imitate one of the mujtahid Imāms whose opinions have been verifiably relayedtous.thisissowhethertheychoosetosticktothatimāmortokeepswitchingfrom onetotheother.otherwise,therewouldhavebeennoneedformetopublishthisbookinthe firstplace. Unfortunately,ShaykhNā ir spositionisinconsistentwithreality.noneofthosewhomwe aretryingtoguidebacktothestraightpathoftruth,acceptfollowinganyofthefourimāms, and all allege that they rely directly on the Qur ān and Sunnah. We have seen those semiilliteratesamongthemwhocategoricallyrefusetoacceptthefatwāsofthefourimāms.we pointouttothemtheevidenceandthe adīththeirfatwāisbasedon,thestrengthofit,its validity, its chain of transmission, and who transmitted it. We talk to them as though they weresomekindofexpertsandresearchersinthosematters,yettheyeithertrytocorrectthe MadhhaboftheImāmordismissitaltogetherasridiculousandfaulty!Thesepeoplearenot from Mars or any other extraterrestrial planet. They are people like you and me, but from which every town, village, or neighborhood suffers. There are so many of them to make peoplelikeshaykhnā irproud.whatdoesthisal-khajnadīmean whomhereferstoasa scholar,andwhosekarrāshedefendsandlabelsasuseful whenhesays: Ijtihādiseasyandrequiresnomorethanafewbookssuchasal-Muwa a,thetwo Sa ī s,sunanabīdāwūd,andthecollectionsofal-tirmidhīandal-nasā ī.suchbooks areeasytoget,soifanyofyourbrothersgetthembeforeyoudo,youshouldknowthat youareleftwithnoexcuse. Orwhenhesays: IfthereweremanyversionsofthetransmissionoftheProphet s[ adīths]incertain issues,andonecannotascertainwhichoneisconfirmedandwhichisnot,thenoneisto useallversions,attimesusingoneversion,andatothertimesusinganother. Do you find in these words anything relevant to the definition of madhhabiyya we have established,andwhichshaykhnā irhasobjectedto,claimingthatthisnecessitatessaying thateverybodythenisamadhhabī?didhe[i.e.al-khajnadī]notblocktheiraccesstoanyof theimāmsortheirmadhhabsbyplacingthesa ī s,sunanabīdāwūd,andthecollectionsof al-tirmidhīandal-nasā īinfrontofthem?hesaysthesebooksarewellknownandeasyto get, soifanyofyourbrothersgetthembeforeyoudo,youshouldknowthatyouareleftwith noexcuse. MeaningthatMuslimsshouldstoparguingbecausethereisnoneedtofollowany Madhhabaltogether,neitherthroughadheringoneofthem,norotherwise.ShaykhNā iris probably aware of the fact that all Imāms, including Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-qayyim, and al- Shawkānī have a consensus over the fact that getting these books do not render one a mujtahid,norcanonerelyonthemsolelytodeducerulings.rather,onehastobequalifiedin termsofscholarlyfacultywhichpromoteshimtothelevelofijtihād,insharpcontrasttowhat al-khajnadīsaysinhiskarrās,whichshaykhnā irreferstoas veryuseful.hence,my treatiseinthisbooksuffersnothingofthedestructionshaykhnā irspokeof.rather,thereis aneedforit,unfortunately,althoughiwishtherewasnotsuchaneed. 7 7 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp IntroductiontotheSecondEdition. 6

7 Shaykhal-Albānī s Albānī ssecond SecondPoint Point TheStatementsofShaykhal-Khajnadī As for his second point, it pertains to his interpretation of the statements[of al- Khajnadī]whichcontainclearmistakesanddeviationfromthetruth. When al-khajnadī said, Madhhabs are no more than the opinions of scholars and their understandingofsomeoftheissues,andsuchopinionsarenotmadeobligatorybyallah or HisProphet foranyonetofollow, ShaykhNā irthoughtthattheauthorhadaddressed specificallythosewhopossessedthequalificationtocarryoutijtihādontheirown.thoseare theones,accordingtohim,thatwerereferredtohere. Andhissayingthat, Ijtihādiseasyandrequiresnomorethanafewbookssuchasal-Muwa a,the twosa ī s,sunanabūdāwūd,andthecollectionsofal-tirmidhīandal-nasā ī. Suchbooksareeasytoget,soifanyofyourbrothersgetthembeforeyoudo,you shouldknowthatyouareleftwithnoexcuse. AccordingtoShaykhNā irthisreferstothosewhoattainedthelevelofijtihādandcould,on theirown,deducerulingsfromtheprimarytexts.this,accordingtohim,isconspicuousand bynomeansmisleading.therefore,itdoesnotwarrantanycommentorresponse. Andhissayingthat, WhenthereisatextfromtheQur ān,thesunnah,orthesayingsofthe Companions,oneshouldnotturnawayfromit,andtakethepositionsofscholars. According toshaykhnā ir,thisreferstosomeonewithsomeknowledgeandinsightintosharī ah,its rulings,andinterpretations. Thus,allthesetexts,andotherssimilartothem,inal-Khajnadī skarrās,accordingtoshaykh Nā ir,areinterpretedinaccordancewiththetruthipresented,andthatoneissupposedto understandhiswordsinthelightoftherestrictionsandspecificationsimpliedinvariousparts ofhiskarrās.itoldshaykhnā irthatnoscholargoesaboutimplyingsuchrestrictions,and yet makes the type of generalizations as he did at the same time. Not everybody would understandal-khajnadī sstatementsthesamewayhe,shaykhnā ir,did.hisanswertothat wasthatal-khajnadīwasfrombukhārā,anon-arabwhowasincapableofexpressinghimself asclearlyasanarabwould.headdedthatthemanhasnowlefttothemercyofallah[i.e. passedaway],andthatweshouldtakehiswordstobewell-meaningandthinkwellofhimas muchaswecouldsinceheisamuslimafterall. MisunderstandinghisWords hiswords ShaykhNā irbelievesthereisasentenceinthiskarrāswhichrectifiesmisconceptions throughout all the paragraphs and texts which we cited from the Karrās. He believes this sentenceiswhatal-khajnadīsays(onpage29): Mind you, taking the positions of Imāms and their analogies is tantamount to tayammum (the license to perform ablution using earth when water is not accessible).whenthereisatextfromthequr ān,thesunnah,orthesayingsof the Companions, one should not turn away from it, and take the positions of scholars. 7

8 ThisiswhatShaykhNā irsaidduringourdebate.weponderedatthisstatementtowhich ShaykhNā irdrewourattention,onlytofindthatitmakesmattersworse,andaddsinsultto injury,astheysay. So,everytimeaMuslimencountersatextfromtheQur ānorthesunnah,heistoadhereto it,anditwouldbeunlawfulforhimtoturntotheijtihādoftheimāms!whatanodd statement to make! How can there be anything correct about it? Have we not written this bookforthemainpurposeofcounteringsuchoutlandishremarks? PlacethetwoSa ī sofbukhārīandmusliminfrontofmuslimlaymentoday,andtellthem tounderstandtherulingsoftheirreligionfromthetextsfoundtherein,andbepreparedfor theignorance,theconfusion,andthetamperingwiththereligion.isthiswhatthescholaral- Khajnadī,andthedefenderofhisodditiesShaykhNā irwant? ShaykhIbnal-Qayyim,aswellasthemajorityofthescholarsandImāmssaid: Having access to books on Sunnah alone does not render a fatwā valid. One should attain the ability to deduce, and should be qualified to research and consider.shortofthisqualification,oneshouldfollowwhatallahhassaid: Ask thepeopleofthereminderifyouknownot [Qur ān16:43]. ButShaykhal-Khajnadī,togetherwithShaykhNā ir,says: Wheneveroneencountersatext fromthequr ān,thesunnah,orthesayingsofthecompanions,oneiscommandedtotakeit, rather than take the position of the scholars instead! Whom are we to believe? The consensusofscholarssuchasibntaymiyya,ibnal-qayyim,etc.,ortheuniquepositionsofal- KhajnadīandShaykhNā irinthis useful Karrāsoftheirs?Onceagain,considerwhatal- Khajnadīsaid;youwillbesurprisedbytheunderlyingignoranceinit.Heisundertheillusion thatimāmsbasedtheirijtihād,whichmuslimsjustifiablyfollow,ontheirownconvictionsand ideaswhichbearnoconnectiontothetextsofthequr ānandthesunnah.accordingly,thisis what makes people justified in following them, and this is the inescapable tayammum. The ijtihādoftheimāms,however,cannotbevalidunlesstheyarebasedontheprimarytexts.any Imām who exercises ijtihād without basing it on the Qur ān and the Sunnah cannot be justifiablyfollowedbymuslims.inhiscasehisijtihādisneitherthewaternorthetayammum. Imāmal-Shāfi īsaidinhisbookal-risāla: NooneaftertheMessengerofAllah wasallowedtobaseanythingonanything before him or on anything else other than the Qur ān, the Sunnah, consensus, and the sayings of the Companions, and what can be referred to as analogy. Furthermore,nooneistoexerciseanalogyunlesshehasthequalificationtodo so.thisqualificationassumestheknowledgeoftherulingsinthebookofallah in areas such as: obligations, manners, abrogative and abrogated rules, generalizations,andspecifications,aswellasguidanceinit. Soyoucanseethatthemostprofoundtypeofijtihādisanalogy(qiyās)whichcannotbevalid unlessitisbasedonthequr ān,thesunnah,orthesayingsofthecompanions.thesayingsof Companions are, in fact, considered Sunnah except for some which may allow room for opinions.heisalsoundertheillusionthatignoranceinshar īrulingsisaresultoftheabsence ofatextonthatruling.if,however,thereisatextpertainingtoitinthequr ānorthe Sunnah,thenthecausesofignorancedisappear,andpeopleindiscriminatelyshouldbeable to understand the shar ī rulings from that text, thereby abolishing the need to follow the 8

9 Imāms.Doesasayinglikethatcomefromanyonewhoknowsthemeaningsoftexts,andthe methods of deducing rules from them? An agreement between buyer and seller on a sales transactionisnotsomethingthatisnon-existentforanyresearcherwhoislookingfortextson itinthequr ānandthesunnah.yet,iftheresearcherisnotqualifiedforijtihād,deduction, andtheirrules,hewillnotbeabletoascertainthevalidityofsuchcontracts.also,landtaken bymuslimsasthespoilsofwarisanissuethatdoesnotlackanycleartextsinthequr ānand thesunnah,yetichallengethemostcapablescholarofthoselāmadhhabīsifhedoesnotfeel dizzytryingtoextractrulingsfromthesetextsinthisregard. Therearemanyissueslikethatinfiqh.Sohowcanal-Khajnadīsay: Whenthereisatext from the Qur ān, the Sunnah, or the sayings of the Companions, one should not turn away fromit,andtakethepositionsofscholars. Andwhatneedremainsforanytayammumafter that?shaykhnā irtoldusthatal-khajnadī swordsarebasedontheimpliedassumptionthat aresearcherneedstoattainacapabilityenablinghimtodeducefromthetext.whenwesaid thathemadeageneralizationanddidnotspecifythat,shaykhnā irinsistedthatthewriter meantthatspecifically. We have the excuse not to accept any kind of specificity for this generalization because no Arab grammarian, when he spoke of generalizations, ever said that among such generalizationsarespecificitiesshaykhnā ircanattributetowhatotherssay. 8 ExcusinghisExpressions hisexpressions ShaykhNā irgivestheexcuseonbehalfofal-khajnadī,thatwhathemeantwas oppositetowhatwesaid,basedonthefactthatal-khajnadīwasa non-arabfrombukhārā whosenativelanguagewasn tarabic. 9 Hepraysforhim,wishinghimrewardforhavingbeen abletowritewhathehadwritten,andinvitesustothinkwell[ofhim],andnotbesuspicious ofwhatmuslimssay. What is strange here is to assume there is any connection between having shoddiness in an expression or text to the point that it affects the intended meaning in those texts, giving almost the opposite of what the writer truly means. We looked everywhere in al-khajnadī s book,andcouldnotfindanyothertracesofsuchshoddinessindicatingthathewasnon-arab. Would Shaykh Nā ir, in the same way, find an excuse for the some of the exuberant expressionsofthenon-arab ūfīsbasedonthefactthattheyweremisinterpretedbecause theyhadshoddinessinarabic?wouldhefollowthesameprincipleheisinvitingustoadopt whenitcomestohavinggoodthoughts,andbanishingsuspiciontowardwhatmuslimswrite orsay? 10 8 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp SummaryofwhatwasdiscussedintheKarrās. 9 WecouldnothelpbutnoticethatnotonlyShaykhal-Khajnadī,butalsothe2debatersandothers presentatthedebatewerenotofaraborigin.yet,unlikeshaykhal-khajnadī,theydonotseemtobe inneedofsuchexcuses. 10 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp TheNewClaimmadeintheKarrās:itsEvidencesand Rebuttal. 9

10 InResponsetohisRequest isrequest This was a summary of the encounter we had that lasted for about three hours, and whichwasrecorded.helatersentmeamessagesuggestingthatwemeetagain. 11 Thisiswhat Ihadtosaytohiminresponse: Regarding your suggestion that we meet again, I noticed in our last encounter that none of us benefited from that meeting. You did not changeyourpositioninregardstoal-khajnadī sinnocence,andiwasnot satisfiedwiththewayyouwentaboutinterpretinghiswordseither.inmy opinion, if you had been willing to accept interpreting the words of ShaykhssuchasMu iyyuddīnbin Arabī,andgivehimonefourthofthe interpretationyouwerewillingtogivetoal-khajnadī,youwouldnothave declared him to be a sinful disbeliever. In any case, your discussion last time centered around defending al-khajnadī and showing that his intentionswereconsistentwiththepointsipresentedinmybook.itisjust thatimisinterpretedhiswords,andmissedthetruemeaningsintendedby him.whetheral-khajnadīiswhoyousayheis,orwhoisayheis,itwould be my pleasure to find out that you personally do not agree with what I took al-khajnadī s words to mean. I would be pleased if you were to publishacorrectionforthemisconceptions,andanexplanationforwhat al-khajnadīhadwritten.itwouldbenicetoincludethehomageyousaid youowedtothefourimāms,andthenecessityofadherencetotheminthe case of those who have not attained the level of ijtihād. As for meeting again,iseenopointindoingthat.icameoutofthefirstencounterfeeling that I had wasted three hours which I could have otherwise invested in somethinguseful.pleaseacceptmysincereregards Perhapsweshouldwonderwhysomeonewhohassupposedlysubjugatedhisopponent,andhasleft himnowheretorun,wouldbetheonetorequestaseconddebate. 12 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,p IntroductiontotheSecondEdition. 10

11 ADDITIONALNOTESTOTHEDEBATE PrayingBehindaFollowerofanotherMadhhab Thescholarsofearlytimeshadaconsensusconcerningthevalidityoftheprayerofa Shāfi ībehinda anafīandviceversa.itisknownthatinthiscontext,prayerisanabsolute term.soitmeansaprayerinwhichthepersonprayingisnotawareofanythingthatshould spoiltheprayeroftheimāmleadingtheprayeraccordingtohismadhhab.thisabsoluteness does not include the disagreement among scholars, for example, in the case of a Shāfi ī prayingbehinda anafīwhohastouchedhiswife.suchascenariodoesnotgointothe specificpartsofthewhole,soitisnotincludedinthisabsoluteness.therefore,thereshould notbeanythingbarringashāfi īfromprayingbehinda anafī.thisissimilartosaying: There is a consensus that prayer is valid in an orchard. So, when prayer is not valid in a usurped(orunlawfullyseized)orchard,thisshouldnotmeanthatprayerisabsolutelyinvalid in any orchard. This is clearly understood by anyone who studied the absolute and the restrictiveinanyofthebooksofu ūl. However,itwasinvainthatwetriedtogetShaykhNā irtounderstandthismeaning.during the discussion we had, he insisted on repeating: What is an absolute remains so until something makes it restrictive, as though he was saying: A generalization is general until something makes it specific, without realizing the wide difference in their meanings! Therefore,accordingtohim,IwaswronginsayingthattheconsensusofImāmswasabsolute etc.therewasdisagreementamongtheminregardtoapersonprayingbehindanimām whodoessomethingthatspoilstheprayeraccordingtohisownmadhhab.shaykhnā ir consideredmypositioninregardstothisdisagreementamongscholars,andmysupportofit, as a dangerous restriction against absolute consensus. He considered it a restriction that renderedeverythingi saidmeaningless,andthoughtiwasoneofthose whocallforhaving manymi rābs,andprayergroupsinmosques,eventhough,accordingtohim,ipretendedto condemnthat,andclaimediwasamoderate. Hesaidinhisbook,DescriptionoftheProphet sprayer(p.231): Thebrother,Dr.Bū ī, claimedinhisbook al-lāmadhhabiyya thatthereisconsensusthattheprayerofa anafī behindashāfi īisvalid. WhenItoldhimabouttheabsoluteinvalidityofthisclaim,imagine, heanswered: ThisiscontingentonthefactthattheImām s(whoisofadifferentmadhhab thanhis)prayerneedstobevalidaccordingtohisownmadhhab. Inthathedestroyedallthe moderationhehadpretendedhehad.so,shaykhnā ir,seesnomoderationatallunlesswe saythataperson sprayerbehindanimāmdifferentfromhismadhhabisvalidregardlessof whether the Imām commits something that is invalid in the person s Madhhab or not, and whetherornotthatpersonisawareofthatviolation. WeaskShaykhNā irthefollowingquestion:whatwouldhedoifheprayedbehindanimām whoheknewhadabottleofalcoholinhispocket,andaccordingtoshaykhnā ir sijtihād alcoholwasaninpurity?wouldhebemoderateenough,andcontinueprayingbehindsuchan Imām,orwouldhegiveuphismoderation,withdrawtoanothercornerinthemosque,and formanewgroup?weknowwithcertaintythathewouldrefusetoattendthefuneralofmany deadrighteousmuslimsbecause,theyfellintokufrorshrikaccordingtohisunderstanding. Itisnotaquestionofbeingled,neitherisitaquestionoffollowing.Wouldheallowhimself tobeledinprayerbysomeonewho,accordingtohisownijtihād,hascommittedaviolation? IamnotinterpolatinganythingwhenIreporttheImāms consensusaboutthevalidityofthe prayer of Muslims behind one another irrespective of the differences in their Madhhabs. It 11

12 does not behoove me in a scholarly discussion to pretend something I do not believe in althoughheclaimedidid.mywordsareclearinthematter.anyonewithknowledgeinthe compositionandtheprinciplesofu ūlal-fiqhisawareofthat.moderationiswhatourfuqahā have all along said in regards to the validity of Muslims prayer behind one another irrespectiveoftheirdifferingmadhhabsaslongastheonebeingledinprayerdoesnotknow ofanyviolationforcertaintheimāmhascommittedaccordingtothemadhhaboftheperson beingledinprayer.ifthepersonbeingledbecomesawareforcertainofanyviolationbythe Imām,thenthecorrectthingtoassumeistheinvalidityoftheprayer.Thisissobecausethe validityofprayerorthelackthereofisaccordingtothebeliefofthepersonbeingledrather thanaccordingtothebeliefoftheimāmleadingtheprayer. SupposethatShaykhNā irwasledinprayerbyanimāmwhodidnotreadthebasmallāh(in thenameofallah,mostmerciful,mostgracious)beforereadingal-fāti aandthatthe basmallāh,accordingtoshaykhnā ir sijtihād,waspartofal-fāti a.inthiscase,wewould notconsidershaykhnā irtobeimmoderateinnotallowinghimselftobeledinthatprayer. Whatwetrulycondemn,anddon tconsidertobemoderation,iswhensomepeopleshyaway altogetherfromprayingbehindsomeonewhoisnotoftheirmadhhab.inotherwords,they shyawayfromprayerasawholebehindsuchaperson.noneofourrespectablefuqahā of olden times, during whose time consensus was established, has ever taken such a position characterizedbytheabominablebigotryshaykhnā irhasaccusedthemofinhisbook.it wouldhavebeenniceifheweretomentionthenamesofsuchfuqahā andwhereintheir booksorbiographiestheyhaveeversaidsomethinglikethat Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp SummaryofwhatwasdiscussedintheKarrās. 12

13 TheMadhhaboftheMessengerofAllah engerofallah WeaskedShaykhNā iraboutal-khajnadī swordsdeclaringthemadhhabsofthefourimāms tobecompetingwithwhathecallsthemadhhabofthemessengerofallah.hesaid,when condemningthesemadhhabs: ThetrueMadhhabthatisthedutyofeveryMuslimtofollow isthatofourmastermu ammad. ShaykhNā irsaidthatal-khajnadīwasrightinsaying thatbecausenotallthemadhhabsarecorrect.itispossiblefortheimāmstomakemistakes intheirijtihāds,whereaswhattheprophet saidisimmunefrommistakes.wetoldhimthat the outcome of ijtihād of Imāms is considered from the dīn(religion), be it wrong or right, becauseineithercaseitisrewarded,andineithercaseitisconsideredthedutyofamuslim tofollowaslongasthemistakehasbeeninadvertent.themaninsistedthattheijtihādofa mujtahidisnotdīnsolongasitdoesnotconformtothetruththatwasintendedbyallah Almighty.Oneofthosepresent,ShaykhA madra fatakbāzlīaskedhim: ShaykhAkbāzlī: Isijtihāddīnorisitnot? ShaykhNā ir: Yes,itisdīn ShaykhAkbāzlī: Then,howcanitbedīn,butitsoutcomecannotbedīn? ShaykhNā ir: Youwantmetogoagainstwhatmostscholarsagreeonthatthe inadvertentimplicationsofamadhhabarenotpartofthatmadhhab.aleaderof a Madhhab may express the fact that ijtihād is part of dīn, but its inadvertent implicationsarenotpartofdīn. Here,IcannothelpbutexplainthestrangeillusionShaykhNā irisunderwhenhesaysthis famous rule: The inadvertent implications of a Madhhab are not part of that Madhhab. I havetoexplainwhatitmeansfirst,accordingtothosewhosaidit.scholarshavemaintained the position that if an Imām is known for a Madhhab, and his Madhhab inadvertently necessitatesorimpliessomethinghedidnotintendorexpress,thenthatnecessityisnotpart of his Madhhab. An example of that is the position taken by the Mu tazila that things are intrinsicallygoodorbadandthattherationalmindalonecanrealizethat.ahlal-sunnahwal- Jamā ah,however,sawthatthismadhhabnecessitatessayingthatthingsaregoodorbadin terms of their nature rather than in terms of their creation[i.e. That Allah created it as such];otherwise,onewouldassumethatallah screationisdeficientinwhichcaseitwouldbe considereddisbeliefbyconsensus.however,wedonottakethisinadvertentnecessityagainst themu tazila,andwedonotattributetothemexceptwhattheysaidintermsofthingsbeing intrinsicallygoodorbadsimplybecausethisnecessitymighthaveescapedtheirattention,or theymighthaveconsideredittobeinvalid.however,ifweweretomeetwiththem,andthey confirmedthisnecessitythenitdoesbecomepartoftheirmadhhab.shaykhnā ir,however, is under the illusion that a man may follow a Madhhab without having to believe in its necessary implications although he may have explicitly confirmed such implications. That is whyitisacceptable,inhisview,toaccepttheimplicationandlinkbetweenijtihādbeingdīn anditsoutcomebeingdīn,whileatthesametimebelievingthatiftheoutcomeofsuchijtihād isnotcorrectininterpretingwhatallahalmightyhasrevealedthenitisnotpartofthedīn. Whatismorehumorousisthatheusedtherule(TheinadvertentnecessitiesofaMadhhab arenotpartofthatmadhhab)tobackhisposition.atanyrate,themandidfinallyadmitthat makingamistakeinijtihādispartofdīnaslongasthemistakewasinadvertent,andaslongas themujtahiddidnotinsistonthatmistakeoncehebecameawareofit.weaskedhimwhyis it that al-khajnadī says the four Madhhabs are incorrect, although none of their Imāms persisted in what he found to be a mistake. Then he shifted his position and started saying 13

14 that what al-khajnadī meant was not the Madhhabs themselves but the followers of those Madhhabs!ForaboutaquarterofanhourhewassayingthatnotallthepositionsofImāms werecorrectbecauseofmistakestheyarenotimmuneofmakingintheirijtihāds.therefore, notalltheirpositionsarepartofdīn.whenhehadtoadmitthattheywerepartofdīn,andhe realizedthatwouldmeanal-khajnadī swordsbecamenonsense,hechangedhispositionand started saying that what the man (al-khajnadī) meant was not the opinions of Imāms themselves,butthefollowerswhobecomeawareofthemistakeoftheirimām,andyetpersist infollowinghim.allofthatwasforthesakeofkeepingal-khajnadīintheright,maintaining hisstatureasascholar,andmakingsurethathiswritingscontinuetobeuseful.youtellme, whatdoyoucallthis?isthisnotbigotryinitsugliestform? Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp TheNewClaimmadeintheKarrās:itsEvidencesand Rebuttal. 14

15 TheMadhhaboftheCompanions MadhhaboftheCompanions Does all that we mention not indicate that some of the Companions, Successors, and those whocameevenafterthemfollowedaspecificimāmormadhhab?doesitnotindicatethat adhering to a specific Madhhab is lawful and nothing barring it has been proven? The fact thatthecompanionsandtheirfollowersdidthemselvesadheretospecificmadhhabsproves thelawfulnessratherthantheunlawfulnessofdoingso.isitnotabid ah,aftersayingallof that,todeclareadherencetoaspecificmadhhaborimāmunlawful?weaskedshaykhnā ir if he read this discussion, and he answered: Yes, Allah Willing. We do not know if this Allah Willing was to comment or for the mere sake of blessings. He read the discussion AllahWilling,buttheexclusivenessgivento A ā binabīrabā andmujāhid sfatwāsin Meccaescapedhisattention.Thisexclusivityindicatestherewasaconsensusintermsofthe legality of adhering to a specific Imām, and that declaring such adherence to be unlawful wouldbeabid ah,andacontradictiontowhatallah haspermitted.hereadthediscussion Allah Willing but did not find in the adherence of the people in Iraq to the Madhhab of OpinionrepresentedbyAbdullāhbinMas ūd,andhisstudentsafterhim,anyevidenceforthe unlawfulness of such adherence, and the impermissibility to declare it unlawful. Nor did he findanyevidenceforthevalidityofthisadherenceinthecaseofthepeopleof ijāzandtheir adherencetothemadhhabofabdullāhbin Amr,hisstudents,andhiscompanionsafterhim. Hereadthediscussionbutdidnotfindanysupportfortheabsoluteconsensusinregardsto themillionsofpeopleadheringtothefourmadhhabsoftheimāms,whichindicatesthatsuch adherence by a Muslim is neither prohibited, nor discouraged, nor was it a bid ah. It is obviousthat,afterpretendingtoignorealltheseevidences,andcallingfortheunlawfulness ofadherencetoaspecificmadhhab,isanunfoundedbid ah.basedonthat,wecansaythatlā madhhabiyyaisthemostdangerousbid ahthreateningtheislamicsharī ah,especiallyinour times,whenmanypeoplehavebeenvictimstotheirveryownselfishdesires Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,footnoteonp NecessityofTaqlīd:Thevalidityandevidenceforadhering toaspecificmadhhab. 15

16 THEAFTERMATHOFTHEDEBATE FalseRumorsabout RumorsaboutShaykh ShaykhMullāRama MullāRama ānal ānal-bū Bū ī Furthermore, some of the lā Madhhabī callers and some of their followers spread falserumorsaboutthediscussionihadwithshaykhnā ir,noneofwhichwarrantsany comments from my part. After all, the efforts I have exerted in this respect were for the serviceofislamicsharī ah,andforthemiseeknorewardsfromanyoneotherthanallah. Letthosepeoplesaywhatevertheywanttosayafterthat. Whatreallymatteredtomeoutofalltheliesthosepeopleunleashed,wastogivethereader thefactaboutsomething,namelytheirfalseclaimthatmyfather,mayallahprotecthim, 16 whoparticipatedinpartsofthedebate,approvedofshaykhnā ir sviews,andwasopposed tomine.icouldnotkeepsilentaboutsuchrumorbecauseifidid,itwouldbeusedbythemto tryandattractmorepeopletotheircrookedways.theywouldresorttosayingthat thepious scholarofdamascus,shaykhmullāal-bū ī, agreedwiththem. Tothisend,myfatheraskedmetoclarifytothereaderthatthisisabaselesslie,andthatthe truthisquitecontrarytotheirlies,andtopointoutthattherecordingofthedebateisthebest evidence to that. The reader will find my father s statement signed by him right after this introduction MullāRama ānal-bū īpassedawayseveralyearsago,mayallahhavemercyuponhim. 17 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,p IntroductiontotheSecondEdition. 16

17 ShaykhMullāRama MullāRama ān s ān sstatement Statement I,thefatherofMu ammadsa īdrama ānal-bū ī,saythatanyonewhoclaimsi supportthewordsofshaykhnā ir,knowsnothingaboutmethodology,researchordebating. Howcanmywordsbeofanysupporttohis,whenIpointedouthisignoranceregardingthe absoluteevidence?inotherwords,ifsomething isabsolute,thenitcoverseverypartofthe individual.manyfuqahā (jurists)havemaintainedthatifamanattachesthecontingencyof the divorce of his wife according to her prayer,and her prayer was notshar ī(lawful), then sheisnotdivorcedbecauseherprayercannotbereferredtoasaprayer;yethebelievedmein this,andagreedtoit.thenitoldhimthatthisbook, al-lāmadhhabīyya,wasintendedfor scholars and not commoners, meaning that although you may question what the author intendstosayinthisbook,youwillultimatelyfindtheanswersinthescholarlyterminology usedthereinratherthanfinditexplicitlyexpressedbytheauthor. Thenagain,howwouldIsupportsomeonewhosaysthattheMadhhabsofthefourImāmsare notpartofreligion?(thisisinspiteofthefactthaticlarifiedforhimthattheprophet confirmedthelegitimacyofijtihād,andthattheprayerofamujtahid isrightevenifitwas wrong,andthattheprophet s confirmationthereofispartofreligion).butaccordingto him, such a prayer is wrong, and yet he does not feel that he is necessarily saying that the Prophet confirmedawrongfuldeed.farfromit!thisshouldsufficetoshowthatheisa victimofhisowncapriciousness,andunawareofthehavochewreakedagainsthimself.his recordingisthebestevidence MullāRama ān ān 18 Al-LāMadhhabiyya:AbandoningtheMadhhabsisthemostdangerousBid ahthreateningthe IslamicSharī ah,p.32 MyFather sstatement. 17