Response to those who say: I refer directly to the Qur’an and Sunnah, with no need for scholarsHow should I respond to what some of my relatives say? When I tell them about the views of the scholars which explain to them that some of the things they do are haram, with evidence, they say: We learn our religion directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah, with no need for the scholars, because everyone can understand the Qur’an and Sunnah however he wishes, but these scholars are male and issue fatwas to suit the whims of men, and that undermine the rights of women. One time I even heard them saying words harshly criticising one of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah – Allah forbid.
Acceptance of da‘eef hadiths as evidence by the Hanbalis and othersSome people claim that the Hanbali madhhab is quite lax and easygoing in its acceptance of hadeeth and therefore follows a lot of weak hadeeth. What do you have to say about this.
Difference between Shari’ah, Fiqh and Usul Al-FiqhWhat is the difference between fiqh and Shari’ah and what is usul ul fiqh?
The basic principle regarding animals is that they are permissible, but in the case of slaughtered animals and their meat, the basic principle is that they are prohibitedThere is a juristic principle that was mentioned by the great scholar as-Sa‘di in his Manzumah, which states that the basic principle regarding meat is that it is prohibited. His student Ibn ‘Uthaymin commented on that by noting that this does not refer to live animals; rather the basic principle concerning live animals is that they are permissible. Rather this basic principle refers to meat, such as a game animal that fell into water or any slaughtered animal when the one who slaughtered it is unknown. The great scholar al-‘Alwan said something similar when he was refuting this principle, which was mentioned by the great scholar Ibn al-Qayyim, and he rejected it, but he affirmed something similar to the view of Ibn ‘Uthaymin, namely that if there is one reason to regard something as prohibited and another reason to regard it as permissible, then it is to be deemed prohibited. He mentioned the issue of a game animal if it falls into water, and he quoted as evidence to refute this principle the fact that the Sahabah ate the meat of tame donkeys before it was prohibited, when there was no specific evidence to suggest that it was permissible. He stated that there was no dispute among the Sahabah regarding the principle that the flesh of animals is permissible in general. As for the dispute, it arose among those who came after them. The jurists mentioned this principle. Could what is mentioned in their books be understood as meaning that it is general in application, in the sense that the basic principle regarding meat and animals is that they are prohibited? Some of the earlier jurists followed this principle and regarded it as general in application, and some of them put restrictions, as Ibn ‘Uthaymin mentioned that this is applicable to meat but not to the animals themselves.
Actions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): prescriptive, non-prescriptive and exclusive to himWhat is the evidence for following the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in his actions, especially since there is a difference of opinion concerning the principle that what matters is the general meaning (not the specific reason for a particular teaching). Is the general principle that the Prophet’s actions are prescriptive and that the teachings and rulings apply equally to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his ummah? Is there consensus on that, and what is the evidence that we should follow the way of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? If the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did something in private and one of the Sahaabah saw him, is he to be followed in that, such as when someone saw him urinating whilst standing? Is there any blame on me for thinking about these things? Iblees whispers to me (and tries to confuse me) when I follow the way of the Prophet?
Reasons for the difference of opinion among the fuqaha’ about reciting behind the imamI have read your answer to the question "reciting surah fatiha behind the imam" but i have a confusion in it. What Ive heard is that imam Maalik lived his life in madinah and learnt religion from there, then why does he suggest that surah fatiha should not be recited when imam recites out loud? He was born in 93 AH and was the closest in all the imam such as imam Shafi and imam Hunbal to the time of Prophet (peace and mercy be upon him). Then why is there a difference in his teachings and the teachings of the others? A similar difference is on keeping the hands by ones sides while qiyaam. Please explain and if possible please give references from mauta imam malik as well. I understand that imam abu hanifa was the closest to the time of Prophet (peace and mercy be upon him) but since he was in iraq his teachings are different in many matters. But is this true that his students corrected many hhadees when they came to madinah? Like I've heard that one of his students Abu Abdullah corrected nearly 3000 ahadees he learnt from imam abu hanifa when he came to Madinah.
How can we know which hadiths were abrogated and which abrogated others? Isn’t this a source of confusion?I have a question regarding abrogations in Islam during the time of prophet Muhammad(PBUH). My question is that how can we be sure that the sahih ahadith we have today were not abrogated afterwards(i.e., sometime after that but before the demise of prophet Muhammad) and there was a new ruling on the matter?...there are many matters in which there were abrogations, matters that we know of so I am thinking that may be there were matters that were abrogated and that which we dont know of?...so how can we follow the sahih and hassan ahadith without knowing for sure that they were not abrogated later in time?
Was there consensus on the permissibility of absolute taqleed of one of the four madhhabs?Is there any ijma of scholars regarding absolute taqleed of any of the four madhab in the third century hijjri? what this is meant by this ayat " obey Allah and the messenger and those who are given authority. if you disagree in anything, plz refer to Allah and his Prophet". i was reading that this ayat refer to absolute taqleed of any four school of thoughs and 2nd part "in case of disagreement" is only for the scholars/mujjadid, not for other people. Does this means that Quran and sunnah can only be understood by elite of scholars. People other than scholars, are bound to follow any of the four school of thoughts.
The relationship between prophetic hadith and scientific realityAlthough I dont yet know a hadith which clearly contradicts with reality but I am saying by way of knowledge can reality abrogate hadith? ie if a hadith contradicts reality or established scientific facts can we reject it.As(as far as I know) a very strong chain narration hadith can abrogate another (when reconcilation is not possible) contradictory hadith although sahee but not as strong as other. Can we call such a person disbeliever if he rejects hadith saying it contradicts reality or scientific facts(after he is unable to reconcile it) Even if there may be no contradiction with reality or real facts but still I want its very much detailed answer (much important) What are the comments of great scholars on this issue. Inshallah As I may publish a book in which I may quote the answer you will provide giving your website's reference.
Ruling on making analogies with regard to concessionsWhat is the ruling on doing qiyaas on concessions (Rukhas) such as doing qiyaas upon rain as a concession to absent oneself from Salaah Al-Jamaaah and thus giving concessions with regards to other things which may cause some inconvenience to a person? Some of the scholars mentioned the reason behind the hadeeth about there being no salaah when food is brought as being that a person's mind is occupied with the food. Then, would it make sense to say that a person can miss Salaah Al-Jamaa'ah whenever their mind is slightly occupied? Also, if the reason for a concession is not present but the situation is, is the concession still present (for example, if it is raining but one has an umbrella or a car and they can get to the masjid without getting wet, assuming getting wet was the reason for the concession)? Is it not also the case that it would still be permissible for a person travelling in a first class luxurious style to combine and shorten the Salawaat even though he may not experience any hardship at all in performing them as normal, whereas a person could be extremely occupied with his work and in a hard situation, but it would still not be permissible for him to shorten the Salawaat.
She had many fatwas available to her and chose the one she felt most comfortable withI know that the ordinary Muslim does not have the knowledge to examine the evidence for two views and determine which view is most likely to be correct, and he has no choice but to ask a scholar whose knowledge he trusts. But what that means is that he should not check his heart at all (and see how he feels) or use his mind or intellect to see where it may lead him if he reads the evidence of all sides. I have the habit of not asking just one shaykh, because there are some trustworthy shaykhs who may have strict and harsh views that are not based on any proper understanding of real-life situations. So I resort to examining the evidence of both sides, such as one who says that all Islamic groups are outside of the saved group. Therefore I am relying on two things: 1. following evidence and 2. relying on the principle that ease is one of the aims of sharee‘ah. Sometimes I ask a question and receive an answer that I find too lenient, so I ask someone who is more strict, and if he gives me an answer based on clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, I follow his view, and vice versa. Sometimes I ask a question and get an answer that I find very strict and harsh, so I ask another shaykh, and if his opinion is easier (and supported by evidence), I follow it. An example of that is the view that a prayer does not have to be repeated if the worshipper omits one of the conditions of prayer out of ignorance, because the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not instruct anyone to repeat prayers in which mistakes had been made out of ignorance. Moreover this also entails hardship, because every once in a while I find out about a mistake that I used to make in the prayer, out of ignorance, so do I have to make up for the prayers in every case, and will I have to spend the rest of my life making up prayers? My question is: Is what I am doing correct, which is the idea that the ordinary Muslim should follow convincing evidence if he has some doubts about some fatwa that he has been given, and he should keep away from fatwas that are clearly very strict, because ease is one of the aims of sharee‘ah? To explain further, the examples I gave above about the choice of view that I follow is because there is hardship in the opposite view, are as follows: not repeating prayer because of having omitted one of its prerequisites out of ignorance; not regarding as a disbeliever one who listens to people mocking the religion when he does not approve of their actions; and covering the feet with the socks when praying, without making the abayah long enough to cover the feet, so that I can move more easily.
Not keeping in mind the intention of drawing closer to AllahWill not keeping in mind the intention of drawing closer to Allah have any impact on the validity of the deed, or does it just detract from the reward? If someone intends to do ghusl with the intention of entering Islam, or removing major impurity, but he forgets the intention of drawing closer to Allah, is his ghusl valid?
He is asking about issues concerning which the four imams differedWhat are the points concerning which the four imams differed? What is the saheeh evidence for each view? Because knowing that will help me a great deal to explain the issue of blind following and following a particular madhhab, which is an issue that the Muslims argue about a great deal and promote.
Is There a Difference between Wajib and Fard?There were no distinctions whatsoever between a certain act being fard or wajib, or a certain posture being a sunnah or integral [rukn], etc., at the time of the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s demonstration left no complexities or uncertainties. Then how do we have fard , wajib, or sunnah acts now; who had defined the act "fard , wajib, or sunnah”?
What is required of the ordinary Muslim is to follow the scholars of his city and not to follow any view other than theirsIs it permissible for the ordinary Muslim to ask any scholar for a fatwa, or must he seek fatwas from the scholars of the city in which he lives only?
What Is Shari’ah?What is Shari’ah?
Consensus (ijmaa‘) and analogy (qiyaas) and their application in the modern contextWhat is the clear difference between consensus (ijmaa‘) and analogy (qiyaas)? Please give some examples to clarify, from the time of the Prophet and modern times.
The story of ‘Umar’s exiling of Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from MadinahIt is said that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab exiled Nasr ibn al-Hajjaaj for his exceptional good looks. Is this true? What was the reason for that?
Can he continue to follow the Hanafi madhhab, and how can he determine which view is correct?I have grown up in a community of people following barelwi aqida and Hanafi fiqh, I have come to realise that its wrong and repented and changed my aqida but because there are no imams or learned muslims upon correct aqida in my community it makes it difficult to learn the strongest opinion in matters. I am already aquainted with hanafi fiqh so my question Is it permissible for me to continue following Hanafi fiqh whilst having correct aqida?
He wants to move from being Ibaadi to being Sunni (Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah)I follow the Ibaadi madhhab and I want to change my madhhab to Sunni but there are many obstacles, including the fact that I grew up with the Ibaadi madhhab, and my family and the people of the region where I live all follow this madhhab. My question is: what should I do? Can I pray with my arms by my sides, without raising them, clasping my hands on my chest and saying Ameen, whilst doing all of these things in my heart? What about my duties towards my parents and my family? I hope that you can explain the differences between the four madhhabs and how to pray according to each madhhab. What is the most famous of these madhhabs? Which madhhab do you advise me to follow?