ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

The example that comes to mind is that Noor said Dr Tahir Ul Qadri says women can travel without a mahram any distance yet all the madhabs agree you can't and only one madhab says you can but only for Hajj.

Two actually - Shafi's and Maliki's.

Travel is something that the reasons for the various sayings are known - security.

As such, it is te security of the situation which determines if women can travel or not.

(One thing that should be remembered is that madhabs are there for convenience.)

Some contemporary people argue that travelling in modern times have changed from how it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). It is incumbent upon us to look at travelling in our time. It is not like how travelling was in the past. It is not filled with the dangers of the waterless deserts, encounters with thieves, highway robbers, etc. Now travelling is by various modes of transportation that usually gather large amounts of people at a time, such as planes, cars, buses, ships, etc. Thus, this provides plenty of confidence and reliability, removing feelings of fear for the woman, because she will not be by herself in any place, and the principle of Islamic Jurisprudence states: Rulings change due to the changing of times. Also, some classical scholars have made exceptions with regards to the impermissibility of women travelling in that they may travel in a group, or if there is no fear or risk of Fitna, it would be permissible.

The above understanding is incorrect due to many reasons, and the permissibility of women travelling without a Mahram can not be justified on its basis.

.........

Read more

From that link, the important bit is:

Some try to justify women’s travelling with the Hadith where the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) mentioned that a woman will travel and perform Tawaf of the Ka’ba without a husband with her (Sahih al-Bukhari). This Hadith seems to suggest the permissibility of women travelling alone, but it needs further, more precise analysis. The Shafi’i school, for example, considered this Hadith as evidence that a woman may travel for Hajj without a Mahram if the journey is safe. The Hanafi jurists, however, pointed out that this Hadith is an account of something which is going to happen, and as such is not a sign of its approval or permissibility. In any case, it seems very shaky to deduce a general permissibility of a woman travelling alone in safety just from this hadith, especially in view of all the other evidences. (See: Fath al-Bari, Umdat al-Qari & I’la al-Sunan).

But that argument makes no sense as it will always pretend that time "will happen at some pount"

I was just listening to Hamza Yusuf, and he mentions

"...the fatwa was known and understood to be specific to a time and place... The hanafi school believes ... others don't ... that the place affects the ruling... so if you are in england... there are certain rulings that may not be permissible in another place..."

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Dawud wrote:

True.

The above post took me an hour and ten minutes to write.

Jazak'Allah for your time Dawud!

i don't want to sound like an idiot but erm, did you say all that just for salaah?

or

So you wouldn't follow any other shaykh if one or all four madhabs said something else about a certain matter?
The example that comes to mind is that Noor said Dr Tahir Ul Qadri says women can travel without a mahram any distance yet all the madhabs agree you can't and only one madhab says you can but only for Hajj.

Shaykh Ul Islam Tahir Ul Qadri is a Hanafi Scholar and has deduced that opinion based on Hanafi Jurisprudence. Noor can better tell you the specifics but it was for certain journeys, not every journey. This shows you the felxibility of the madhhabs, different (qualified) scholars, within the SAME madhahab, can have different opinions, with both being correct.

You wrote:

(One thing that should be remembered is that madhabs are there for convenience.)

So is a life support machine.

It is better to follow one as the people will use the same methodology and to avoid accusations of picking and mixing.

However at the same time - and most will disagree with me on this - I think it cna be ok to follow a mixture as long as its not contradictory. Afterall there is a hadith about if the prophet was faced with two equally halaal choices, he would pick the easier option.

Not strictly.

Ideally you follow one madhab and if the matter is not covered in that madhab (rarely the case in the hanafi one as that has had he most research/people, but can be in others), then look to others etc.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf mentioned that many madhab rulings were specific to both a time and a place too.

When people follow one, they still mention how the others are also considered correct, but they have different methodologies and different ways of ranking and using ahadith.

For instance, a popular example is about seafood - the hanafi madhab is only the sea dwelling creatures that cannot live outside water are halaal while the sh'afi ius that all sea animals are halaal. They both use the same hadith as evidence which mentions something about carrion from the sea being halaal or something.

The shafi'is say "looks, it says from the sea = halaal", while the hanafis say "but, its not from the sea if it can survive outside it" or something like that.

You wrote:

It is better to follow one as the people will use the same methodology and to avoid accusations of picking and mixing.

However at the same time - and most will disagree with me on this - I think it cna be ok to follow a mixture as long as its not contradictory. Afterall there is a hadith about if the prophet was faced with two equally halaal choices, he would pick the easier option.

I understand that but get confused too. For example if you were to follow the hanafi timings for salaah normally but one day you decide that you're gna read Asr at the Shafi'i time cuz you've still got wudhu. That would mean that if you read zuhr later than normal/whe asr has started with shafi'i time, one day, then either you Asr was too early or you zhur too late. Have i just rambled on and on or does it make sense? :/

in that case, it is best to read zuhr within shafi time and asr within hanafi time as that way you are correct compared to both.

However, when I went to saudi a few years ago for umrah, now I am sure some will say this is wrong, but they do the asr pretty early, before the time starts according to the hanafi madhab.

I still read it with the jama'ah and thought there was nothing wrong with it.

Dawud wrote:

True.

The above post took me an hour and ten minutes to write.

Much appreciated.

Lilly wrote:

what your opinion on blind following?

Define blind following.

Traditionally this is what happened. Throughout the ages, there were a handful of scholars whom everyone went to, and people accepted what they said without needing to know the evidence. This started from the time of the companions (ra). Even though there were hundreds of thousands of companions, only a handful were qualified enough to give fatwa and people went to them for rulings. It's only recently that people have started to question things which have been accepted for over a thousand years, and wanting to know the evidences for everything, even though most of them don't know anything about ulum-ul-hadith or usul-ul-fiqh.

I don't know whether you have read the article 'Understanding the Four Madhhabs' by Abdul Hakim Murad. Its also available in book form from Azhar Academy.

Lilly wrote:

Wanted to ask you, that vid by Bilaal Philips, what do you not agree with?

I haven't seen that whole video but I have watched other videos of him and disagree with several things.

At the beginning (of that video ^^) he 'creates' a problem, by saying that one has a dilemma of either following a madhab (people who were far greater in knowledge) or following the Quran and Sunnah, whilst not acknowledging that the madhabs are following the Quran and Sunnah. Creating a division which is not necessary.

Lilly wrote:

what type of muslim come to your mind when yo uhear "salafi"

Someone who doesn't follow a madhab, and there are some who hold deviant aqidah beliefs.

Does he mention "what the madhab of rasulullah (saw)" is?

Simple answer is that there was no amdhab then - they could simply ask the prophet for clarification.

It is only later when the prophet is not there to clarify, that people need to try to find out what the ahadith mean.

While listening, he just said "all of the prophets brought one religion"... how does he explain away the encounter between khidhr (as) and Prophet Musa (as) then? or the verse that if God had wanted everyone to have one creed, it would have been so.

He also says "One God, One Human race, all it needs is one religion" - which sounds catch, but we are told in the qur'an that the human race has tribes in it so we may recognise each other... in the same way that there are clusters of humans in tribes and nations, extending his analogy, we will have similar clusters in religion, all without going outside the bounds of it.

I am not against people who decide not to follow a madhab (and I think people can with enough time and knowledge make correct decisions), but the truth of it is, people who listen to this speech - while people may not take every point - the points they agree with, they will probably agree without deciding to do a full analysis... it will be blind following in a way too.

Bilal Philips may know enough to make his own rulings etc, but that does not mean that those following him do - atleast not on every matter and they will follow what he says.

MuslimBro wrote:

I don't know whether you have read the article 'Understanding the Four Madhhabs' by Abdul Hakim Murad. Its also available in book form from Azhar Academy.

I *really* liked this article! found it very interesting
Subhan'Allah/Masha'Allah! Scholars, the Imams, Especially Imam Shafi'i must've been SOO clever doing all those tests and coming up with those methods to determine the validity and the meaning of the ahadith. Wow!

(these bits seem to stand out more than others)

In a Western-influenced global culture in which people are urged from early childhood to think for themselves and to challenge established authority, it can sometimes be difficult to muster enough humility to recognise ones own limitations. We are all a little like Pharaoh: our egos are by nature resistant to the idea that anyone else might be much more intelligent or learned than ourselves. The belief that ordinary Muslims, even if they know Arabic, are qualified to derive rulings of the Shariah for themselves, is an example of this egotism running wild. To young people proud of their own judgement, and unfamiliar with the complexity of the sources and the brilliance of authentic scholarship, this can be an effective trap, which ends by luring them away from the orthodox path of Islam and into an unintentional agenda of provoking deep divisions among the Muslims.

With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.

However, especially early on there are many words and terms that i had to keep double clicking on (to get the definition from the web) as i didn't understand them - which stopped the flow of my reading and made me lose concentration and probably didn't let me fully understand everything :/

Is the book version longer or the same thing but in a book format?

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

However, especially early on there are many words and terms that i had to keep double clicking on (to get the definition from the web) as i didn't understand them - which stopped the flow of my reading and made me lose concentration and probably didn't let me fully understand everything :/

Post the words here, You will define them

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Is the book version longer or the same thing but in a book format?

Its exactly the same thing.

Following a madhab.

Part 1
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDQioLY0nHg]

Part 2
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu3Ez2O3IJs&feature=related]

MuslimBro wrote:

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

However, especially early on there are many words and terms that i had to keep double clicking on (to get the definition from the web) as i didn't understand them - which stopped the flow of my reading and made me lose concentration and probably didn't let me fully understand everything :/

Post the words here, You will define them
lol

i got them defined by google until got to the bottom and did ask him about a couple

Why are people against madhabs? :S

Because they want to follow Quran and Sunnah.

but you still are following Qur'an and sunnah even if you follow a madhab.